Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity: age and gender comparisons.
Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity: age and gender comparisons.
复制标题
力量训练对静息代谢率和体力活动的影响：年龄和性别比较。
DOI：
10.1097/00005768-200104000-00005
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Hurley,BF
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lemmer,JT;Ivey,FM;Ryan,AS;Martel,GF;Hurlbut,DE;Metter,JE;Fozard,JL;Fleg,JL;Hurley,BF
LEMMER、JT、FM IVEY、AS RYAN、GF MARTEL、DE HURLBUT、JE METTER、JL FOZARD、JL FLEG 和 BF HURLEY。力量训练对静息代谢率和体力活动的影响：年龄和性别比较。医学。科学。体育锻炼，卷。 33，第 4 期，2001 年，第 532-541 页。目的本研究的目的是比较力量训练 (ST) 对静息代谢率 (RMR)、体力活动能量消耗 (EEPA) 和身体成分的年龄和性别影响。方法在 10 名年轻男性（20-30 岁）、9 名年轻女性（20-30 岁）进行 24 周 ST 之前和之后测量 RMR 和 EEPA岁）、11 名老年男性（65-75 岁）和 10 名老年女性（65-75 岁）。结果当所有受试者合并在一起时，绝对 RMR 显着增加了 7%（5928 1225 vs 6328 1336 kJ·d-1，P < 0.001）。此外，ST 使年轻受试者（6302 1458 vs 6719 1617 kJ·d-1，P < 0.01）和老年受试者（5614 916 vs 5999 973 kJ·d-1，P < 0.05）的绝对 RMR 增加了 7%，两个年龄组之间没有显着交互作用。相比之下，绝对RMR存在显着的性别时间交互作用（P<0.05），男性RMR增加9%（6645 1073 vs 7237 1150 kJ·d-1，P < 0.001），而女性则没有显着增加（5170 884 vs 5366 692 kJ·d-1，P < 0.108）。当使用 ANCOVA 调整 RMR 以适应无脂肪体重 (FFM) 时，所有受试者集中在一起，ST 的 RMR 仍然显着增加。此外，仍然存在性别效应（P < 0.05），并且没有显着的年龄效应（PNS），只有男性的 RMR 仍然显着升高。此外，使用 Tritrac 加速度计估算的 EEPA 和 TEE 以及通过斯坦福七日体力活动回忆问卷估算的 TEE 并未因任何组的 ST 发生变化。结论 总之，绝对和相对 RMR 随 ST 的变化受性别影响，但不受年龄影响。与之前的建议相反，ST 引起的身体成分变化并不是由于训练之外身体活动的变化造成的。关键词：阻力训练、重量训练、代谢效应
LEMMER, JT, FM IVEY, AS RYAN, GF MARTEL, DE HURLBUT, JE METTER, JL FOZARD, JL FLEG, and BF HURLEY. Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity: age and gender comparisons. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 33, No. 4, 2001, pp. 532–541.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare age and gender effects of strength training (ST) on resting metabolic rate (RMR), energy expenditure of physical activity (EEPA), and body composition.MethodsRMR and EEPA were measured before and after 24 wk of ST in 10 young men (20-30 yr), 9 young women (20-30 yr), 11 older men (65-75 yr), and 10 older women (65-75 yr).ResultsWhen all subjects were pooled together, absolute RMR significantly increased by 7%(5928 1225 vs 6328 1336 kJ· d-1, P 0.001). Furthermore, ST increased absolute RMR by 7% in both young (6302 1458 vs 6719 1617 kJ· d-1, P 0.01) and older (5614 916 vs 5999 973 kJ· d-1, P 0.05) subjects, with no significant interaction between the two age groups. In contrast, there was a significant gender time interaction (P 0.05) for absolute RMR with men increasing RMR by 9%(6645 1073 vs 7237 1150 kJ· d-1, P 0.001), whereas women showed no significant increase (5170 884 vs 5366 692 kJ· d-1, P 0.108). When RMR was adjusted for fat-free mass (FFM) using ANCOVA, with all subjects pooled together, there was still a significant increase in RMR with ST. Additionally, there was still a gender effect (P 0.05) and no significant age effect (P NS), with only the men still showing a significant elevation in RMR. Moreover, EEPA and TEE estimated with a Tritrac accelerometer and TEE estimated by the Stanford Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire did not change in response to ST for any group.ConclusionsIn conclusion, changes in absolute and relative RMR in response to ST are influenced by gender but not age. In contrast to what has been suggested previously, changes in body composition in response to ST are not due to changes in physical activity outside of training. Key Words: RESISTANCE TRAINING, WEIGHT TRAINING, METABOLIC EFFECTS