Post-exercise metabolic response to kettlebell complexes vs. high intensity functional training.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
Robert E Sturdy, Todd A Astorino
{"title":"Post-exercise metabolic response to kettlebell complexes vs. high intensity functional training.","authors":"Robert E Sturdy, Todd A Astorino","doi":"10.1007/s00421-024-05579-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared the magnitude of excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) between kettlebell complexes (KC) and high-intensity functional training (HIFT) and identified predictors of the EPOC response.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Active men (n = 11) and women (n = 10) (age 25 ± 6 yr) initially completed testing of resting energy expenditure and maximal oxygen uptake (VO<sub>2</sub>max), followed by lower and upper-body muscle endurance testing. On two subsequent days separated by ≥ 48 h, participants completed KC requiring 6 sets of kettlebell exercises (pushups, deadlifts, goblet squats, rows, and swings) with 60 s recovery between sets, and HIFT requiring 6 sets of bodyweight exercises (mountain climbers, jump squats, pushups, and air squats) with 60 s recovery. During exercise, gas exchange data and blood lactate concentration (BLa) were acquired and post-exercise, EPOC was assessed for 60 min.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed no difference in EPOC (10.7 ± 4.5 vs. 11.6 ± 2.7 L, p = 0.37), and VO<sub>2</sub> and ventilation (V<sub>E</sub>) were significantly elevated for 30 and 60 min post-exercise in response to KC and HIFT. For KC and HIFT, HRmean and post-exercise BLa (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.37) and post-exercise BLa and V<sub>E</sub> (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.52) explained the greatest shared variance of EPOC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>KC and HIFT elicit similar EPOC and elevation in VO<sub>2</sub> which is sustained for 30-60 min post-exercise, leading to 55 extra calories expended. Results show no association between aerobic fitness and EPOC, although significant associations were revealed for mean HR as well as post-exercise V<sub>E</sub> and BLa.</p>","PeriodicalId":12005,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Applied Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-024-05579-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared the magnitude of excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) between kettlebell complexes (KC) and high-intensity functional training (HIFT) and identified predictors of the EPOC response.

Methods: Active men (n = 11) and women (n = 10) (age 25 ± 6 yr) initially completed testing of resting energy expenditure and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), followed by lower and upper-body muscle endurance testing. On two subsequent days separated by ≥ 48 h, participants completed KC requiring 6 sets of kettlebell exercises (pushups, deadlifts, goblet squats, rows, and swings) with 60 s recovery between sets, and HIFT requiring 6 sets of bodyweight exercises (mountain climbers, jump squats, pushups, and air squats) with 60 s recovery. During exercise, gas exchange data and blood lactate concentration (BLa) were acquired and post-exercise, EPOC was assessed for 60 min.

Results: Results showed no difference in EPOC (10.7 ± 4.5 vs. 11.6 ± 2.7 L, p = 0.37), and VO2 and ventilation (VE) were significantly elevated for 30 and 60 min post-exercise in response to KC and HIFT. For KC and HIFT, HRmean and post-exercise BLa (R2 = 0.37) and post-exercise BLa and VE (R2 = 0.52) explained the greatest shared variance of EPOC.

Conclusion: KC and HIFT elicit similar EPOC and elevation in VO2 which is sustained for 30-60 min post-exercise, leading to 55 extra calories expended. Results show no association between aerobic fitness and EPOC, although significant associations were revealed for mean HR as well as post-exercise VE and BLa.

Abstract Image

壶铃综合训练与高强度功能训练的运动后代谢反应。
目的:本研究比较了壶铃复合训练(KC)和高强度功能训练(HIFT)的运动后超量耗氧量(EPOC)的大小,并确定了EPOC反应的预测因素:活跃的男性(n = 11)和女性(n = 10)(年龄为 25 ± 6 岁)首先完成静息能量消耗和最大摄氧量(VO2max)测试,然后进行上下肢肌肉耐力测试。在随后相隔≥ 48 小时的两天里,参与者完成了 KC 和 HIFT 测试,前者要求进行 6 组壶铃运动(俯卧撑、负重举重、高脚杯深蹲、划船和挥杆),每组之间恢复 60 秒;后者要求进行 6 组负重运动(爬山、跳蹲、俯卧撑和空中深蹲),每组之间恢复 60 秒。运动过程中采集气体交换数据和血液乳酸浓度(BLa),运动后 60 分钟评估 EPOC:结果表明,EPOC(10.7 ± 4.5 与 11.6 ± 2.7 L,p = 0.37)与 KC 和 HIFT 无差异,运动后 30 分钟和 60 分钟的 VO2 和通气量(VE)显著增加。对于 KC 和 HIFT,心率平均值和运动后 BLa(R2 = 0.37)以及运动后 BLa 和 VE(R2 = 0.52)解释了 EPOC 的最大共享方差:结论:KC 和 HIFT 可引起相似的 EPOC 和 VO2 升高,这种升高可在运动后持续 30-60 分钟,从而额外消耗 55 卡路里。结果显示,有氧体能与 EPOC 之间没有关联,但平均心率以及运动后 VE 和 BLa 之间存在显著关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
227
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Applied Physiology (EJAP) aims to promote mechanistic advances in human integrative and translational physiology. Physiology is viewed broadly, having overlapping context with related disciplines such as biomechanics, biochemistry, endocrinology, ergonomics, immunology, motor control, and nutrition. EJAP welcomes studies dealing with physical exercise, training and performance. Studies addressing physiological mechanisms are preferred over descriptive studies. Papers dealing with animal models or pathophysiological conditions are not excluded from consideration, but must be clearly relevant to human physiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信