Muscular fitness in physical education through Manual Resistance Training by Sandor Dorgo, Ph.D., CSCS University of Texas at El Paso Session Sponsored by NASPE
Problem Obese and unfit children have low strength to body-weight ratio and low level of cardio fitness In PE class obese and unfit children: experience difficulty performing activities fatigue rapidly PE often further discourages them from engaging in physical activity (15)
Benefits of youth resistance training Various physiological benefits muscle function, cardiovascular fitness, body composition, bones, posture, insulin sensitivity, type 2 diabetes, blood lipid profiles, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure (2,3,8,9,10,14,15,16,18,19) Improved performance, reduced injury risk, better self-esteem (2,3,10) Enjoyment and enhanced positive attitude towards exercising through large strength gains in short- term (5,8,9,10,13,15,16,18)
Resistance training in PE Due to equipment and budget requirements, Weight Resistance Training is often excluded from PE (17) Manual Resistance Training (MRT) is an applicable alternative (17) Requires minimal portable and inexpensive equipment (PVC pipes, straps, chains, step- boxes, chairs, tables, mats) Resistance is provided by one or more partners (1)
Manual Resistance Training Isokinetic type of contraction → maximal contraction elicited for full ROM (1) Almost all weight training exercises can be simulated with MRT exercises MRT requires minimal set-up Provides high-intensity training in short time Adjustable training stimuli components exercise selection and order, number of exercises, sets, repetitions, rest intervals, and resistance
Pilot Study #1 Purpose To investigate the effects of WRT and MRT programs on muscular strength, muscular endurance, and body composition Methods Participants: 84 college students (46 male, 38 female) in two groups (WRT vs. MRT) Pre- and post-test measurements: 1 RM bench press and squat Bench press/squat muscle endurance (70% of 1RM) Body composition by underwater weighing Training program 14 weeks, 3 sessions/week, 1 hour/session Identical exercises, tri-set format, hypertrophy zone
Results of Pilot Study #1 Males and females in both WRT and MRT groups showed significant increase in 1 RM bench press and 1 RM squat Bench press and squat muscle endurance MRT participants showed significant changes that were comparable to WRT participants in muscular strength and endurance tests Females in MRT group showed significant changes in body composition
Muscular Strength Results Pre-training Post-training test test Test Gender Group N Mean SD Mean SD Change (α) 1RM BP Male WRT 18 93.2 15.0 98.8 14.3 5.54 <0.001 (kg) (5.95%) MRT 28 88.9 24.2 93.1 19.4 <0.001 4.13 (4.65%) Female WRT 13 31.4 5.3 39.4 5.1 8.03 0.003 (25.5%) MRT 25 30.9 6.6 35.9 7.4 4.99 <0.001 (16.1%) 1RM Male WRT 18 104.5 26.3 133.4 21.8 28.98 <0.001 (27.7%) Squat (kg) MRT 26 104.1 29.7 125.5 28.3 21.46 <0.001 (20.6%) Female WRT 13 48.7 16.4 72.2 11.0 23.55 <0.001 (48.4%) MRT 22 44.3 16.2 63.8 18.5 19.48 <0.001 (44.0%)
Muscular Endurance Pre-training test Post-training test Test Gender Group N Mean SD Mean SD Change (α) BP Reps Male WRT 18 13.1 3.4 17.6 3.3 4.50 <0.001 (34.3%) MRT 25 14.1 2.4 17.2 4.5 3.08 0.002 (21.9%) Female WRT 13 13.9 4.9 26.2 6.9 <0.001 12.31 (88.4%) MRT 22 13.8 6.0 23.2 8.6 9.36 <0.001 (67.7%) Squat Male WRT 18 17.7 10.8 34.6 15.9 16.83 <0.001 Reps (94.9%) MRT 25 15.7 6.1 28.3 10.2 12.60 <0.001 (80.3%) Female WRT 13 16.3 10.7 45.8 18.3 29.46 <0.001 (180.6%) MRT 22 15.2 12.2 37.1 16.4 21.91 <0.001 (144.3%)
Body Composition Pre-training Post-training test test Test Gender Group N Mean SD Mean SD Change (α) Sign. Body Fat Male WRT 17 21.5 7.9 20.8 7.2 0.66 0.376 (%) MRT 28 20.7 6.4 20.2 6.4 0.54 0.216 Female WRT 11 29.8 5.8 29.7 6.5 0.16 0.848 MRT 23 29.7 8.7 27.5 8.5 2.25 <0.001
Pilot Study #2 Purpose To document the physical and physiological changes in adolescents through the application of WRT and MRT programs in physical education settings Methods Participants: 342 high school students in four groups (WRT group, MRT group, MRT+cardio group, control PE) Pre-, midterm-, and post-test measurements: BMI calculations, skinfold measurements Fitnessgramm: one mile run, push-ups, curl-ups, flexed arm hang, trunk lift, modified pull-ups Training program 18 weeks, 3 sessions/week, 1:20 hour/session Identical exercises, tri-set format, hypertrophy zone
Results of Pilot Study #2 Preliminary Pre vs. Midterm-test Results No groups showed significant changes in BMI Only the MRT-Cardio group improved significantly the mile run All groups significantly improved curl-up performance All experimental groups significantly improved trunk lift performance Both MRT groups significantly improved push-up performance MRT group significantly improved flexed arm hang and pull-up performance
Results of Pilot Study #2 Pre-test Midterm-test Test Group N Mean SD N Mean SD Change (α) BMI Control 140 24.03 5.63 134 24.18 5.71 +0.15 .839 MRT 65 24.17 6.14 55 24.23 5.71 +0.06 .957 MRT Cardio 72 23.37 5.42 65 23.54 5.44 +0.17 .856 WRT 102 23.95 4.95 88 24.25 4.96 +0.30 .668 Mile run Control 140 794.42 205.33 134 852.62 246.60 +58.2 .034 MRT 65 743.84 171.05 55 689.36 164.25 -54.48 .079 MRT Cardio 72 760.53 129.86 65 697.05 148.26 -63.48 .008 WRT 102 656.80 190.05 88 618.18 146.47 -38.62 .123 Curl-up Control 140 16.94 14.48 134 24.15 17.97 +1.03 .000 MRT 65 18.44 11.86 55 37.16 18.66 +18.72 .000 MRT Cardio 72 24.28 15.88 65 43.23 22.26 +18.95 .000 WRT 102 29.95 20.37 88 42.66 25.61 +12.71 .000
Pre-test Midterm-test Test Group N Mean SD N Mean SD Change (α) Trunk lift Control 140 22.76 5.51 134 23.66 4.50 +0.9 .145 MRT 65 22.92 6.21 55 24.78 4.20 +1.86 .062 MRT Cardio 72 21.83 5.28 65 26.53 4.57 +4.7 .000 WRT 102 22.99 4.69 88 24.95 4.21 +1.96 .003 Push-up Control 140 9.94 8.49 134 11.33 7.80 +1.39 .162 MRT 65 9.29 9.26 55 15.27 9.31 +5.98 .001 MRT Cardio 72 12.19 7.67 65 16.00 8.92 +3.81 .008 WRT 102 16.48 11.04 88 16.42 11.44 -0.06 .971 Flexed arm Control 140 6.10 9.61 134 7.75 12.39 +1.65 .221 MRT 65 6.43 10.18 55 11.86 13.90 +5.43 .015 MRT Cardio 72 11.29 14.04 65 7.33 9.75 -3.96 .060 WRT 102 15.75 17.18 88 15.86 17.05 +0.11 .965 Pull-up Control 140 7.38 6.93 134 9.19 6.94 +1.81 .031 MRT 65 7.34 6.28 55 12.74 9.26 +5.4 .000 MRT Cardio 72 8.78 6.04 65 9.95 4.88 +1.17 .215 WRT 102 12.49 7.45 88 12.27 7.94 -0.22 .846
Conclusion MRT is a viable alternative to traditional resistance training MRT effectively improves muscular fitness, and to some extent cardiovascular fitness and body composition MRT is appropriate for application in school- based physical education MRT is an applicable form of exercise to improve children’s fitness and to prevent childhood obesity
References 1. Adamovich, D. R., Seidman, S. R. (1987). Strength training using MARES (manual accommodating resistance exercises). NSCA Journal, 9(3), 57-59. 2. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2001). Strength training by children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 107(6), 1740-1472. 3. American College of Sports Medicine. (2000). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (6th ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. 4. Andersen, R. E., Crespo, C., Bartlett, S., Cheskin, L., and Pratt, M. (1998). Relationship of Physical Activity and Television Watching with Body Weight and Levels of Fatness among Children. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(12), 938-942. 5. Bar-Or, O. (2003). The Juvenile Obesity Epidemic: Strike Back with Physical Activity. Sports Science Exchange, 16(2). 6. Coleman, K. J., Heath, E. M., and Alcala, I. S. (2004). Overweight and aerobic fitness in children in the United States Mexico border region. Pan American Journal of Public Health, 15(4), 262-271. 7. Crespo, C. J., and Arbesman, J. (2003). Obesity in the United States. Physician and Sportsmedicine, 31(11), 23-29. 8. Faigenbaum, A. D. (2003). Youth resistance Training. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, Research Digest, 4(3). 9. Faigenbaum, A. D. (2002). Strength training for overweight teenagers. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 24(5), 67-68. 10. Faigenbaum, A. D., Kraemer, W. J., Cahill, B., Chandler, J., Dziados, J., Elfrink, L. D., Forman, E., Gaudiose M., Micheli L., Nitka M., Roberts, S. (1996). Youth Resistance Training: Position Statement Paper and Literature Review. Strength and Conditioning, 18(6), 62 – 76.
Recommend
More recommend
