Share this article on:

Programming Resistance Training Required For Positive Effects On Body Composition In Community Programmes: 1960 Board #112 June 2, 3: 30 PM - 5: 00 PM

Mann, Steven; Jimenez, Alfonso; Domone, Sarah; Wade, Matthew; Beedie, Chris

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: May 2016 - Volume 48 - Issue 5S - p 543
doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000486633.52665.4f
D-30 Basic Science World Congress/Poster - Energy Balance: Body Composition, Muscle, and Weight Regulation Thursday, June 2, 2016, 1:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall A/B

1ukactive Research Institute, London, United Kingdom. 2Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom. 3University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.


(No relationships reported)

Purpose. Many sedentary adults possess not only a high body fat percentage (BFP), but also low lean body mass (LBM). The latter may predispose metabolic disease such as Type-2 Diabetes. The majority of public health messaging around physical activity centers on habitual (e.g., walking) or purposeful (e.g., jogging) aerobic activity. However, few positive effects on muscle mass result from such activities. Whilst resistance training (RT) is an obvious solution, its effectiveness in public health settings is not demonstrated. We report two community-based RT studies, Study 1 delivered to a sedentary population, Study 2 to overweight and pre-diabetic patients.

METHODS: In Study 1 (48-weeks), participants (n=364) were allocated to either programed-exercise (PROG), un-programmed use of a community gym (FREE), or monthly physical activity counseling (PAC). A wait-list control (CONT) was employed. In Study 2 (12-weeks), overweight and pre-diabetic patients (n=141) were randomly assigned to 12 sessions of either supervised exercise (SUP), PAC, or the two combined (COMB). A wait list control was employed.

RESULTS: In Study 1, ANOVA indicated significant differences between treatments. PROG performed significantly better than CONT on strength (p= .048) and LBM (p= .009). FREE performed significantly better than CONT on strength (p= .029). Paired-sample t-tests indicated that PROG improved significantly pre-post on strength (p= .001), LBM (p= .036) and BFP (p= .006), whilst improvements in strength only were observed in FREE (p= .01) and PAC (p= .014). In Study 2 ANOVA indicated no significant differences between treatments. However paired-sample t-tests indicated that SUP improved significantly pre-post on strength (p= .01) and BFP (p= .027), with a clear trend also in LBM (p= .074), whilst significantly improved strength only was observed in COMB (p= .026) and PAC (p= .016).

CONCLUSIONS: In both studies, whilst statistically significant increases in strength were observed across all treatments, significant improvements in both strength and body composition were observed only in programmed and/or supervised conditions. Collectively data suggest that the programming and supervision of resistance training is beneficial in community settings when improvements in body composition are desired.

© 2016 American College of Sports Medicine