ArticlePDF Available

Effects of Six Weeks Donkey Kick and Squat Resistance Exercises on Gluteal Adiposity, Muscle Strength, and Muscle Bulk of Young Nigerian Female Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors:
28
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website: www.ijmhdev.com
DOI: 10.4103/ijmh.IJMH_36_19
1Department of Medical
Rehabilitation, Faculty
of Health Sciences
and Technology,
College of Medicine,
University of Nigeria,
Enugu, 2Department of
Physiotherapy, University
of Port Harcourt Teaching
Hospital, Port Harcourt,
Nigeria
Address for correspondence: Mr. Augustine Chukwuebuka Okoh,
BMR/PT (Nig), MSc (UK), Department of Medical Rehabilitation,
Faculty of Health Sciences and Technology,
College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus,
Enugu, 400241, Nigeria.
E-mail: austineebuka@gmail.com
This is an open access journal, and arcles are distributed under the terms of the
Creave Commons Aribuon-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows
others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as
appropriate credit is given and the new creaons are licensed under the idencal terms.
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com
© 2020 International Journal of Medicine and Health Development | Published by Wolters Kluwer ‑ Medknow
How to cite this article: Ekechukwu NE, Okoh AC. Effects of six weeks
donkey kick and squat resistance exercises on gluteal adiposity, muscle
strength and muscle bulk of young Nigerian female adults: Arandomized
controlled trial. Int J Med Health Dev 2020;25:28-37.
Original Article
Effects of Six Weeks Donkey Kick and Squat Resistance Exercises on
Gluteal Adiposity, Muscle Strength, and Muscle Bulk of Young Nigerian
Female Adults: ARandomized Controlled Trial
NelsonE. Ekechukwu1, AugustineC. Okoh1,2
Background: Rounded protruding gluteus has been asserted to be an important
feature of feminine beauty and self-image. Currently, there is large inux of
gymnasiums to achieve this end as claimed by gym operators amid the dearth
in literature to support their claims. Aim: The aim of this study was to provide
an empirical evidence to support or disprove claims about the effectiveness
of resistance training exercises such as squats and donkey kick on the gluteal
muscles. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trial involving 111
young females, aged 18–30 years, were equally assigned into the squat group
(SG), donkey kick group (DKG), and control group (CG) using table of random
numbers method. Outcomes, such as gluteal muscle strength (GMS), gluteal
muscle bulk (GMB), and gluteal adiposity (GA), were assessed at baseline, third
week, and sixth week and analyzed descriptively and inferentially (α = 0.05).
Result: The post-intervention across group comparison revealed a signicant
difference in right (F= 4.829, P=0.010) and left (F= 7.252, P = 0.001) GA,
right (F=12.467, P<0.0001) and left (F=10.235, P<0.0001) GMS, and in
the GMB (F=8.280, P=0.001). The post hoc test showed that the SG had the
most profound effect in increasing GMS and GMB, whereas the DKG had a
superlative effect on GA. Conclusion: Six weeks resistant training using squats
and donkey kick can be used to improve gluteal muscle characteristic by building
GMB, GMS and reducing GA of young female adults.
Keywords: Donkey kick resistance exercise, gluteal adiposity, gluteal muscle bulk,
gluteal muscle strength, squat resistance exercise
IntroductIon
Body image is a signicant developmental concern
for both men and women. Adolescents and
young adults are susceptible to pressure to conform to
perceived standards of physical appearance, as these
developmental periods are critical for the formation
of one’s identity related to physical self-evaluation and
self-worth.[1] The round protruding gluteus signies
beauty, power, poise, and physical strength, especially
among young women.[2] The size and shape of the
buttocks are important attributes of feminine beauty.
Some celebrities, especially in the movie and music
industries, have risen to fame owing to their body
image. This has led to a globalized trend of associating
gluteal features with beauty and body image, which is
being promulgated through media inuence.[3,4]
The gluteus maximus is the strongest and biggest
muscle in the body.[5] The gluteus maximus is not only a
hip extensor but also plays an important role in pelvic
AbstrAct
HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA
HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB
EDI_Afliation=Correspondence_First=EDI_Afliation=EDI_Correspondence1
Submission: 02-12-2019, First revision: 16-01-2020,
Accepted: 19-02-2020, Published: 03-04-2020.
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
29
International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January-June 2020
Ekechukwu and Okoh: Effects of 6 weeks donkey kick and squat resistance exercises
and spinal stabilization. The gluteal muscles (gluteus
maximus, gluteus medius, and gluteus minimus) stabilize
the hip by counteracting gravity’s hip adduction torque
and maintaining proper leg alignment by eccentrically
controlling adduction and internal rotation of the thigh.[6]
When a skeletal muscle is subjected to an overload
stimulus, it causes perturbations in myobers and the
related extracellular matrix.[7] This sets off a chain of
myogenic events that ultimately leads to an increase in the
size and amounts of the myobrillar contractile proteins
such as actin and myosin, as well as the total number of
sarcomere in parallel.[8] This augments the diameter of
individual bers and results in an increase in muscle cross-
sectional area.[9] The gluteus maximus is a combination
of fast-twitch muscle ber (rapid-ring bers, which are
tapped for bursts of speed or power) and slow-twitch
muscle bers (which are the workhorses during aerobic
activities).[10] This implies that the gluteal muscles can
benet from both strength training with high load and
low repetitions, for example, heavy-weight squats (to
work the fast-twitch muscles), and with low load plus
high repetition endurance exercises such as running and
stair climbing (to work slow-twitch muscles).[10]
Resistance/strength training involves muscle contraction
performed against a specic opposing force called
resistance, for example, weight lifting. It gradually and
progressively overloads the musculoskeletal system,
thus strengthens and tones the muscles.[11] Numerous
studies have documented that progressive resistance
training causes gains in both strength and skeletal
muscle size.[12-16] Astudy by Abe etal.[12] on whole body
muscle hypertrophy from resistance training of three
men for 16 weeks found a very signicant increase in
skeletal muscle mass. Seynnes et al.[13] worked with
seven young healthy volunteers who performed bilateral
leg extension three times per week on a gravity-free
ywheel ergometer for 20 days; they not only found
increased muscle strength, but also reported signicant
quadriceps muscle hypertrophy. Norrbrand et al.[14]
studied ywheel resistance training for the quadriceps
for 5 weeks using 15 healthy subjects and discovered
increase in volume and strength of the individual
muscles when viewed with magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI). Similar increase in volume and strength was
found in a study by Holcomb et al.[15] on the effect
of hamstring-emphasized resistance training on
hamstring-quadriceps strength ratios.
Resistance exercises such as deep squats maximally hit
the gluteal muscles from a lengthened position, whereas
donkey kick hit the gluteal muscles in contracted
position.[16] Most effective gluteal muscles mass
building workouts appear to incorporate both types
of resistance exercises. Gym operators claimed they
would put a lower-body workout together for someone
focusing on adding more mass to their gluteal muscles,
without losing hard earned muscles in their legs.[10,17]
They have laid claims on the efcacy of resistance
training exercises in building gluteal muscles but there is
a dearth of empirical evidence to this regard. Also, the
most effective type of resistance training for the gluteal
muscles appears unknown. Hence, this study sought
to assess and compare the efcacies of two modes of
resistance training exercises targeted at building the
gluteal muscles. We hypothesized that the squat and
donkey kick resistance trainings would each produce
signicant effect on the gluteal muscle strength (GMS),
gluteal muscle bulk (GMB), and gluteal adiposity (GA)
among young women. We also hypothesized that the
donkey kick will much more than the squat resistance
training improve the GMS, GMB, and GA.
MAterIAls And Methods
Experimental approach to the problem
This randomized control trial was conducted in the
gymnasium of the department of medical rehabilitation,
University of Nigeria. The trial duration was four
months and it was registered and approved by the Health
Research and Ethics Committee of the University of
Nigeria Teaching Hospital (NHREC/05/01/2008B-
FWA00002458-IRB00002323). Power analysis was
used to estimate minimum sample size using G-power
3.1 software with a medium effect size (d= 0.36) and
high power (0.95) to give a minimum of 75 participants
(25 in each group). Adverts for recruitment of study
participants was done using posters and iers and social
media adverts targeted at female undergraduates within
the university environment. A total of 111 healthy
females within the age-group of 18–30 (20.95 [1.79])
years, with mean body mass index (BMI) 21.61 (3.28)
kg/m2, and with grade 5 quadriceps muscle strength
were included in the study after screening them with the
Physical Activity and Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q
and YOU).[18] Females with knee pathology or surgery,
recent history of fall, and performing a gym program with
any dietary restrictions or considerations were excluded
from the study. A signed informed consent including
detailed explanation about the purpose and procedure
of the study was obtained from all the subjects before
beginning the intervention. Demographic data were
obtained from all the subjects before the intervention.
The following outcomes were assessed at baseline
(pre-intervention), after 3 weeks of training
(mid-intervention), and after 6 weeks of training
(post-intervention):
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
30 International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January-June 2020
Ekechukwu and Okoh: Effects of 6 weeks donkey kick and squat resistance exercises
GA: This was assessed using Accu-Measure
skinfold caliper to measure the skinfold thickness to
the nearest millimeter.[19] This was taken at a point
measured with tape from the greater trochanter to
the middle (bulkiest area) of both the right and left
buttocks for each participant—noting the landmark
for retest.
GMS: This was assessed as the product of weight
(kg) and time (seconds) measured with Sandbag
Muscle Strength Protocol (SMSP) (unit, kg/s).
GMB: This was assessed as the circumference from
the left greater trochanter as the reference point
(unit, m).
Other parameters for body weight and adiposity
measured were as follows:
Body mass index (BMI): This was assessed in kg/m2
using the following equation:
BMI weightheight=
()
2
Conicity index (CI): This was assessed using the
following equation:
CI waist circumference m
weight kg height m
=
()
()
×
()
()
[]
0 109 1.
Abdominal volume index (AVI): This was assessed
using the following equation:
AVI cmwaist cm waist - hip=
()
+
()
207 1000
22
.
CI and AVI are good measures of intra-abdominal
fat and adipose tissue volumes and for estimation of
obesity.[20,21]
Validation ofSMSP
SMSP was used to assess the GMS in this study. This
protocol was validated in a preliminary study that
involved 30 participants (15 males and 15 females).
The participants’ age ranged from 18 to 29 years
with a mean score of 23.17 (2.31) years. Each of the
participants performed both the Delorme’s quadriceps
muscle strength protocol (DQMSP) (which was the
gold standard for the SMSP) and also the SMSP. Their
one repetition maximum (1 RM) was assessed using
Delorme quadriceps muscle strength. Then, SMSP
was assessed by lifting a sandbag (either 2.5, 5, 7, or
7.5 kg depending on the subject’s capability) and timed
with a stopwatch until the rst sign of muscle fatigue
(muscle brillation). On analysis, a signicant positive
correlation was found between DQMSP and SMSP
(r=0.455, P = 0.012) as shown in Table 1. Thus, the
protocol is another correlate of Delorme’s muscle
strengthtest.
Procedure
One hundred and eleven subjects were randomly
assigned into three equal groups (37 in each group):
SG (squats only), DKG (donkey kick only), and CG
(no intervention). The test groups (SG and DKG) were
supervised during the training sessions, which lasted
for 6 weeks for each person, three times weekly with
at least a day interval, a total of 18 training sessions,
and measurements were taken three times at 3-week
interval: pre-, mid-, and post-intervention.
Phase 1 (week 1–3)
This phase required a total of 100 repetitions (reps) per
session, with SG carrying 5 kg barbell and DKG wearing
2.5 kg sandbag on each lower limb around the ankle.
Each session started with 5 min for warm-up exercises,
followed by 20 reps and 2 min of rest interval until the
100th rep, and nally 5 min of cooldown exercises. The
participants in DKG [Figure 1] performed 20 reps each
on right lower limb followed by left lower limb before
the 2 min rest; a total of 100 reps on each lower limb.
The aforementioned interval protocol also was used for
SG [Figure 2].
Phase 2 (week 4–6)
There was a progression in load at the second phase (from
5 to 10 kg); however, same 100 reps were performed in
each training group. SG carried 10 kg barbell, whereas
DKG wore 5 kg sandbag on each lower limb around
Table1: Pilot study participants’ variables (n=30)
Descriptive statistics Pearson product moment correlation
Variables Min. Max. Mean SD DQMS SMSP
Age 18.00 29.00 23.17 2.31 DQMSP 1 r=0.455*
Sex 1 2 1.50 0.51 P=0.012
Height 160.50 191.50 1.71.10 8.50
Weight 45.80 91.10 64.35 12.10 SMSP r=0.455* 1
DQMSP 5.00 17.50 11.17 2.92 P=0.012
SMSP 35.00 175.00 75.67 33.50
DQMSP=Delorme’s quadriceps muscle strength protocol, Min=minimum, SMSP=sandbag muscle strength protocol, SD=standard
deviation, Max=maximum
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
31
International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January-June 2020
Ekechukwu and Okoh: Effects of 6 weeks donkey kick and squat resistance exercises
the ankle totaling 10 kg. The training session started
with 5 min of warm-up exercises, followed by 20 reps
and 2 min of rest interval until the 100th rep, and nally
5 min of cooldown exercises.
The warm-up exercise for the sessions in both phases
included brisk walking, upper, and lower limb muscle
stretching, whereas the cooldown exercises were
basically stretches.
Statistical analyses
Data obtained were analyzed using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS, Chicago,
Illinois), version 22.0. Descriptive statistics of mean,
standard deviation, and frequency was used to summarize
the participants’ variables. Pearson product moment
correlation was used in the validity pilot study to nd
correlation between the Delorme’s quadriceps muscle
strength protocol and the SMSP. One-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was used to compare pre-intervention
variables across the three groups (squat, donkey kick,
and control). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was
used to compare mid- and post-intervention variables
across the groups using the pre-intervention variables as
the covariates (between groups comparison). Repeated
measure analysis of variance (RE-ANOVA) was used
to compare variables across time series (within group
comparison). Post hoc Bonferroni correction was used
for pair-wise comparison for only signicant results in the
aforementioned inferential analysis. Level of signicance
was set at α=0.05.
results
Table 2 provides a general description of the study
participants’ characteristics at baseline.
Comparison of participants’ variables at
pre-intervention across thegroups
At baseline, no signicant difference was observed in BMI
(F=1.744, P = 0.180), right GA (F=0.496, P=0.610),
left GA (F= 2.133, P = 0.123), right GMS (F= 0.852,
P=0.430), and left GMS (F=0.423, P=0.656) across
the three groups, same as other variables [Table 3].
Figure1: A subject performing donkey kick with sandbag
Figure2: A subject performing squat with barbell
Table2: Mean distribution of variable of participants (n=111)
Variables Mean SD Min. Max.
Age (years) 20.95 1.79 18.00 28.00
Height (m) 1.68 0.07 1.53 1.86
Weight (kg) 60.83 9.57 44.00 90.00
Body mass index (kg/m2) 21.61 3.28 15.70 33.26
Right GA (mm) 5.68 1.94 2.00 10.00
Left GA (mm) 5.64 1.91 2.00 10.00
Waist circumference (m) 0.76 0.07 0.61 1.01
GMB (m) 0.94 0.08 0.74 1.18
Conicity index 1.15 0.06 0.98 1.30
Abdominal volume index 11.77 2.31 7.81 20.46
Right GMS (kg/s) 66.11 44.85 12.50 230.00
Left GMS (kg/s) 67.78 43.37 12.50 200.00
GA= gluteal adiposity, GMB=gluteal muscle bulk, GMS=gluteal muscle strength, SD=standard deviation, Min=minimum,
Max=maximum
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
32 International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January-June 2020
Ekechukwu and Okoh: Effects of 6 weeks donkey kick and squat resistance exercises
Comparison of participants’ variables at third week
(mid-intervention) across thegroups
Table 4 shows that there was no signicant difference
in BMI (F=1.545, P = 0.220), right GA (F = 2.530,
P=0.086), and left GA (F=2.542, P = 0.186). However,
signicant difference was noted in GMB (F= 6.243,
P = 0.003), right GMS (F = 5.382, P = 0.006), and
left GMS (F=5.449, P = 0.006). The post hoc analysis
with Bonferroni correction revealed that the signicant
difference in GMB was between CG and the DKG
(mean difference [MD] = 0.021, P = 0.049) as well
as between SG and DKG (MD = 0.028, P = 0.003).
Table3: Comparison of pre-intervention variables across the groups using one-way ANOVA (n=111)
Variables Mean (standard deviation) P
Squat Donkey kick Control F df
Age (years) 20.95 (1.89) 21.03 (1.82) 20.86 (1.72) 0.074 2, 108 0.928
Height (m) 1.68 (0.07) 1.68 (0.06) 1.67 (0.07) 0.400 2, 108 0.672
Weight (kg) 60.95 (10.27) 59.17 (7.72) 62.36 (10.47) 1.037 2, 108 0.358
Body mass index (kg/m2) 21.53 (3.37) 20.95 (2.79) 22.36 (3.56) 1.744 2, 108 0.180
Right GMB (mm) 5.86 (2.03) 5.76 (1.69) 5.43 (2.09) 0.496 2, 108 0.610
Left GA (mm) 6.14 (2.00) 5.24 (1.61) 5.54 (2.04) 2.133 2, 108 0.123
Waist circumference (m) 0.75 (0.08) 0.75 (0.06) 0.76 (0.08) 0.182 2, 108 0.834
GMB (m) 0.93 (0.09) 0.93 (0.07) 0.96 (0.07) 1.725 2, 108 0.183
Conicity index 1.15 (0.07) 1.16 (0.06) 1.15 (0.05) 1.034 2, 108 0.359
Abdominal volume index 11.72 (2.54) 11.60 (1.89) 12.00 (2.48) 0.288 2, 108 0.750
Right GMS (kg/s) 61.01 (37.31) 63.47 (42.50) 73.85 (53.40) 0.852 2, 108 0.430
Left GMS (kg/s) 64.73 (42.63) 65.47 (39.29) 73.15 (48.39) 0.423 2, 108 0.656
ANOVA=analysis of variance, GA=gluteal adiposity, GMB=gluteal muscle bulk, GMS=gluteal muscle strength, df=degree of
freedom, P=signicance level
Table4: Comparison of mid-intervention (third week) variables across the group using ANCOVA (n=80)
Variables Mean (standard deviation) F df P
Squat Donkey kick Control
Weight (kg) 60.22 (9.16) 59.59 (8.51) 57.96 (7.66) 1.499 2, 79 0.230
Body mass index (kg/m2) 21.24 (3.17) 20.78 (2.78) 20.48 (2.63) 1.545 2, 79 0.220
Right GA (mm) 5.36 (2.03) 5.55 (2.01) 5.04 (1.77) 2.530 2, 79 0.086
Left GA (mm) 5.36 (1.94) 5.34 (1.84) 5.07 (1.72) 2.542 2, 79 0.184
Waist circumference (m) 0.75 (0.07) 0.75 (0.07) 0.74 (0.06) 0.275 2, 79 0.761
GMB (m) 0.94 (0.07) 0.94 (0.07) 0.92 (0.06) 6.243 2, 79 0.003*
Conicity index 1.16 (0.05) 1.16 (0.05) 1.16 (0.05) 0.105 2, 79 0.900
Abdominal volume index 11.70 (2.22) 11.58 (2.16) 11.29 (1.79) 0.440 2, 79 0.645
Right GMS (kg/s) 75.69 (45.59) 82.33 (44.01) 78.57 (43.75) 5.382 2, 79 0.006*
Left GMS (kg/s) 71.99 (42.77) 81.38 (40.94) 73.93 (40.97) 5.449 2, 79 0.006*
ANCOVA=analysis of covariance, GA=gluteal adiposity, GMB=gluteal muscle bulk, GMS=gluteal muscle strength, df=degree
of freedom, P=signicance level
*Signicant
Table5: Post hoc (Bonferroni) analysis of third week ANCOVA comparison across groups
Variables Groups MD SE P
GMB (m) Control–Squat -0.007 0.008 1.000
Control–DK 0.021 0.009 0.049*
Squat–DK 0.028 0.008 0.003*
Right GMS (kg/s) Control–Squat -24.616 7.782 0.007*
Control–DK -18.819 7.833 0.056
Squat–DK 5.797 7.607 1.000
Left GMS (kg/s) Control–Squat -24.069 7.368 0.005*
Control–DK -15.714 7.428 0.113
Squat–DK -8.355 7.226 0.753
ANCOVA=analysis of covariance, DK=donkey kick, GMB=gluteal muscle bulk, GMS=gluteal muscle strength, MD=mean
difference, SE=standard error, P=signicance level
*Signicant
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
33
International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January-June 2020
Ekechukwu and Okoh: Effects of 6 weeks donkey kick and squat resistance exercises
Likewise, pair-wise comparison between CG and
SG revealed the signicant difference to be found in
right GMS (MD= 24.616, P = 0.007) and left GMS
(MD=24.069, P = 0.005) as shown in Table 5.
Comparison of participants’ variables at sixth week
(post-intervention) across thegroups
Table 6 shows that there was a signicant difference
in each of the following variables across the groups:
right GA (F=4.892, P = 0.010), left GA (F=7.252,
P = 0.001), GMB (F=8.280, P = 0.001), right GMS
(F=12.467, P < 0.0001), and left GMS (F=10.235,
P < 0.0001). In the post hoc analysis (with Bonferroni
correction), comparison for right GA revealed that the
signicant difference existed only between the CG and
DGK (MD=1.494, P = 0.012), whereas in the left GA,
the signicant difference was found between the SG and
CG (MD=1.432, P = 0.008) and between DKG and
CG (MD=1.565, P = 0.003). Furthermore, the post hoc
for GMB showed signicant difference only between
SG and DKG (MD=0.021, P = 0.049). Then, the post
hoc for right GMS revealed signicant difference to lie
in the pair-wise comparison between the SG and CG
(MD = 35.412, P < 0.0001) and between DKG and
CG (MD= 21.337, P = 0.011), whereas the left GMS
revealed signicant difference to lie in the pair-wise
comparison between SG and CG (MD= 33.426, P <
0.0001) and between SG and DKG (MD=21.336, P =
0.017) as shown in Table 7.
Comparison of participants’ variables across time
series for BMI, left, and rightGA
There was a signicant difference in BMI for the SG
(F=3.807, P = 0.049) and DKG (F=4.981, P = 0.023)
Table6: Comparison of post-intervention (sixth week) variables across the group using ANCOVA (n=80)
Variables Mean (standard deviation) F df P
Squat Donkey kick Control
Weight (kg) 59.88 (9.04) 57.41 (7.84) 62.64 (10.66) 2.649 2, 83 0.077
Body mass index (kg/m2) 20.92 (3.07) 20.37 (2.70) 22.35 (3.74) 2.696 2, 83 0.073
Right GA (mm) 4.76 (2.28) 4.52 (2.10) 5.59 (2.15) 4.829 2, 83 0.010*
Left GA (mm) 4.83 (2.04) 4.34 (1.84) 5.79 (1.82) 7.252 2, 83 0.001*
Waist circumference (m) 0.75 (0.07) 0.74 (0.06) 0.77 (0.08) 2.570 2, 83 0.083
GMB (m) 0.95 (0.07) 0.91 (0.06) 0.96 (0.07) 8.280 2, 83 0.001*
Conicity index 1.16 (0.05) 1.16 (0.04) 1.15 (0.05) 0.928 2, 83 0.399
Abdominal volume index 11.68 (2.08) 11.11 (1.68) 12.16 (2.57) 2.972 2, 83 0.057
Right GMS (kg/s) 89.91 (42.34) 80.17 (34.17) 55.74 (40.48) 12.467 2, 83 <0.0001*
Left GMS (kg/s) 92.50 (43.21) 74.57 (33.21) 59.05 (41.36) 10.235 2, 83 <0.0001*
ANOVA=analysis of variance, GA=gluteal adiposity, GMB=gluteal muscle bulk, GMS=gluteal muscle strength, df=degree of
freedom, P=signicance level
*Signicant at P <0.05
Table7: Post hoc (Bonferroni) analysis of sixth week (post-intervention) variables
Variables Groups MD SE P
Right GA (mm) Control–Squat 1.175 0.503 0.066
Control–DK 1.494 0.506 0.012*
Squat–DK 0.319 0.499 1.000
Left GA (mm) Control–Squat 1.432 0.462 0.008*
Control–DK 1.565 0.451 0.003*
Squat–DK 0.133 0.457 1.000
GMB (m) Control–Squat -0.015 0.008 0.221
Control–DK 0.018 0.008 0.089
Squat–DK 0.033 0.088 <0.0001*
Right GMS (kg/s) Control–Squat -35.412 7.142 <0.0001*
Control–DK -21.337 7.148 0.011*
Squat–DK 14.075 7.155 0.158
Left GMS (kg/s) Control–Squat -33.426 7.481 <0.0001*
Control–DK -12.090 7.491 0.331
Squat–DK 21.336 7.491 0.017*
GA=gluteal adiposity, GMB=gluteal muscle bulk, GMS=gluteal muscle strength, MD=mean difference, SE=standard error,
P=signicance level, DK=donkey kick
*Signicant at P<0.05
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
34 International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January-June 2020
Ekechukwu and Okoh: Effects of 6 weeks donkey kick and squat resistance exercises
across the time series (pre-, mid-, and post-intervention
BMI), and post hoc analysis (with Bonferroni
correction) for BMI in SG found signicant difference
to lie only between the pre- and mid-intervention
(MD = 0.893, P = 0.010) as shown in Table 8. Also,
comparison of the mean adiposity for the right and
left gluteus across the time series revealed a signicant
difference in all the groups (P<0.05) except CG as both
right GA (F=2.700, P=0.095) and left GA (F=2.708,
P=0.078). Furthermore, the pair-wise comparison for
right GA revealed the signicant difference in SG to exist
between mid- and post-intervention (MD=0.893, P =
0.010) and also between the pre- and post-intervention
(MD=1.179, P = 0.022). Similar result was found in
DKG where signicant difference was found between
mid- and post-intervention (MD= 1.704, P = 0.004)
and between pre- and post-intervention (MD=0.741,
P = 0.041). The pair-wise comparison for left GA
revealed signicant difference in SG to exist between
pre- and mid-intervention (MD=0.821, P = 0.029) and
between the pre- and post-intervention (MD= 1.500,
P = 0.001). Equally, in DKG, signicant difference
was found between mid- and post-intervention
(MD=1.259, P = 0.024) and between pre- and post-
intervention (MD = 0.889, P = 0.001) as shown in
Table 9.
Table9: Repeated measure ANOVA for the right and left gluteus adiposity (mm) time series
Variable Greenhouse-Geisser Post hoc (Bonferroni) analysis
Group F df P Time MD SE P
Right GA (mm) Squat 6.582 1.666, 44.989 0.005* pre–mid 0.286 0.321 1.000
pre–post 1.179 0.405 0.022*
mid–post 0.893 0.279 0.010*
Donkey kick 9.493 1.510, 39.265 0.001* pre–mid 0.963 0.390 0.062
pre–post 1.704 0.480 0.004*
mid–post 0.741 0.280 0.041*
Control 2.700 1.479, 35.504 0.095
Left GA (mm) Squat 10.789 1.856, 50.104 <0.0001* pre–mid 0.821 0.296 0.029*
pre–post 1.500 0.366 0.001*
mid–post 0.679 0.305 0.103
Donkey kick 5.917 1.303, 36.475 0.012* pre–mid 0.370 0.428 1.000
pre–post 1.259 0.439 0.024*
mid–post 0.889 0.222 0.001*
Control 2.708 1.968, 47.233 0.078
ANOVA = analysis of variance, MD = mean difference, SE = standard error, P = signicance level, df = degree of freedom,
GA=gluteal adiposity
*Signicant at P<0.05
Table8: Repeated measure ANOVA for weight (kg) and body mass index (kg/m2) time series
Variable Greenhouse–Geisser Post hoc (Bonferroni) analysis
Group F df P Time MD SE P
Weight (kg) Squat 3.868 1.284, 34.655 0.048* pre–mid 0.893 0.279 0.010*
pre–post 1.339 0.623 0.122
mid–post 0.446 0.506 1.000
Donkey kick 4.752 1.366, 35.512 0.026* pre–mid 0.378 0.254 0.447
pre–post 0.933 0.395 0.077
mid–post 0.556 0.241 0.088
Control 3.454 1.829 0.044* pre–mid 0.440 0.190 0.088
pre–post 0.080 0.193 1.000
mid–post -0.360 0.149 0.070
Body mass
index (kg/m2)
Squat 3.807 1.303, 35.168 0.049* pre–mid 0.306 0.096 0.011*
pre–post 0.445 0.209 0.127
mid–post 0.139 0.169 1.000
Donkey kick 4.981 1.355, 35.233 0.023* pre–mid 0.140 0.091 0.409
pre–post 0.346 0.143 0.069
mid–post 0.206 0.087 0.079
Control 3.520 1.860 0.410
ANOVA=analysis of variance, MD=mean difference, SE=standard error, P=signicance level, df=degree of freedom
*Signicant at P<0.05
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
35
International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January-June 2020
Ekechukwu and Okoh: Effects of 6 weeks donkey kick and squat resistance exercises
Comparison of participants’ variables across time
series for GMB, right, and leftGMS
Table 10 shows that signicant difference was recorded
in GMB for only the DKG (F=6.833, P = 0.003). Also,
there was a signicant difference in right GMS only for
SG (F=15.221, P = <0.0001) and DKG (F=7.547, P
= 0.004). Similarly, a signicant difference was found
in SG (F= 10.964, P < 0.0001) and DKG (F=7.169,
P = 0.003) for left GMS. The pair-wise comparison
for GMB of DKG showed that a signicant difference
was found between pre- and mid-intervention
(MD=0.014, P = 0.010) and between pre- and post-
intervention (MD=0.016, P = 0.015). In SG, the pair-
wise comparison for right GMS revealed a signicant
difference to exist between pre- and mid-intervention
(MD=20.089, P = 0.008) and between pre- and post-
intervention (MD= 29.911, P < 0.0001). However, a
signicant difference was found only between pre- and
post-intervention (MD= 10.740, P = 0.006) in DKG.
Furthermore, the pair-wise comparison for right GMS
for SG revealed a signicant difference to exist between
pre- and mid-intervention (MD=20.089, P = 0.008) and
between the pre- and post-intervention (MD=29.911,
P < 0.0001), but a signicant difference was found only
between pre- and mid-intervention (MD = 10.740,
P = 0.006) in DK. Finally, the pair-wise comparison
for left GMS revealed a signicant difference in SG
to exist only between mid- and post-intervention
(MD=29.286, P = 0.001), but a signicant difference
was found only between pre- and mid-intervention
(MD=9.660, P = 0.010) inDKG.
dIscussIon
A total of 111 young women were recruited for this
study but only 80 of them completed the study—SG
(28), DKG (27), and CG (25). The 27.9% attrition rate
recorded was due to other commitments that arose,
especially for some unanticipated changes in academic
activities. The attrition was slightly more in the control
group than the exercise groups; this may be attributed
to the fact that they may have had no positive expectant
drive to continue their participation as opposed to
those in the exercise groups. Hence, subsequent study
should introduce a placebo design, which could serve
as a motivating factor for the controlgroup.
There was no signicant difference in waist circumference
(WC), CI, and AVI both for within and across group
comparison. Also, there was no signicant difference
in BMI across the groups. Outcome measures such as
BMI, WC, CI, and AVI are measures of general body
adiposity.[22] Thus, the interventions (squat and donkey
kick) being region specic (here, gluteal region) had
no effect on such measures. Similarly, Yaacob et al.[23]
reported that progressive resistance training specic for
Table10: Repeated measure ANOVA for GB, right GMS, and left GMS across time series
Variable Greenhouse-Geisser Post hoc (Bonferroni) analysis
Group F value df P Time MD SE P
GMB (m) Squat 2.280 1.496, 40.390 0.128
Donkey kick 6.833 1.904, 49.504 0.003* pre–mid 0.014 0.004 0.010*
pre–post 0.016 0.005 0.015*
mid–post 0.002 0.005 1.000
Control 0.446 1.705, 40.915 0.612
Right GMS (kg/s) Squat 15.221 1.903, 51.386 <0.0001* pre–mid -20.089 6.107 0.008*
pre–post -29.911 5.326 <0.0001*
mid–post -9.821 5.097 0.194
Donkey kick 3.653 1.531, 39.814 0.046* pre–mid -15.056 7.310 0.149
pre–post -15.796 7.583 0.142
mid–post -0.741 4.421 1.000
Control 7.547 1.514, 36.344 0.004* pre–mid 6.500 3.208 0.162
pre–post 10.740 3.097 0.006*
mid–post 3.240 1.839 0.090
Left GMS (kg/s) Squat 10.964 1.777, 47.990 <0.0001* pre–mid -16.518 6.748 0.063
pre–post -29.286 6.856 0.001*
mid–post -12.768 5.043 0.052
Donkey kick 7.169 1.735, 41.645 0.003* pre–mid 9.660 2.977 0.010*
pre–post 5.960 2.577 0.089
mid–post -3.700 2.092 0.269
Control 0.897 1.790, 46.531 0.405
ANOVA=analysis of variance, GMB=gluteal muscle bulk, GMS=gluteal muscle strength, MD=mean difference, SE=standard
error, P=signicance level, df=degree of freedom
*Signicant at P <0.05
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
36 International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January-June 2020
Ekechukwu and Okoh: Effects of 6 weeks donkey kick and squat resistance exercises
the hamstrings and quadriceps had no effect on WC
after 8 weeks. Also, Ghroubi etal.[24] found no change
in weight and BMI after 8 weeks strength training. One
common denominator in this study is the short training
duration (6–8 weeks) that may be insufcient to produce
training effects on these measures of central obesity.[25]
This study revealed that SG and DKG signicantly
decreased GA. This may be attributed to the exercise-
specic induction of fatty acid oxidation at the gluteal
region, which is required to meet the energy demand
of the exercise.[26,27] This result corroborates with other
studies[28-31] involving high-intensity resistance training,
which also recorded signicant reduction in adiposity.
However, studies[32,33] involving low-intensity resistance
training did not report signicant change in adiposity,
thereby suggesting that changes in adiposity could be
dependent on exercise intensity.
Signicant decrease in GMB was recorded in DKG.
This suggests that a 6-week training with donkey kick
may effectively reduce adiposity in the gluteal region (as
recorded in the skinfold measurement) but may have no
gluteal muscle toning effect, thus the decrease in gluteal
muscle bulk (estimated by hip circumference). This is
in agreement with the ndings of a study by Yamaji
et al.,[34] which reported signicant reduction in hip
circumference after 6 weeks of slow movement resistant
training in women. However, there was a non-statistically
signicant increase in GMB among the participants in
SG. The slight increase witnessed in SG may suggest an
increase in free fat mass (gluteal muscle tone) as opined
by some studies.[7,35] However, some studies reported a
rather signicant increase in muscle bulk. This disparity
in the reports of these studies[36-38] compared with this
study could be attributed to the difference in outcome
measures and training duration, given that the change
in muscle mass could vary depending on the duration
and intensity of exercise.[39] Also, although this study (6
weeks duration) used tape to measure muscle bulk, the
comparing studies by Holm etal.,[36] McNee etal.,[37] and
Kosek etal.[38] used outcomes such as MRI and three-
dimensional ultrasound imaging, and their trainings
lasted for 10–16weeks.
Signicant gain in GMS was recorded in both SG and
DKG. This implies that squat and donkey kick are
effective interventions for achieving improvement in
GMS. This is in agreement with previous studies,[7,15,36,40]
although these studies concentrated on other muscle
groups. However, the increase in SG was signicantly
more than those of the DKG. Results also revealed a
declining trend in GMS in CG and greater increase
in GMS in the right than that in the left gluteus (the
bilateral difference in GMS was consistent in the two
training groups). The declining trend in GMS in CG
may infer that a lack of exercise intervention may lead
to loss of muscle strength.[41] In addition, the greater
increase in the right GMS compared to the left may be
attributed to dexterity dominance, as there is a very high
prevalence of right limb dominant people in the world
population;[42] thus, suggesting the greater overload at
the right gluteus.
Practical applications
Squat was found to be very effective in increasing GMS,
therefore, it could be incorporated in treating conditions
associated with gluteal muscle weakness such as seen
among stroke survivors with typical Trendelenburg gait
pattern. Also, squat showed greater effect on gluteal
muscle mass increase within the 6 weeks of training,
therefore, could be recommended to ladies who desire
building and toning of the gluteus. Donkey kick was
effective in fat reduction, which is of essential health
benet, hence, could be recommended to keep t and
healthy.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the funding assistance from the
African Research League and the sturdy support of
the Directorate of Research, College of Medicine,
University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Nigeria.
Financial support and sponsorship
This study was supported by African Research League.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conicts of interest.
references
1. GroganS. Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in
men, women and children. London, UK: Routledge; 2017.
2. Rothblum ED, Solovay S. The fat studies reader (Ed.). New
York: NYU Press; 2009.
3. Burns-ArdolinoWA. Jiggle in my walk. The iconic power of
the “big butt” in American pop culture. Fat Studies Reader
2009;200:271-9.
4. Hill KR, Ryan S. Craving curves: Celebrity posteriors are
behind swell in augmentations. Times Free Press. 10 March
2015. Available from: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/life/
entertainment/story/2015/mar/10/craving-curvy/291977/. [Last
accessed on 2015 Dec 18].
5. Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the hip: A focus on muscular
actions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40:82-94.
6. DistefanoLJ, BlackburnJT, MarshallSW, PaduaDA. Gluteal
muscle activation during common therapeutic exercises. J
Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39:532-40.
7. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B,
Sonmez GT, Alvar BA. Effects of different volume-equated
resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations
in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2014;28:2909-18.
8. Tesch PA, Lundberg TR, Fernandez-Gonzalo R. Unilateral
lower limb suspension: From subject selection to “omic”
responses. J Appl Physiol 2016;120:1207-14.
9. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response
relationship between weekly resistance training volume and
Author Queries???
AQ1: Please review if the suggested running head is okay. If not, provide a new one.
AQ2: Please conrm the author names as extracted from meta data.
AQ3: Please conrm the author aliation details.
AQ4: Please provide academic title for the corresponding author.
AQ5: Please provide zip code in the corresponding author details.
AQ6: Please conrm the corresponding author details.
AQ7: CONCLUSION NOT STRONG. YOU SHOULD ALSO STATE HOW YOU ARRIVVED AT THE SAMPLE
SIZE,THE EFFECT SIZE AND ALSO WHETHER YOU REGISTERED THE STUDY.
AQ8: Please conrm all the heading levels in this article.
AQ9: RECAST NOT CLEAR.
AQ10: Please provide full form for PAR-Q and YOU.
AQ11: ere is a discrepancy in the unit for GMS in text and in tables, in text, it is kg/s2, whereas in the tables it is kg/s. Please
check and make necessary changes.
AQ12: Please conrm all the equations.
AQ13: DID YOU USE METRONOME TO MAKE YOUR PARTICIPANTS KICK OR SQUAT AT THE SAME RATE?.
AQ14: We have changed the "Plate 1, 2" as "Figures 1, 2" in the text and also in the captions per style. Please check and conrm
if this is appropriate.
AQ15: CAN YOU MAKE IT CLEARER?.
AQ16: ere is a discrepancy in the numbering of tables, after Table 9, Table 11 is mentioned, Table 10 is missing in text citation
as well in the table list. We have renumbered Table 11 to Table 10 in the table list as well as in text citation. Please conrm
the changes.
AQ17: Please provide full form for WC.
AQ18: Please conrm the statement in “Financial support and sponsorship.”
AQ19: Please provide in-text citation for "Table 2."
AQ20: Please provide more details like author names and also provide last accessed date for ref. 18.
AQ21: Please provide last accessed date and article title, author names, website name etc in Ref. 19, also please provide updated
URL as the mentioned URL is not functional.
AQ22: Please provide the missing citation for Ref. 25.
AQ23: Author name has been changed as per PubMed and the corresponding changes have been made in text citation of ref.
37. Please conrm the changes made.
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
37
International Journal of Medicine and Health Development ¦ Volume 25 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ January-June 2020
Ekechukwu and Okoh: Effects of 6 weeks donkey kick and squat resistance exercises
increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. J Sports Sci 2017;35:1073-82.
10. DolgoffS. Defying gravity: How to build a stronger, dened
butt. New York: Fitness Magazine-Meredith; 2016.
11. IkedaT, JinnoT, MasudaT, AizawaJ, NinomiyaK, SuzukiK,
etal. Effect of exercise therapy combined with branched-chain
amino acid supplementation on muscle strengthening in persons
with osteoarthritis. Hong Kong Physiother J 2018;38:23-31.
12. AbeT, Kojima K, Kearns CF, Yohena H, Fukuda J. Whole
body muscle hypertrophy from resistance training: Distribution
and total mass. Br J Sports Med 2003;37:543-5.
13. Seynnes OR, de Boer M, Narici MV. Early skeletal muscle
hypertrophy and architectural changes in response to high-
intensity resistance training. J Appl Physiol 2007;102:368-73.
14. Norrbrand L, Fluckey JD, Pozzo M, Tesch PA. Resistance
training using eccentric overload induces early adaptations in
skeletal muscle size. Eur J Appl Physiol 2008;102:271-81.
15. Holcomb WR, RubleyMD, LeeHJ, GuadagnoliMA. Effect of
hamstring-emphasized resistance training on hamstring:quadriceps
strength ratios. J Strength Cond Res 2007;21:41-7.
16. Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, Price TB,
HoffmanEP, AngelopoulosTJ, etal. Variability in muscle size
and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2005;37:964-72.
17. Tumminello N. Add mass to your body. Muscle and
performance. New York: Cruz Bay Publishing; 2012.
18. Northern Essex Community College. Physical Activity Readiness
Questionnaire (PAR-Q) & YOU. Available from: https://www.
necc.mass.edu/wp-content/uploads/Physical-Activity-Readiness-
Questionnaire.pdf. [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 11].
19. WoodR. Guide to the Accu-Measure Skinfold Caliper. Topend
Sports Website, 2009, Available from: https://www.topendsports.
com/testing/products/skinfold-caliper-accumeasure.htm. [Last
accessed on 2015 Dec 21].
20. Ghosh A. Comparison of anthropometric, metabolic and
dietary fatty acids proles in lean and obese dyslipidaemic
Asian Indian male subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr 2007;61:412-19.
21. Salari A, Shakiba M, Mahdavi-Roshan M, Gholipour M,
Naghshbandi M, RajabiR. The association between various
indices of obesity and severity of atherosclerosis in adults in the
north of Iran. Medicine 2016;95:e5670.
22. GowdaV, PhilipKM. Abdominal volume index and conicity
index in predicting metabolic abnormalities in young women
of different socioeconomic class. Int J Med Sci Pub Health
2016;5:1452-6.
23. Yaacob NM, YaacobNA, Ismail AA, Soh NA, Ismail MS,
MohamedHJ, etal. Dumbbells and ankle-wrist weight training
leads to changes in body composition and anthropometric
parameters with potential cardiovascular disease risk reduction.
J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2016;11:439-47.
24. GhroubiS, ElleuchW, AbidL, AbdenadherM, KammounS,
Elleuch MH. Effects of a low-intensity dynamic-resistance
training protocol using an isokinetic dynamometer on muscular
strength and aerobic capacity after coronary artery bypass
grafting. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2013;56:85-101.
25. SongWJ, SohngKY. Effects of progressive resistance training
on body composition, physical tness and quality of life of
patients on hemodialysis. J Korean Acad Nurs 2012;42:947-56.
26. Lundsgaard AM, FritzenAM, KiensB. Molecular regulation
of fatty acid oxidation in skeletal muscle during aerobic exercise.
Trends Endocrinol Metab 2018;29:18-30.
27. MadsenKL, PreislerN, BuchAE, StemmerikMG, LaforêtP,
Vissing J. Impaired fat oxidation during exercise in multiple
acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deciency. JIMD Rep 2019;46:79-84.
28. Čokorilo N, Mikalački M, Rakic D, Radjo I. Fat reduction
without changing muscle mass of women as a result of
exercising with weights. Healthmed 2012;6:2525-32.
29. GiannakiCD, AphamisG, Sakkis P, HadjicharalambousM.
Eight weeks of a combination of high intensity interval training
and conventional training reduce visceral adiposity and improve
physical tness: Agroup-based intervention. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 2016;56:483-90.
30. AbeT, DankelSJ, Loenneke JP. Body fat loss automatically
reduces lean mass by changing the free-fat component of
adipose tissue. Obesity 2019;27:357-58.
31. WewegeM, vanden Berg R, WardRE, KeechA. The effects
of high-intensity interval training vs. moderate-intensity
continuous training on body composition in overweight and
obese adults: Asystematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev
2017;18:635-46.
32. Munn J, HerbertRD, HancockMJ, GandeviaSC. Resistance
training for strength: Effect of number of sets and contraction
speed. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37:1622-6.
33. Ramírez-Campillo R, Andrade DC, Campos-Jara C,
Henríquez-OlguínC, Alvarez-LepínC, IzquierdoM. Regional
fat changes induced by localized muscle endurance resistance
training. J Strength Cond Res 2013;27:2219-24.
34. Yamaji S, Demura S, Watanabe N, Uchiyama M. Slow
movement resistance training in women. Health 2010;2:1156-62.
35. CrymbleT, ViljoenJ, ChristieC. Changes in morphology and
strength following an eight week resistance training programme
in post-menopausal Caucasian women: Apilot investigation.
Ergonomics SA 2013;25:32-49.
36. HolmL, ReitelsederS, PedersenTG, DoessingS, PetersenSG,
Flyvbjerg A, et al. Changes in muscle size and MHC
composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and
light loading intensity. J Appl Physiol 2008;105:1454-61.
37. McNeeAE, GoughM, MorrisseyMC, ShortlandAP. Increases
in muscle volume after plantar exor strength training in
children with spastic cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol
2009;51:429-35.
38. Kosek DJ, Kim JS, Petrella JK, Cross JM, Bamman MM.
Efcacy of 3 days/wk resistance training on myober
hypertrophy and myogenic mechanisms in young vs. older
adults. J Appl Physiol 2006;101:531-44.
39. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn DI, Krieger JW. Effect of repetition
duration during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy:
Asystematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2015;45:577-85.
40. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L,
Sanchis-MoysiJ, DoradoC, Mora-CustodioR, etal. Effect of
velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance,
strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Spor
2017;27:724-35.
41. BauJG, ChungYF, LinHJ. Effects of low-intensity exercise
training on tissue oxygen saturation of lower-extremity in
community-dwelling older adults. In: 7th WACBE World
Congress on Bioengineering 2015. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer; 2015. pp. 130-3.
42. McGrathTM, WaddingtonG, ScarvellJM, BallNB, CreerR,
Woods K, et al. The effect of limb dominance on lower limb
functional performance—A systematic review. J Sports Sci
2016;34:289-302.
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijmhdev.com on Friday, April 3, 2020, IP: 10.232.74.22]
... This was used to measure the hip and waist circumferences of the participants in centimeters (cm) as reported by Ekechukwu and Okoh (2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Tailoring task is usually fostered with the adoption of constrained postures, repetitive movements, and prolonged static loading which have been identified as major ergonomic risk factors of occupation related musculoskeletal disorders (OMSD). This study was undertaken to ergonomically evaluate the work set up and determine the prevalence and predictors of OMSD among tailors in Enugu Metropolis. This exploratory cross-sectional study sampled 270 tailors in Enugu metropolis. The Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire was used to assess OMSD, while a self-structured proforma was used to obtain their demographic details, work related variables and the ergonomic assessment of their workstation. Data obtained was analyzed descriptively and inferentially using Chi-square and logistic regression. The level of significance set at 0.05. Majority of the participants were females (73.0%) and married (72.6%). Most of the participants used seats made of wood (58.1%) and plastic (39.6%) that were neither padded (61.1%) nor had back rest (67.8%). Most of the participants (83.3%) used manual sewing machines. The prevalence of OMSD in this population was 67.0% and was more common around the upper back (43.0%), low back (36.3%) and knees (23.3%). There was a significant association between OMSD and each of age (χ 2 = 16.98, p = 0.002), and fatigue (χ 2 = 6.198, p = 0.013). However, fatigue was the only significant predictor of OMSD (β = 0.858, p = 0.024). There is a high prevalence of OMSD among tailors in Enugu metropolis, associated with age and fatigue. Work should be terminated at the early onset of fatigue.
Article
Full-text available
We investigated the in vivo skeletal muscle metabolism in patients with multiple acyl‐CoA dehydrogenase deficiency (MADD) during exercise, and the effect of a glucose infusion. Two adults with MADD on riboflavin and l‐carnitine treatment and 10 healthy controls performed an incremental exercise test measuring maximal oxidative capacity (VO2max) and a submaximal exercise test (≤1 hour) on a cycle ergometer. During submaximal exercise, we studied fat and carbohydrate oxidation, using stable isotope tracer methodology and indirect calorimetry. On another day, the patients repeated the submaximal exercise receiving a 10% glucose infusion. The patients had a lower VO2max than controls and stopped the submaximal exercise test at 51 and 58 minutes due to muscle pain and exhaustion. The exercise‐induced increase in total fatty acid oxidation was blunted in the patients (7.1 and 1.1 vs 12 ± 4 μmol × kg⁻¹ × min⁻¹ in the healthy controls), but total carbohydrate oxidation was higher (67 and 63 vs 25 ± 11 μmol × kg⁻¹ × min⁻¹ in controls). With glucose infusion, muscle pain decreased and average heart rate during exercise dropped in both patients from 124 to 119 bpm and 138 to 119 bpm. We demonstrate that exercise intolerance in MADD‐patients relates to an inability to increase fat oxidation appropriately during exercise, which is compensated partially by an increase in carbohydrate metabolism.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Improving lower limb muscle strength is important in preventing progression of osteoarthritis (OA) and its symptoms. Exercise with branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) supplementation has been reported to affect protein anabolism in young and elderly persons. However, few studies provided daily BCAAs for patients with OA. Objective: This study examined the effects of combined BCAAs and exercise therapy on physical function improvement in women with hip OA scheduled for total hip arthroplasty. Methods: The subjects were 43 women with OA (age: 64.2±9.4). The participants were randomly divided into two groups: BCAA (n=21) and control (n=22). The combined therapy was carried out for one month. Exercise intervention involved hip abductor muscle exercise in both groups. For the nutritional intervention, 6g of BCAAs or 1.2g of starch were consumed within 10min before starting the exercise. Results: There was a marginally significant difference in the main effect between the groups in 10-m timed gait time. The improvement rate in hip abductor muscle strength of the contralateral side was significantly greater in the BCAA group. Conclusion: By combining BCAA intake and exercise therapy, a significant improvement in hip abductor muscle strength of the contralateral side was achieved in women with OA.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improvements in body composition in overweight and obese adults. Methods: Trials comparing HIIT and MICT in overweight or obese participants aged 18-45 years were included. Direct measures (e.g. whole-body fat mass) and indirect measures (e.g. waist circumference) were examined. Results: From 1,334 articles initially screened, 13 were included. Studies averaged 10 weeks × 3 sessions per week training. Both HIIT and MICT elicited significant (p < 0.05) reductions in whole-body fat mass and waist circumference. There were no significant differences between HIIT and MICT for any body composition measure, but HIIT required ~40% less training time commitment. Running training displayed large effects on whole-body fat mass for both HIIT and MICT (standardized mean difference -0.82 and -0.85, respectively), but cycling training did not induce fat loss. Conclusions: Short-term moderate-intensity to high-intensity exercise training can induce modest body composition improvements in overweight and obese individuals without accompanying body-weight changes. HIIT and MICT show similar effectiveness across all body composition measures suggesting that HIIT may be a time-efficient component of weight management programs.
Article
Full-text available
Recent observational studies have reported controversial results for the association between different anthropometric indices of obesity and severity of atherosclerosis. The aim of the current study is to determine the associations between anthropometric indices with severity of atherosclerosis in adult population in north of Iran. The cross-sectional study was performed on 610 participants, who were admitted to a hospital for elective angiographyin Rasht, Iran, Anthropometric indices, including waist circumference (WC), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), conicity index (CI), body mass index (BMI), and hematological factors, were measured using the standard methods. According to angiography reports, severity of atherosclerosis was determined. Sixty-two percent of participants had moderate to severe atherosclerosis. According to BMI, 44% were overweight and 25.8% were obese. Based on WHtR and WC, 90%, and 57% were obese, respectively. The prevalence of moderate to severe atherosclerosis in centrally obese women was significantly higher than in centrally nonobese women (52% vs 28% P = 0.02). According to multivariate adjustment analysis, age, sex, systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, uric acid, and triglyceride were independently associated with severity of atherosclerosis. BMI, WC, CI, and WHtR had no significant association with severity of atherosclerosis. Our findings showed that anthropometric indices reflective of general and abdominal obesity were not independently related to the severity of atherosclerosis in adults, in northern Iran.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives Promoting physical activity is a global strategy to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease. This study aimed to determine and compare the effect of light resistance training using either dumbbells or ankle-wrist weights on the anthropometric parameters and body composition of adults in Kelantan, Malaysia. Methods This randomized community trial was conducted in Kelantan, Malaysia, from March through August 2012. Adults with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 23 kg/m² were randomized into dumbbell (N = 69) and ankle-wrist (N = 69) weight groups. Participants in the dumbbell group performed structured group exercises three times per week using a pair of one-kilogram dumbbells. Participants in the ankle-wrist weight group were given one pair of 500 gm ankle weights and one pair of 500 gm wrist weights to be worn during the activities of daily living three days per week for at least 20 min. BMI, waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), body fat percentage (BF%) and skeletal muscle percentage (SM%) were measured at baseline, week 6, month 3 and month 6. Results Eighty-nine participants completed this study. There were significant reductions in BMI only at week six for the dumbbell group. No significant BMI changes were observed for the ankle-wrist weight group. Significant improvements of WC, WHR, BF%, and SM% were observed in both intervention groups from baseline at week 6, month 3, and month 6. Conclusion Resistance exercise using either dumbbells or ankle-wrist weights produced significant improvements in certain components of body composition and anthropometric parameters.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this paper was to systematically review the current literature and elucidate the effects of total weekly resistance training (RT) volume on changes in measures of muscle mass via meta-regression. The final analysis comprised 34 treatment groups from 15 studies. Outcomes for weekly sets as a continuous variable showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.002). Each additional set was associated with an increase in effect size (ES) of 0.023 corresponding to an increase in the percentage gain by 0.37%. Outcomes for weekly sets categorised as lower or higher within each study showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.03); the ES difference between higher and lower volumes was 0.241, which equated to a percentage gain difference of 3.9%. Outcomes for weekly sets as a three-level categorical variable (<5, 5-9 and 10+ per muscle) showed a trend for an effect of weekly sets (P = 0.074). The findings indicate a graded dose-response relationship whereby increases in RT volume produce greater gains in muscle hypertrophy.
Article
Fat‐free mass or lean tissue mass includes nonskeletal muscle components such as the fat‐free component of adipose tissue fat cells. This fat‐free component of adipose tissue may need to be taken into consideration when large changes in body fat occur following a weight loss intervention. It is not uncommon to see a loss of lean mass with interventions designed to promote the loss of large amounts of fat mass. However, after eliminating the influence of the fat‐free component of adipose tissue on dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry (DXA)‐derived lean mass, the original loss of lean mass is no longer observed or is markedly reduced. This suggests that the majority of the lean mass lost with dieting may be the fat‐free component of adipose tissue. To accurately estimate the change in lean tissue, eliminating the fat‐free adipose tissue from DXA‐derived lean mass is needed when large changes in body fat occur following an intervention.
Article
This review summarizes how fatty acid (FA) oxidation is regulated in skeletal muscle during exercise. From the available evidence it seems that acetyl-CoA availability in the mitochondrial matrix adjusts FA oxidation to exercise intensity and duration. This is executed at the step of mitochondrial fatty acyl import, as the extent of acetyl group sequestration by carnitine determines the availability of carnitine for the carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1 (CPT1) reaction. The rate of glycolysis seems therefore to be central to the amount of β-oxidation-derived acetyl-CoA that is oxidized in the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle. FA oxidation during exercise is also determined by FA availability to mitochondria, dependent on trans-sarcolemmal FA uptake via cluster of differentiation 36/SR-B2 (CD36) and FAs mobilized from myocellular lipid droplets.
Chapter
Muscle strength and muscle oxygen saturation are two typical indicators for the evaluation of exercise effects in rehabilitation and sport medicine. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of low-intensity exercise training on muscle strength and muscle oxygen saturation monitored by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) in older adults. Eighteen healthy community-dwelling older adults, age mean (SD), 78.7 (7.3) years, were recruited. Ten subjects (exercise group) participated 6-week training program for lower-extremity, and the others were control. The training program was composed of 15-minute exercise course using three machines for lowerextremities training three times a week for six weeks. The intensity of machines were adjusted to 50% of one repetition maximum for each participants respectively. Heart rate, blood pressure, blood oxygen, muscle strength and muscle oxygen saturation, were measured before and after the 15-minute course in week zero (Week 0, before the 6-week training program) and 7th week (Week 7, after the training program). The Student’s t-test was used to compare the difference of these variables between groups. The effective fall in quadriceps muscle oxygen saturation, Deff, is defined as the decrease in oxygen saturation from quiet baseline (BL) to the end of one 15-minute course (Post-exercise, PE). After 6-week training program, Deff did not change in the exercise group, while it decreased significantly in control group. Quadriceps muscle strength did not change after 6-week program in the exercise group, but decreased about 6% in the control group (not significant). Heart rate, blood pressure and blood oxygen were unaffected in the exercise group and the control group. The ambient temperatures were 25.8 .. and 19.9 .. for Week 0 and Week 7 respectively (p<0.0001). The training program counterbalance the muscular function decline due to seasonal variation from the end of autumn to winter for subjects participating the exercise program, while the function declined in control group. We suggest the non-invasive measurement of muscle oxygen could be used to assess the effect of physical activity program in community.
Article
We compared the effects of two resistance training (RT) programs only differing in the repetition velocity loss allowed in each set: 20% (VL20) vs 40% (VL40) on muscle structural and functional adaptations. Twenty-two young males were randomly assigned to a VL20 (n = 12) or VL40 (n = 10) group. Subjects followed an 8-week velocity-based RT program using the squat exercise while monitoring repetition velocity. Pre- and post-training assessments included: magnetic resonance imaging, vastus lateralis biopsies for muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and fiber type analyses, one-repetition maximum strength and full load-velocity squat profile, countermovement jump (CMJ), and 20-m sprint running. VL20 resulted in similar squat strength gains than VL40 and greater improvements in CMJ (9.5% vs 3.5%, P < 0.05), despite VL20 performing 40% fewer repetitions. Although both groups increased mean fiber CSA and whole quadriceps muscle volume, VL40 training elicited a greater hypertrophy of vastus lateralis and intermedius than VL20. Training resulted in a reduction of myosin heavy chain IIX percentage in VL40, whereas it was preserved in VL20. In conclusion, the progressive accumulation of muscle fatigue as indicated by a more pronounced repetition velocity loss appears as an important variable in the configuration of the resistance exercise stimulus as it influences functional and structural neuromuscular adaptations.