4.6 Article

Body composition and fitness during strength and/or endurance training in older men

期刊

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
卷 40, 期 5, 页码 950-958

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318165c854

关键词

dual X-ray absorptiometry; bioimpedance; muscle strength; maximal oxygen consumption; muscle mass

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study examined adaptations in body composition and physical fitness during a 21-wk strength and/or endurance training period in 40- to 65-yr-old men. We also compared the usefulness of different methods for the analysis of body composition to detect training-induced adaptations. Methods: Fifty-three men were randomized into the endurance training (E: N = 14), strength training (S: N = 13), combined strength and endurance training (SE: N = 15), or control (C: N = 11) groups. S and E trained 2 and SE 2 x 2 times a week for strength and endurance. Results: Percentage of fat (fat%) decreased (5 - 8%) similarly in all training groups. Fat% measured by DXA at baseline and its change correlated with those recorded by bioimpedance (r = 0.90 and 0.66), skinfolds (r = 0.80 and 0.78), and waistline (r = 0.84 and 0.74). Lean mass in legs (DXA) increased only in S (2.0 +/- 1.5%, P < 0.001), but the thickness of vastus lateralis and intermedius measured by ultrasound increased (7 - 11%) in all training groups, and that of triceps brachii increased in S (22%) and SE (20%). Maximal concentric force increased significantly in S, SE, and E (by 22, 23, and 7%), and maximal oxygen uptake increased in both E (11%) and SE (11%). Conclusions: Waist circumference and skinfold thickness seem to reasonably assess changes in percent body fat during training. However, only DXA was capable to separate small differences between the groups in training-induced changes in lean body mass. Combined strength and endurance training is of greater value than either alone in optimizing body composition or improving physical fitness in older men.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据