4.5 Article

Reliability of methods to measure energy expenditure during and after resistance exercise

期刊

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 44, 期 12, 页码 1276-1282

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2019-0076

关键词

anaerobic; energy; expenditure; resistance; exercise; weight; training; metabolic; cost

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of 3 methods estimating energy expenditure (EE) during and in response to resistance exercise. Ten males (aged 29.4 +/- 10.2 years) with >= 2 months resistance training (RT) experience performed 3 training sessions incorporating the bench press and back-squat; sessions were separated by 48 to 72 h. Total energy expenditure (TEE) was estimated using a Suunto T6D Heart Rate Monitor and 2 methods (named Scott and Magosso) that used oxygen uptake and blood lactate measurements to determine aerobic and anaerobic energy expenditure (AnEE). For TEE, relative reliability for both the Scott and Magosso methods remained nearly perfect across all testing days for the bench press and back-squat; with interclass correlations (ICC) > 0.93 and percentage of the typical error measurement (TEM%) below 5.8%. The heart rate method showed moderate variability between testing days for both exercises; ICCs ranged between 0.66-0.92 with TEM% between 18%-37% during the bench press and 11%-17% during the back-squat. The estimation of AnEE showed that the Scott and Magosso methods had strong to very strong relative reliability for both exercises; however, a low absolute reliability was observed. Mean EE was significantly higher in the Scott and Magosso methods during the bench press >912 kJ and back-squat >1170 kJ, with the heart rate method estimating 358 kJ and 416 kJ. The Scott and Magosso methods showed a high degree of reliability between testing days when measuring EE. Heart rate methods may significantly underestimate EE during and in response to RT.

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

4.5
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