An examination of the differences between two methods of estimating energy expenditure in resistance training activities

Jesse W. Vezina, Cheryl Der Ananian, Kathryn D. Campbell, Nathanael Meckes, Barbara Ainsworth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Vezina, JW, Der Ananian, CA, Campbell, KD, Meckes, N, and Ainsworth, BE. An examination of the differences between two methods of estimating energy expenditure in resistance training activities. J Strength Cond Res 28(4): 1026-1031, 2014-To date, few studies have looked at the energy expenditure (EE) of individual resistance training (RT) exercises. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the EE of 4 modes of RT (pushups, curl-ups, pull-ups, and lunges) using 2 different calculation methods for estimating EE. Twelve healthy men with a minimum of 1 year of RT experience were randomly assigned to an RT circuit. Each circuit contained the 4 RT exercises in a specified order. The participants completed 3 trials of their assigned circuit during one visit to the laboratory. Oxygen consumption was measured continuously throughout the trial using indirect calorimetry. Two different calculation methods were applied to estimate EE. Using the traditional method (TEC), we estimated EE by calculating the average oxygen consumption recorded during each activity. Using the second, nontraditional method (NEC), we estimated EE by calculating the average oxygen consumption recorded during the recovery period. Independent T-tests were used to evaluate mean EE differences between the 2 methods. Estimates of EE obtained from the NEC were significantly higher for all the 4 activities (p < 0.001). Using the NEC, 3 of the 4 activities were classified as vigorous intensity (push-ups: 6.91 metabolic equivalents (METs); lunges: 7.52 METs; and pull-ups: 8.03 METs), whereas none were classified as vigorous using the TEC. Findings suggest that the methods we use to calculate the EE of anaerobic activities significantly affect EE estimates. Using the TEC may underestimate actual EE of anaerobic activities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1026-1031
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Volume28
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Resistance Training
Energy Metabolism
Teaching
Metabolic Equivalent
Oxygen Consumption
Exercise
Indirect Calorimetry

Keywords

  • Metabolic equivalent
  • Physical activity
  • Strength

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

An examination of the differences between two methods of estimating energy expenditure in resistance training activities. / Vezina, Jesse W.; Der Ananian, Cheryl; Campbell, Kathryn D.; Meckes, Nathanael; Ainsworth, Barbara.

In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2014, p. 1026-1031.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Vezina, Jesse W. ; Der Ananian, Cheryl ; Campbell, Kathryn D. ; Meckes, Nathanael ; Ainsworth, Barbara. / An examination of the differences between two methods of estimating energy expenditure in resistance training activities. In: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2014 ; Vol. 28, No. 4. pp. 1026-1031.
@article{79beef3ab55749a0bcdd47355b21cd03,
title = "An examination of the differences between two methods of estimating energy expenditure in resistance training activities",
abstract = "Vezina, JW, Der Ananian, CA, Campbell, KD, Meckes, N, and Ainsworth, BE. An examination of the differences between two methods of estimating energy expenditure in resistance training activities. J Strength Cond Res 28(4): 1026-1031, 2014-To date, few studies have looked at the energy expenditure (EE) of individual resistance training (RT) exercises. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the EE of 4 modes of RT (pushups, curl-ups, pull-ups, and lunges) using 2 different calculation methods for estimating EE. Twelve healthy men with a minimum of 1 year of RT experience were randomly assigned to an RT circuit. Each circuit contained the 4 RT exercises in a specified order. The participants completed 3 trials of their assigned circuit during one visit to the laboratory. Oxygen consumption was measured continuously throughout the trial using indirect calorimetry. Two different calculation methods were applied to estimate EE. Using the traditional method (TEC), we estimated EE by calculating the average oxygen consumption recorded during each activity. Using the second, nontraditional method (NEC), we estimated EE by calculating the average oxygen consumption recorded during the recovery period. Independent T-tests were used to evaluate mean EE differences between the 2 methods. Estimates of EE obtained from the NEC were significantly higher for all the 4 activities (p < 0.001). Using the NEC, 3 of the 4 activities were classified as vigorous intensity (push-ups: 6.91 metabolic equivalents (METs); lunges: 7.52 METs; and pull-ups: 8.03 METs), whereas none were classified as vigorous using the TEC. Findings suggest that the methods we use to calculate the EE of anaerobic activities significantly affect EE estimates. Using the TEC may underestimate actual EE of anaerobic activities.",
keywords = "Metabolic equivalent, Physical activity, Strength",
author = "Vezina, {Jesse W.} and {Der Ananian}, Cheryl and Campbell, {Kathryn D.} and Nathanael Meckes and Barbara Ainsworth",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0000000000000375",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1026--1031",
journal = "Strength and Conditioning Journal",
issn = "1524-1602",
publisher = "NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An examination of the differences between two methods of estimating energy expenditure in resistance training activities

AU - Vezina, Jesse W.

AU - Der Ananian, Cheryl

AU - Campbell, Kathryn D.

AU - Meckes, Nathanael

AU - Ainsworth, Barbara

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Vezina, JW, Der Ananian, CA, Campbell, KD, Meckes, N, and Ainsworth, BE. An examination of the differences between two methods of estimating energy expenditure in resistance training activities. J Strength Cond Res 28(4): 1026-1031, 2014-To date, few studies have looked at the energy expenditure (EE) of individual resistance training (RT) exercises. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the EE of 4 modes of RT (pushups, curl-ups, pull-ups, and lunges) using 2 different calculation methods for estimating EE. Twelve healthy men with a minimum of 1 year of RT experience were randomly assigned to an RT circuit. Each circuit contained the 4 RT exercises in a specified order. The participants completed 3 trials of their assigned circuit during one visit to the laboratory. Oxygen consumption was measured continuously throughout the trial using indirect calorimetry. Two different calculation methods were applied to estimate EE. Using the traditional method (TEC), we estimated EE by calculating the average oxygen consumption recorded during each activity. Using the second, nontraditional method (NEC), we estimated EE by calculating the average oxygen consumption recorded during the recovery period. Independent T-tests were used to evaluate mean EE differences between the 2 methods. Estimates of EE obtained from the NEC were significantly higher for all the 4 activities (p < 0.001). Using the NEC, 3 of the 4 activities were classified as vigorous intensity (push-ups: 6.91 metabolic equivalents (METs); lunges: 7.52 METs; and pull-ups: 8.03 METs), whereas none were classified as vigorous using the TEC. Findings suggest that the methods we use to calculate the EE of anaerobic activities significantly affect EE estimates. Using the TEC may underestimate actual EE of anaerobic activities.

AB - Vezina, JW, Der Ananian, CA, Campbell, KD, Meckes, N, and Ainsworth, BE. An examination of the differences between two methods of estimating energy expenditure in resistance training activities. J Strength Cond Res 28(4): 1026-1031, 2014-To date, few studies have looked at the energy expenditure (EE) of individual resistance training (RT) exercises. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the EE of 4 modes of RT (pushups, curl-ups, pull-ups, and lunges) using 2 different calculation methods for estimating EE. Twelve healthy men with a minimum of 1 year of RT experience were randomly assigned to an RT circuit. Each circuit contained the 4 RT exercises in a specified order. The participants completed 3 trials of their assigned circuit during one visit to the laboratory. Oxygen consumption was measured continuously throughout the trial using indirect calorimetry. Two different calculation methods were applied to estimate EE. Using the traditional method (TEC), we estimated EE by calculating the average oxygen consumption recorded during each activity. Using the second, nontraditional method (NEC), we estimated EE by calculating the average oxygen consumption recorded during the recovery period. Independent T-tests were used to evaluate mean EE differences between the 2 methods. Estimates of EE obtained from the NEC were significantly higher for all the 4 activities (p < 0.001). Using the NEC, 3 of the 4 activities were classified as vigorous intensity (push-ups: 6.91 metabolic equivalents (METs); lunges: 7.52 METs; and pull-ups: 8.03 METs), whereas none were classified as vigorous using the TEC. Findings suggest that the methods we use to calculate the EE of anaerobic activities significantly affect EE estimates. Using the TEC may underestimate actual EE of anaerobic activities.

KW - Metabolic equivalent

KW - Physical activity

KW - Strength

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84898415416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84898415416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000375

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000375

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 1026

EP - 1031

JO - Strength and Conditioning Journal

JF - Strength and Conditioning Journal

SN - 1524-1602

IS - 4

ER -