Content uploaded by Marcelo Ricardo Dias
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marcelo Ricardo Dias on Oct 19, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The Influence of a Personal Trainer on Self-Selected Loading during Resistance Exercise
Abstract and Figures
The purpose of this study was to compare differences in muscle strength and self-selected resistance training intensities between trained subjects who trained under the supervision of a personal trainer (PT) and those who trained without supervision (WoPT). Twenty-one trained subjects, men (n = 12) and women (n = 9), completed three sessions (separated by 48 hours) in the following sequence: (1) self-selected intensity assessment consisting of performance of three sets of 10 repetitions for the leg press, bench press, leg extension, and arm curl exercises with self-selected load; (2) a one repetition-maximum (1RM) test to determine subjects' maximal strength in the four exercises; and (3) a 10 repetition-maximum (10RM) test to determine the maximum load completed for 10 repetitions for each exercise. Self-selected training loads were significantly higher in PT compared to WoPT for the leg press (by 15.6%), bench press (by 26.6%), leg extension (by 12.1%), and arm curl (by 22.2%) exercises. Self-selected training loads expressed relative to 1RM and 10RM data were significantly higher in PT (49% to 59.5% of 1RM; 62.7% to 77.3% of 10RM) than WoPT (41% to 58.7% of 1RM; 58.7% to 76.2% of 10RM) with largest difference observed in the lower-body exercises. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) values were significantly higher in PT compared to WoPT. The results of the present study indicated that supervised resistance training with a personal trainer was advantageous in trained subjects although self-selected loading was still considerably lower than 1RM and 10RM percentage values.
Figures - uploaded by Marcelo Ricardo Dias
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Marcelo Ricardo Dias
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Further reviews have attempted to determine the intensity of effort required to optimise strength and hypertrophic adaptations, primarily by considering resistance training to failure versus not to failure [7][8][9]. However, people are typically poor at predicting proximity to failure based on repetitions in reserve [10], and since reaching muscular failure (MF) seems important in producing continued muscular adaptations [9], SUP might enhance intensity of effort [11,12], and thus be a key stimulus for the adaptations seen in empirical research. quality of research being conducted concerning internal validity. ...
... Or they may choose to train at relatively lower efforts than those intended in resistance training recommendations. As noted, trainees may underestimate their proximity to failure and thus train at lower than intended efforts by this means [10], and also trainees typically utilise lower loads when self-selecting [11,12]. ...
... Numerous researchers have attempted to address the impact of SUP using different methodological designs. For example, acute studies by Ratamess, et al. [11] and Dias, et al. [12] compared resistancetrained females and males (respectively) selfselecting a training load they would use to complete 10-repetitions, as well as assessing maximal strength (1-repetition maximum; RM), and rating of perceived exertion. Results revealed that with the SUP of a personal trainer heavier loads were selected for the 10 repetitions, participants performed better in maximal strength testing (i.e., 1RM) and also reported a higher value for rating of perceived exertion. ...
Background: Since many people choose to perform resistance training unsupervised, and a lack of supervision within strength training is reported to result in inadequate workout quality, we aimed to compare outcomes for resistance training with and without supervision. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed for performance/functional outcomes and/or body composition measurements. Results: 12 studies were included in the review; 301 and 276 participants were in supervised and unsupervised groups, respectively. The main model for all performance/function effects revealed a small, standardised point estimate favouring SUP (0.28 [95%CI = 0.02 to 0.55]). For sub-grouped outcome types, there was very poor precision of robust estimates for speed, power, function, and endurance. However, for strength there was a moderate effect favouring SUP (0.40 [95%CI = 0.06 to 0.74]). The main model for all body composition effects revealed a trivial standardised point estimate favouring SUP (0.07 [95%CI = -0.01 to 0.15]). Conclusions: Supervised resistance training, compared to unsupervised training, might produce a small effect on increases in performance/function, most likely in strength, but has little impact on body composition outcomes.
... Further reviews have attempted to determine the intensity of effort required to optimise strength and hypertrophic adaptations, primarily by considering resistance training to failure versus not to failure [7][8][9]. However, people are typically poor at predicting proximity to failure based on repetitions in reserve [10], and since reaching muscular failure (MF) seems important in continued muscular adaptations [9], SUP might enhance intensity of effort [11,12], and thus be a key stimulus for the adaptations seen in empirical research, is an important factor to consider. ...
... Or they may choose to train at relatively lower efforts than those intended in resistance training recommendations. As noted, trainees may underestimate their proximity to failure and thus train at lower than intended efforts by this means [10], and also trainees typically utilise lower loads when self-selecting [11,12]. SportRxiv is free to access, but not to run. ...
... Numerous studies have attempted to address the impact of SUP using different methodological designs. For example, acute studies by Ratamess, et al. [11] and Dias, et al. [12] compared resistance trained females and males (respectively) self-selecting a training load they would use to complete 10-repetitions, as well as assessing maximal strength (1repetition maximum; RM), and rating of perceived exertion. Results revealed that with the SUP of a personal trainer heavier loads were selected for the 10 repetitions, participants performed better in maximal strength testing (i.e., 1RM) and also reported a higher value for rating of perceived exertion. ...
Background: The body of resistance training literature appears heavily focused upon investigating efficacy of interventions by dint of most incorporating supervision (SUP). Authors have suggested that a lack of SUP within strength training results in inadequate workout quality and diminished results yet, since many people choose to perform resistance training unsupervised (UNSUP), it seems important to understand effectiveness of resistance training under such ecologically valid conditions. That is, the extent to which SUP might impact adaptation. Objective: To collectively explore the effects of SUP upon performance/function and body composition outcomes. Design: Exploratory systematic review and meta-analysis. Search and Inclusion: A systematic literature search using a Boolean search strategy was conducted with PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL in December 2020 and was supplemented with additional ‘snowballing’ searches. To be included in our analysis, studies had to be experimental trials including at least one performance/functional measure (e.g., strength, speed, power, function, endurance, and cardiorespiratory fitness) and/or body composition measure (body fat percentage, fat mass, and fat free mass). After search and screening, 12 studies were eligible for inclusion including 301 participants in SUP groups and a further 276 participants in UNSUP groups. Results: The cluster robust main model for all performance/function effects (57 across 12 clusters [median = 4, range = 1-12 effects per cluster]) revealed a small, standardised point estimate favouring SUP, though with relatively poor precision for the interval estimate that ranged from a trivial to a moderate effect favouring SUP (0.28 [95%CI = 0.02 to 0.55]). For sub-grouped outcome types there was very poor precision of robust estimates for speed, power, function, and endurance, with all ranging from large effects supporting UNSUP to large effects supporting SUP. However, for strength there was a small, standardised point estimate favouring SUP though with moderate precision for the interval estimate that ranged from a trivial effect favouring SUP to a moderate effect favouring SUP (0.40 [95%CI = 0.06 to 0.74]). The cluster robust main model for all body composition effects (18 across 6 clusters [median = 3, range = 1-6 effects per cluster]) revealed a trivial standardised point estimate favouring SUP that was relatively precise in the interval estimate ranging only trivial effects in either direction (0.07 [95%CI = -0.01 to 0.15]). Conclusions: The results of the present systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis suggest that, broadly speaking, SUP resistance training might produce a small effect on increases in performance/function, most likely in strength, compared to UNSUP, and has little to no impact on body composition outcomes. However, the lack of role and purpose within supervision as well as the lack of parity in UNSUP exercise interventions make providing a conclusive and overarching recommendation difficult.
... sity training leads to intensities that are below the stipulated limits to promote relevant physiological ad aptations [8][9][10]. therefore, a personal trainer seems to be essential in the achievement of a threshold inten sity which could cause a better response to St, due to correcting exercise techniques and controlling the training intensity, volume, frequency, and structure [9][10][11]. Additionally, a personal trainer also plays a role in reinforcing progression toward goal attainment by providing psychological stimuli (including elaboration of the training protocol, social contact during train ing, instruction, and correcting exercise techniques), which increase motivation [11]. ...
... therefore, a personal trainer seems to be essential in the achievement of a threshold inten sity which could cause a better response to St, due to correcting exercise techniques and controlling the training intensity, volume, frequency, and structure [9][10][11]. Additionally, a personal trainer also plays a role in reinforcing progression toward goal attainment by providing psychological stimuli (including elaboration of the training protocol, social contact during train ing, instruction, and correcting exercise techniques), which increase motivation [11]. the effects of training with a personal trainer in the improvement of the anthropometric and functional profile are well known [9][10][11]; however, up to the pre sent moment, no studies have verified its connection with the biochemical profile (i.e., lipid profile, blood glucose, and insulin). ...
... Additionally, a personal trainer also plays a role in reinforcing progression toward goal attainment by providing psychological stimuli (including elaboration of the training protocol, social contact during train ing, instruction, and correcting exercise techniques), which increase motivation [11]. the effects of training with a personal trainer in the improvement of the anthropometric and functional profile are well known [9][10][11]; however, up to the pre sent moment, no studies have verified its connection with the biochemical profile (i.e., lipid profile, blood glucose, and insulin). We hypothesized that a personal trainer would be very important in the control of the exercise intensity that could cause a better physiologi cal response to St. this strict intensity control could change the anthropometric, functional, and biochem ical profile of the participants. ...
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of strength training performed with and without the supervision of a personal trainer on the anthropometric, functional, and biochemical responses of sedentary adults.
Methods
Overall, 38 sedentary men were divided into 3 groups: control group (n = 12), no personal trainer group (n = 14), and personal trainer group (n = 12). Participants of all groups were submitted to pre-training data collection, including anthropometric evaluation, functional and cardiometabolic tests, and blood collection for biochemical parameters. Then, the subjects were involved in strength training of 50 minutes 3 times per week for 8 weeks. After the strength training program, the participants were submitted to the same data collection.
Results
The personal trainer group presented a decrease in waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, sum of skinfolds, abdominal resistance, pectoral resistance, one-repetition maximum on bench and leg press compared with the no personal trainer group (p < 0.05). The no personal trainer group had an improvement only in the sum of skinfolds (p < 0.05).
Conclusions
The results of the present study indicate that 8 weeks of strength training with a personal trainer can produce important changes in body composition and blood pressure in sedentary subjects.
... Yet, in 12 of the 18 analyzed studies, participants were required to complete 8-15 repetitions per set, rather than take the sets to task failure. The relatively low average selected load coupled with this repetition range (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) suggests that, with the exception of novices [17], study participants trained with insufficient intensity of effort. These findings are consistent with two recent studies [5,54] and our supplementary analyses, 4 showing that participants likely trained at submaximal intensities of effort (based on selected loads coupled with the low number of selected repetitions). ...
... This, in turn, may lead to greater levels of discomfort, pain, and cardiovascular strain, which could negatively affect one's motivation to exercise at a sought-after intensity. In cases where the number of repetitions is fixed at a medium range (e.g., [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], which was the case in most of the examined studies, then such loads can be considered sufficient for novice trainees, but not for trainees beyond the novice stage. Using the self-selected approach is simpler to implement, can bypass the requirements for routine 1RM tests, and accounts for trainees' preferences. ...
Background
Traditionally, the loads in resistance training are prescribed as a percentage of the heaviest load that can be successfully lifted once (i.e., 1 Repetition Maximum [1RM]). An alternative approach is to allow trainees to self-select the training loads. The latter approach has benefits, such as allowing trainees to exercise according to their preferences and negating the need for periodic 1RM tests. However, in order to better understand the utility of the self-selected load prescription approach, there is a need to examine what loads trainees select when given the option to do so.
Objective
Examine what loads trainees self-select in resistance training sessions as a percentage of their 1RM.
Design
Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis.
Search and Inclusion
We conducted a systematic literature search with PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in September 2021. We included studies that (1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or as a MSc or Ph.D. thesis; (2) had healthy trainees complete at least one resistance-training session, composed of at least one set of one exercise in which they selected the loads; (3) trainees completed a 1RM test for the exercises that they selected the loads for. Eighteen studies were included in our main meta-analysis model with 368 participants.
Results
Our main model indicated that on average participants select loads equal to 53% of their 1RM (95% credible interval [CI] 49–58%). There was little moderating effect of training experience, age, sex, timing of the 1RM test (before or after the selected load RT session), number of sets, number of repetitions, and lower versus upper body exercises. Participants did tend to select heavier loads when prescribed lower repetitions, and vice versa (logit(yi) = − 0.09 [95% CI − 0.16 to − 0.03]). Note that in most of the analyzed studies, participants received vague instructions regarding how to select the loads, and only completed a single session with the self-selected loads.
Conclusions
Participants selected loads equal to an average of 53% of 1RM across exercises. Lifting such a load coupled with a low-medium number of repetitions (e.g., 5–15) can sufficiently stimulate hypertrophy and increase maximal strength for novices but may not apply for more advanced trainees. Lifting such a load coupled with a higher number of repetitions and approaching or reaching task failure can be sufficient for muscle hypertrophy, but less so for maximal strength development, regardless of trainees' experience. The self-selected load prescription approach may bypass certain limitations of the traditional approach, but requires thought and further research regarding how, for what purposes, and with which populations it should be implemented.
... Supervision within resistance training might be of importance for several reasons: (i). the promotion and accurate monitoring of adherence (attendance) and maintenance/continuation [7], (ii). the accurate monitoring and progression of strength training protocols including load progression [12,38,44] (iii). the inclusion of technical coaching, which might serve to prevent injury and more effectively target specific muscles by preventing "cheating" [7], (iv). ...
... the provision of encouragement and psychological support, which might enhance the positive experience of resistance exercise, and (v). encouragement that might augment intensity of effort [7,12,44]. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis suggests that, while small, supervision may have an impact on strength gains produced by resistance training [21]. ...
Background
Virtual personal training might represent an uncomplicated, accessible, and time-efficient approach to supervised strength training, particularly under government-imposed lockdown or closure of fitness facilities. However, there appears a dearth of literature evaluating the efficacy of virtual personal training.
Methods
The present project considered two studies considering supervised virtual strength training. Study 1 considered trained participants being supervised one-to-one through traditional resistance exercise sessions in a strength training studio (STUD), compared to a virtual personal training protocol performed using bodyweight resistance exercises (VIRT). This study utilized a crossover design whereby male (n=13) and female (n=7) participants were tested for body composition using BodPod, and strength for bench press, leg press, and high-row exercises. Participants were then randomly assigned to 3-weeks of VIRT or 3-weeks of STUD training. Following each 3-week training period, participants had a 1-week period without training whereby mid-intervention testing occurred, after which participants then completed the alternate training intervention. For study 2, we surveyed the client base of a chain of training facilities who had begun offering virtual personal training during lockdown to explore their views on this approach.
Results
Strength and body composition changes were similar between groups, however for neither condition did results surpass the smallest meaningful change. The remaining survey data suggests that supervised virtual resistance training yields similar perceptions of effort, motivation, enjoyment, and supervision quality, compared to traditional supervised studio training.
Conclusion
Based on the current data, it appears that short-term supervised virtual resistance training is as efficacious as traditional supervised studio-based resistance training.
... From the chronic studies we could only obtain data of the first sessions from five of them [14,15,17,30,31]. Thus, the final number of studies included in analyses was 18 [2,7,9,10,[12][13][14][15]17,20,21,[24][25][26]30,31,42,43]. Details of the search and inclusion process are shown in the PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1). ...
... DOI:10.51224/SRXIV.109 SportRxiv is free to access, but not to run. ...
Background: Traditionally, the loads in resistance training are prescribed as a percentage of the heaviest load that can be lifted once (i.e., 1 Repetitions Maximum [1RM]). An alternative approach is to allow trainees to self-select training loads. The latter approach has benefits, such as allowing trainees to exercise according to their preferences and negating the need for periodic 1RM tests. However, in order to better understand the utility of the self-selected load prescription approach, there is a need to examine what loads trainees select when given the option to do so. Objective: Examine what loads trainees select in resistance training sessions as a percentage of their 1RM. Design: Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis. Search and Inclusion: We conducted a systematic literature search with PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar in September 2021. We included studies that 1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or as a MSc or PhD thesis; 2) had trainees complete at least one resistance-training session composed of at least one set of one exercise in which they selected the loads; 3) trainees completed a 1RM test for the exercises that they selected the loads for. Eighteen studies were included in our main meta-analysis model with 359 participants. Results: Our main model indicated that on average participants select loads equal to 53% of their 1RM (95% Credible Interval [CI]: 49% to 58%). There was little moderating effect of training experience, age, sex, timing of the 1RM test (before or after the self-selected load RT session), number of sets, number of repetitions, and lower vs. upper body exercises. Participants did tend to select heavier loads when prescribed lower repetitions, and vice versa (logit(yi) = -0.12 [95%CI: -0.21 to -0.04]). Conclusions: Participants selected loads equal to an average of 53% of 1RM across exercises. Such loads are suitable for hypertrophic gains assuming that trainees approach or reach the point of task-failure, but may be too light for optimal strength development (as measured with 1RM). The self-selected loads prescribing approach shows promise given that it bypasses certain limitations of the traditional load prescription approach, but requires thought and further research regarding how and with whom it should be implemented.
... Supervision within resistance training might be of importance for several reasons: (i). the promotion and accurate monitoring of adherence (attendance) and maintenance/continuation (Coutts, et al. 2004), (ii). the accurate monitoring and progression of strength training protocols including load progression (Mazzetti, et al. 2000;Ratamess, et al. 2008;Dias, et al. 2017) (iii). the inclusion of technical coaching, which might serve to prevent injury and more effectively target specific muscles by preventing "cheating" (Coutts, et al. 2004), (iv). ...
... the provision of encouragement and psychological support, which might enhance the positive experience of resistance exercise, and (v). encouragement that might augment intensity of effort (Coutts, et al. 2004;Ratamess, et al. 2008;Dias, et al. 2017). Indeed, a recent meta-analysis suggests that, while small, supervision may have an impact on strength gains produced by resistance training . ...
Background: Virtual personal training might represent an uncomplicated, accessible, and time-efficient approach to supervised strength training, particularly under government-imposed lockdown or closure of fitness facilities. However, there appears a dearth of literature evaluating the efficacy of virtual personal training. Methods: The present study considered trained participants being supervised one-to-one through traditional resistance exercise sessions in a strength training studio (STUD), compared to a virtual personal training protocol performed using bodyweight resistance exercises (VIRT). The study utilized a crossover design whereby male (n=13) and female (n=7) participants were tested for body composition using BodPod, and strength for bench press, leg press, and high-row exercises. Participants were then randomly assigned to 3-weeks of VIRT or 3-weeks of STUD training. Following each 3-week training period, participants had a 1-week washout period without training whereby mid-intervention testing occurred, after which participants then completed the alternate training intervention. Further, we surveyed the client base of a chain of training facilities who had begun offering virtual personal training during lockdown to explore their views on this approach. Results: Strength and body composition changes were similar between groups, however for neither condition did results surpass the smallest meaningful change. The remaining survey data suggests that supervised virtual resistance training yields similar perceptions of effort, motivation, enjoyment, and supervision quality, compared to traditional supervised studio training. Conclusion: Based on the current data, it appears that short-term supervised virtual resistance training is as efficacious as traditional supervised studio-based resistance training.
... Verbal feedback from Page 2 of 11 Stien et al. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation (2022) 14:163 a trainer is a common method for optimizing and improving RT quality, and has demonstrated improved motivation, competitiveness, self-selected training load, and performance in RT [4][5][6][7]. ...
Background:
Recently, a novel method for improving movement quality called open-ended augmented feedback has been introduced. However, the effects of using such feedback in a training intervention have not yet been examined. The aim of this study was to assess the changes in performance and movement quality following a five-week resistance-training program with either (1) technological feedback or (2) traditional, verbal feedback from an experienced trainer.
Methods:
Nineteen untrained females (age: 21.84 ± 2.24 years, height: 169.95 ± 5.92 cm, body mass: 65.05 ± 7.93 kg) randomly allocated to one of the two conditions completed five weeks of training with two weekly sessions. Pre- and post-intervention, participants were tested for physical performance (i.e., back squat and isometric mid-thigh pull strength) and movement quality parameters (weight distribution, center of gravity variation, and subjective rating of the back squat technique).
Results:
Both groups similarly increased the training resistance throughout the intervention (p < 0.01), as well as strength in the back squat (technological feedback group: effect size (ES) = 1.31, p = 0.002; traditional feedback group: ES = 1.48, p = 0.002). Only the traditional feedback group increased isometric mid-thigh pull strength (ES = 1.11, p = 0.008) and subjectively rated lifting technique at the same load (p = 0.046). No changes in force distribution (p = 0.062-0.993) or center of gravity variation (p = 0.160-0.969) occurred in either group when lifting the same absolute loads at post-test. However, both groups displayed a greater variation in center of gravity when lifting the same relative load at post-test (technological feedback group: p < 0.001; traditional feedback group: p = 0.006). No differences were found between the groups for any of the observed changes (p = 0.205-0.401).
Conclusions:
Five weeks of back-squat training with verbal feedback increased isometric mid-thigh pull strength and subjectively rated lifting technique from pre- to post-test, whereas technological feedback did not. Both methods improved back squat strength and training resistance. For resistance-training beginners, the choice between feedback methods should be based on the desired outcomes and the availability of expertise and equipment.
Introdução: o Personal Trainer apresenta uma importância fundamental para os aspectos motivacionais na saúde e na qualidade de vida de seus alunos/clientes. Dessa forma, entende-se que a importância do profissional de Educação Física é de grande relevância para uma intervenção adequada na saúde e motivação da população para a prática de exercícios físicos. Objetivo: investigar a influência do Personal Trainer nos aspectos motivacionais, para a prática e continuidade nos treinos de musculação. Método: trata-se de um estudo descritivo do tipo quantitativo, realizado com 25 participantes, de ambos os gêneros com idades ente 18 e 60 anos. Aplicou-se um questionário semiestruturado, que analisou os motivos para a aderência na prática de musculação com atendimento personalizado. Resultados e Discussão: no que se refere ao processo de adesão ao Personal Trainer, 28 (84%) relataram a busca pela saúde, 12 (48%) apontaram a estética e 7 (12%) a socialização. A busca pela saúde e qualidade de vida apresenta cada vez mais importância na sociedade atual. Tal fator, por ser uma das principais razões para a procura do profissional em questão, é encontrado nos principais achados do estudo. Resultados similares foram observados em ambos os gêneros, contudo, houve um elevado número de mulheres que relataram a estética um fator de maior importância. Conclusão: o fator saúde foi apontado como um dos determinantes que mais influenciaram ambos os gêneros à procura pelo treinamento personalizado na musculação.
Abstract There has been much debate as to optimal loading strategies for maximising the adaptive response to resistance exercise. The purpose of this paper therefore was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of low-load (≤60% 1 repetition maximum [RM]) versus high-load (≥65% 1 RM) training in enhancing post-exercise muscular adaptations. The strength analysis comprised 251 subjects and 32 effect sizes (ESs), nested within 20 treatment groups and 9 studies. The hypertrophy analysis comprised 191 subjects and 34 ESs, nested with 17 treatment groups and 8 studies. There was a trend for strength outcomes to be greater with high loads compared to low loads (difference = 1.07 ± 0.60; CI: -0.18, 2.32; p = 0.09). The mean ES for low loads was 1.23 ± 0.43 (CI: 0.32, 2.13). The mean ES for high loads was 2.30 ± 0.43 (CI: 1.41, 3.19). There was a trend for hypertrophy outcomes to be greater with high loads compared to low loads (difference = 0.43 ± 0.24; CI: -0.05, 0.92; p = 0.076). The mean ES for low loads was 0.39 ± 0.17 (CI: 0.05, 0.73). The mean ES for high loads was 0.82 ± 0.17 (CI: 0.49, 1.16). In conclusion, training with loads ≤50% 1 RM was found to promote substantial increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy in untrained individuals, but a trend was noted for superiority of heavy loading with respect to these outcome measures with null findings likely attributed to a relatively small number of studies on the topic.
: Conventional wisdom suggests that exercise training with a personal trainer (PTr) is more beneficial for improving health-related fitness than training alone. However, there are no published data that confirm whether fitness club members who exercise with a PTr in the fitness club setting obtain superior results compared with self-directed training. We hypothesized that club members randomized to receive an evidencebased training program would accrue greater improvements in lean body mass (LBM) and other fitness measures than members randomized to self-training. Men, aged 30-44 years, who were members of a single Southern California fitness club were randomized to exercise with a PTr administering a non-linear periodized training program (TRAINED, N=17) or to self-directed training (SELF, N=17); both groups trained 3 d/wk for 12 weeks. LBM was determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, (DXA). Secondary outcomes included muscle strength (1-RM), leg power (vertical jump), and aerobic capacity (VO2max). TRAINED individuals increased LBM by 1.3 (0.4) kg, mean (SEM) versus no change in SELF, P=0.029. Similarly, significantly greater improvements were seen for TRAINED versus SELF in chest press strength (42% versus 19%; P=0.003), peak leg power (6% versus 0.6%; P<0.0001), and VO2max (7% versus -0.3%; P=0.01). Leg press strength improved 38% and 25% in TRAINED and SELF, respectively (P=0.14). We have demonstrated for the first time in a fitness club setting that members whose training is directed by well-qualified personal trainers administering evidence-based training regimens achieve significantly greater improvements in LBM and other dimensions of fitness than members who direct their own training.
Unlabelled:
The criterion variables were total weight lifted (Wttot ) determined separately for women and men during BC and KE, and blood lactic acid concentration ([Hla]) determined for a combined female ( N = 10) and male ( N = 10) subset during BC. Subjects performed three separate sets of 4, 8, and 12 repetitions for BC and KE at 65% one-repetition maximum. Rating of perceived exertion for the active muscles (RPE-AM) was measured during the mid and final repetition and RPE for the overall body (RPE-O) during the final repetition. : For both female and male groups across the three sets: (a) RPE-AM ranged from 3.6 to 8.2 for BC and 5.1 to 9.6 for KE and (b) RPE-O ranged from 2.4 to 6.7 for BC and 4.2 to 7.6 for KE. Positive linear regressions ranged from r = 0.79 to 0.91 ( P < 0.01) between Wttot and RPE-AM (mid), RPE-AM (final), and RPE-O for both BC and KE in both sex groupings. A positive ( P < 0.01) linear regression was found between [Hla] and RPE-AM (final) (r = 0.87) during BC. RPE did not differ between women and men at any measurement point within each set for BC and KE. RPE-AM (final) was greater ( P < 0.01) than RPE-O in the three sets of BC and KE.
Conclusion:
Findings provided concurrent validation of the OMNI-RES to measure RPE for the active muscle and overall body in young recreationally trained female and male weight lifters performing upper- and lower-body resistance exercise.
The purpose of the present study was to compare the changes in muscle strength in nontrained young males performing resistance training under different supervision ratios. One hundred twenty-four young men were randomly assigned to groups trained under a high (HS, 1:5 coach to athlete ratio) or low (LS, 1:25) supervision ratio. Both groups performed identical resistance training programs. Subjects were tested for maximum bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and knee extensor torque before and after 11 weeks of training. According to the results, only HS lead to a significant increase (11.8%) in knee extensor torque. Both groups significantly increased bench press 1RM load; the increases were 10.22% for LS and 15.9% for HS. The results revealed significant differences between groups for changes in knee extensor torque and 1RM bench press, with higher values for the HS group. There were no differences between groups for the increases in bench press and leg press work volume or training attendance. The proportion of subjects training with maximum intensity was higher in HS for both bench press and leg press exercises. In addition, the distribution of subjects training with maximal intensity was higher for the bench press than for the leg press exercise in both groups. The primary findings of the present study are that the strength gains for both lower- and upper-body muscles are greater in subjects training under higher supervision ratios, and this is probably because of higher exercise intensity. These results confirm the importance of direct supervision during resistance training.
The purpose of this study was to compare changes in maximal strength, power, and muscular endurance after 12 wk of periodized heavy-resistance training directly supervised by a personal trainer (SUP) versus unsupervised training (UNSUP).
Twenty moderately trained men aged 24.6 +/- 1.0 yr (mean +/- SE) were randomly assigned to either the SUP group (N = 10) or the UNSUP group (N = 8). Both groups performed identical linear periodized resistance training programs consisting of preparatory (10-12 repetitions maximum (RM)), hypertrophy (8 to 10-RM), strength (5 to 8-RM), and peaking phases (3 to 6-RM) using free-weight and variable-resistance machine exercises. Subjects were tested for maximal squat and bench press strength (1-RM), squat jump power output, bench press muscular endurance, and body composition at week 0 and after 12 wk of training.
Mean training loads (kg per set) per week were significantly (P < 0.05) greater in the SUP group than the UNSUP group at weeks 7 through 11 for the squat, and weeks 3 and 7 through 12 for the bench press exercises. The rates of increase (slope) of squat and bench press kg per set were significantly greater in the SUP group. Maximal squat and bench press strength were significantly greater at week 12 in the SUP group. Squat and bench press 1-RM, and mean and peak power output increased significantly after training in both groups. Relative local muscular endurance (80% of 1-RM) was not compromised in either group despite significantly greater loads utilized in bench press muscular endurance testing after training. Body mass, fat mass, and fat-free mass increased significantly after training in the SUP group.
Directly supervised, heavy-resistance training in moderately trained men resulted in a greater rate of training load increase and magnitude which resulted in greater maximal strength gains compared with unsupervised training.
The purpose of this study was to determine the intensity of self-selected weightlifting exercise in untrained men and women. Thirteen men (age = 19.5 +/- 1.9, height = 70.0 +/- 2.4 in., weight = 174 +/- 20.1 lb, % fat = 14.3 +/- 6.7) and 17 women (age =18.7 +/- 1.0, height = 64.9 +/- 2.3 in., weight = 135.4 +/- 22.8 lb, % fat= 23.4 +/- 4.7) who were novice lifters completed seated bench press, leg extension, seated back row, military press, and biceps curl. Following self-selection trials, subjects' 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was assessed for each lift. Results showed that for both genders, self-selected loads were all below 60% 1RM. All lift intensities were similar for men and women (range = 42-57% 1RM). Repetitions completed and rating of perceived exertion responses were not different between gender. Results show that subjects do not select a lifting intensity sufficient to induce hypertrophic responses and subsequent strength increases.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of direct supervision on muscular strength, power, and running speed during 12 weeks of resistance training in young rugby league players. Two matched groups of young (16.7 +/- 1.1 years [mean +/- SD]), talented rugby league players completed the same periodized resistance-training program in either a supervised (SUP) (N = 21) or an unsupervised (UNSUP) (N = 21) environment. Measures of 3 repetition maximum (3RM) bench press, 3RM squat, maximal chin-ups, vertical jump, 10- and 20-m sprints, and body mass were completed pretest (week 0), midtest (week 6), and posttest (week 12) training program. Results show that 12 weeks of periodized resistance training resulted in an increased body mass, 3RM bench press, 3RM squat, maximum number of chin-ups, vertical jump height, and 10- and 20-m sprint performance in both groups (p < 0.05). The SUP group completed significantly more training sessions, which were significantly correlated to strength increases for 3RM bench press and squat (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the SUP group significantly increased 3RM squat strength (at 6 and 12 weeks) and 3RM bench press strength (12 weeks) when compared to the UNSUP group (p < 0.05). Finally, the percent increase in the 3RM bench press, 3RM squat, and chin-up(max) was also significantly greater in the SUP group than in the UNSUP group (p < 0.05). These findings show that the direct supervision of resistance training in young athletes results in greater training adherence and increased strength gains than does unsupervised training.