TRAINING AND DETRAINING EFFECTS OF THE RESISTANCE VS.

ENDURANCE PROGRAM ON BODY COMPOSITION, BODY SIZE, AND PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE IN YOUNG MEN
MICHAEL S. LO,1 LINDA L. C. LIN,2 WEI-JEN YAO,3
1

AND

MI-CHIA MA4

Ofce of Physical Education, Kun Shan University, Tainan, Taiwan; 2Graduate Institute of Physical Education, Health and Leisure Studies, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan; 3Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan; and 4Department of Statistics National, Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

ABSTRACT
Lo, MS, Lin, LLC, Yao, W-J, and Ma, M-C. Training and detraining effects of the resistance vs. endurance program on body composition, body size, and physical performance in young men. J Strength Cond Res 25(8): 22462254, 2011The purpose of this study was to investigate the changes in the _ O2max body composition, body size, muscle strength, and V after 24 weeks of resistance or endurance training and detraining in young men. Thirty healthy college-aged men (20.4 6 1.36 years) participated in the study. Subjects were assigned to resistance training group (RTG, n = 10), endurance training group (ETG, n = 10), and control group (CG, n = 10). The training program consisted of running or weight-resistance _ O2max, exercise for 3 sessions per week under supervision. V upper and lower body strength (UBS, LBS), body fat, lean body mass, and body circumference were measured at baseline and after training and detraining. After the training period, the _ O2max exercise groups demonstrated signicant increases in V and LBS (p , 0.05). The UBS, lean mass (LM), and body size of arm and calf were signicantly greater in the RTG than in the other 2 groups (p,0.05). In addition, the strength and LM of the RTG were still greater than the baseline values after 24 weeks of detraining (p , 0.05). The conclusions of this study are (a) that endurance or resistance training alone led to trainingspecic improvements in physical performance, body composition, and body size of the arms for the young men examined and (b) that the RTG maintained the gains in strength and LM

for more prolonged periods after training ceased than the endurance training group.

KEY WORDS lean body mass, body fat, muscle strength,

maximal oxygen consumption, body circumference

INTRODUCTION

Address correspondence to Linda L.C. Lin, lin22@mail.ncku.edu.tw. All authors had reviewed and agreed to the submission of the manuscript. 25(8)/22462254 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association

eight control is an important issue for health promotion and early intervention in disease prevention (20). The transition from adolescence to young adulthood is associated with a sharp weight gain because of declining physical activity and changes in eating behavior (25). This makes weight control a high priority for young adults with regard to preventing cardiovascular diseases later in life (20). Moreover, teaching young men to maintain an appropriate amount of fat percentage and regional body size, increase strength and have better cardiovascular function can not only promote health but also lead to a greater understanding of healthy behavior (25). In this respect, a key element is regular physical activity, which is strongly associated with controlling total body weight because of the increased energy expenditure involved (6). Resistance and endurance training has long been known to increase functional abilities and health status, primarily by changing body composition (26,32) and physical performance (3,7). Moreover, both types of training can induce alterations in whole-body lean mass (LM) and fat mass (FM), which also correspond to improved health and tness (26). Resistance training increases fat-free mass (FFM) and the respiratory exchange ratio (2), decreases total FM, and substantially increases both upper and lower body strengths (UBS, LBS [2,17,39]). In contrast, endurance training changes body composition significantly (30) and induces increases in maximal oxygen uptake and metabolic adaptations that lead to an increase in exercise capacity (21,33). Although endurance training often does not signicantly increase muscle mass, aerobic endurance training may be more effective in increasing peak oxygen consumption than anaerobic resistance training (11,40).

2246

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

However, not much research has been conducted on the effects of detraining adaptations with regard to different training modes and physical performance (28), although a number of recent studies focused on detraining have been based on a program of combined resistance and endurance training (4,8,3537). Moreover, although numerous studies have also focused on obese subjects or seniors (2,8,27,37,39,40), less is known concerning changes in body weight with regard to intervention research focusing on young men (25), particularly comparing the responses to resistance vs. endurance training (28,31). This lack of research attention is despite the current high prevalence of overweight young adults (25), and thus our aim is to investigate which form of exercise training would better assist young men in maintaining better body composition and increase their physical performance. Moreover, despite the lack of research, it is widely considered important for young men to regularly engage in both resistance and endurance training and for those who are currently at a healthy weight to strive to maintain it, because both these factors are associated with a signicantly decreased risk of disease. To address this topic, we hypothesized that endurance and resistance training would have different body composition adaptations for different regions of the body in young men. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate changes in the body composition, body size, muscle strength, _ O2max of untrained young men during training and and V detraining in response to resistance and endurance programs.

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

HRrest) (18). All exercise training was performed in the evening at the National Cheng Kung University tness center.
Subjects

Thirty-four healthy nonathletic male students with a mean age of 20.4 6 1.36 who had not been exercising regularly for the past year volunteered to participate in the study in January 2007. Four subjects were later asked to cease training because they missed more than 6 training sessions. Subjects were randomly assigned to their exercise groups (control group [CG; n = 10], endurance training group [ETG; n = 10], and resistance training [RTG; n = 10]). Subjects trained under supervision 3 times a week for 24 weeks and then underwent a 24-week detraining period in which no exercise training was allowed. Subjects physical characteristics are presented in Table 1. There were no signicant differences among the groups with respect to age, body composition, and physical activity level at baseline. All subjects were asked to complete a detailed medical history form and a health examination survey, received a complete explanation of the purpose, risks, and procedures of the study, and a written consent form was given to all of them to read and sign before participating in the research. All subjects were nonsmokers and free of signicant cardiovascular, metabolic, and musculoskeletal disorders. The aims and protocols of this project were approved by the National Cheng Kung University Hospital Human Experimentation Committee.
Procedures

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem

To test the hypothesis presented above, the independent variables were endurance and resistance training, and the dependent variables were body composition, body circum_ O2max), and muscle ferences, cardiorespiratory tness (V strength (1RM). Subjects were randomly assigned to either the control, resistance, or endurance groups. Subjects trained 3 times a week for 24 weeks, and the changes between the groups were investigated. There then followed a 24-week period of detraining, and the physical changes in the subjects were also observed. All dependent variables were measured following the balanced order principle during pretraining, posttraining, and after 24 weeks of detraining. The internal reliability (Cronbachs alpha) of the dependent variables was found to range from 0.68 to 0.99. All body composition and size measurements were taken in the morning on an empty stomach, and strength and cardiovascular tness were tested 1 hour after breakfast. To avoid any residual fatigue induced by recent exercise, all subjects were informed not to do any strenuous training 2 days before the test. The resistance group performed 10 resistance exercises (SportsArt tness, Tainan, Taiwan) at 3 different intensities. The endurance group performed a 30-minute run on a treadmill machine (T630, SportsArt tness), maintained at an intensity of 70 85% heart rate (HR) reserve ([(HRmax 2 HRrest) 3 0.7] +

Body Composition. Body fat percentages were estimated with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (GE Lunar Prodigy, Madison, WI, USA) at the National Cheng Kung University Hospital. Subjects were positioned on the scanner table, and total body cuts were positioned as per the manufacturers standard specications. Total body LM, FM, and regional fat mass of the total body, trunk, arms, and legs were analyzed by using enCore software (version 6.10.029; GE Lunar Corp, Madison, WI, USA) to calculate the percentage of total body fat. Body Circumferences. Body girth was measured on the right side of the body at 5 sites (arm, abdomen, hips [buttocks], thigh, and waist) using a exible yet inelastic tape. Measurement sites were rotated for retesting to allow time for the skin to regain normal texture (10). A further measurement at each site was taken and retested if duplicate measurements were not within 5 mm. Our data show excellent internal consistency (coefcient alpha = 0.95), and testretest reliability shows a range from 0.82 to 0.92. _ O2max and HRmax were Cardiorespiratory Fitness. The V determined at baseline in a graded exercise test using a modied version of the Bruce protocol on a treadmill (Quinton 65) to determine the tness level of the subjects (10). The AeroSport KB1-C (Model 21, AeroSport, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, USA) portable metabolic gas analyzer was used to
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2011 |

2247

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Training and Detraining Effects of the Resistance Vs. Endurance Program

6 1.40 6 4.44 171.2 6 4.61 171.4 6 4.20 6 8.91 63.4 6 8.10 64.6 6 8.73 6 3.46 21.7 6 3.36 22.02 6 3.00 6 7.70 196.2 6 9.16 198.8 6 7.00

Resistance (n = 10)

Training

Detraining

Figure 1. Please Provide citation.

Baseline

20.2 4.57 173.5 6 4.60 170.7 8.66 69.1 6 8.57 65.0 2.34 22.9 6 2.29 22.4 7.45 198.2 6 4.64 200.3

_ O2, carbon dioxide production (V _ CO2), minute measure V _ ventilation (VE), and HR with breathing by breath analysis (averaged every 20 seconds) during the testing procedure. Strength Testing. All subjects were given standardized instructions and had several trials to familiarize themselves with the proper use of the resistance machines before the strength test to help prevent injuries. Because the subjects had never undertaken strength training before, and to further ensure their safety, a program of submaximum repetitions-to -fatigue was implemented using seated chest press (UBS) and knee extension (LBS) resistance machines (SportsArt, A915 and A957) to predict their 1RM (1). Exercise Intervention. The resistance training group (RTG) underwent gradually progressive, supervised strength training 3 times a week with at least 48 hours of rest between the training sessions for 24 weeks. Five minutes of brisk walking on the treadmill before resistance training and a whole body stretch before and after training were employed. Subjects exercised on selected resistance machines (SportsArt tness) to focus on 10 major muscle groups in the following order: seated chest press, lat pull down, seated shoulder press, seated biceps curl, seated triceps extension, seated leg extension, lying leg curl, seated back extension, seated abdominal curl, and standing calf raise. Subjects performed at a weight that they could lift easily in a circuit training workout of 15
*BMI = body mass index. Values are given as mean 6 SD.

Endurance (n = 10)

TABLE 1. Physical characteristics and physical activity levels of the subjects in each group.*

Training Variable Baseline Training Detraining Baseline

Detraining Control (n = 10)

Age (y) 21.1 6 1.66 20.0 6 0.67 Height (cm) 173.0 6 5.56 173.3 6 5.64 173.3 6 5.01 173.4 6 4.61 173.3 6 Weight (kg) 67.2 6 10.66 67.7 6 11.23 68.4 6 12.41 68.9 6 7.90 67.2 6 BMI (kgm22) 22.6 6 4.56 22.7 6 4.82 22.9 6 5.08 22.9 6 2.02 22.3 6 HRmax (bmin21) 192.6 6 12.76 192.1 6 10.09 196.1 6 7.37 199.8 6 7.36 195.1 6

Figure 2. Please Provide citation.

2248

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

(810) monitor was used to monitor the HR. Subjects in the CG were instructed to continue their habitual physical activities and reminded not to do any extra exercise during the course of the study.

Statistical Analyses

Figure 3. Please Provide citation.

repetitions for the rst 8 weeks, then 1 set at 75% of 1RM for 10 repetitions for the next 8 weeks, and 2 sets at 90% 1RM for 4 repetitions thereafter. The weight lifted was increased by 5% when subjects could perform the last repetition with ease and good form. The ETG exercised with a 30-minute run on a treadmill machine (SportsArt tness, T630), maintained at an intensity of 7085% HR reserve ([(HRmax 2 HRrest) 3 0.7] + HRrest) (10) 3 times a week for 24 weeks. A Polar HR

Data analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 13.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Baseline measures were presented as means and SDs. The comparisons of the means among 3 groups were evaluated by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was used to simultaneously test the differences of several measurements among 3 groups at 3 different times. When Wilks lambda values were signicant in MANOVA, 1-way ANOVA was used on physical characteristics (body composition and body _ O2max to determine whether the size), strength, and V training programs had any effects. In addition, Scheffes post hoc tests were used to nd which 2 groups had signicant differences. All tests were 2 tailed, and a p value # 0.05 was considered to be signicant. To complement the use of

TABLE 2. Changes in the body sizes of the subjects during baseline, training, and detraining.* Variable Baseline (0 wk) 0.05 0.04 0.04 Training (24 wks) 0.8 6 0.08 0.8 6 0.04 0.8 6 0.04 Change (024 wks) 20.01 6 0.03 20.03 6 0.07 20.01 6 0.02 0.67 6 3.71 20.53 6 2.13 0.28 6 2.61 2.3 6 3.04 1.0 6 5.00 0.9 6 2.49 0.5 6 1.78 20.4 6 1.07 1.9 6 1.76{# 1.3 6 2.53 1.1 6 1.80 2.4 6 2.51 Detraining (48 wks) 0.8 6 0.03 0.8 6 0.03 0.8 6 0.03 Change (2448 wks) 0.01 6 0.02 0.01 6 0.03 0.01 6 0.03 Change (048 wks) 0.01 6 0.03 20.03 6 0.09 0.01 6 0.03 0.56 6 3.81 1.10 6 2.45 0.50 6 3.33 1.7 6 3.06 2.4 6 4.12 0.1 6 2.12 0.5 6 1.0 0.1 6 1.62 0.4 6 1.35 4.8 6 3.79 4.6 6 2.70 3.8 6 2.18

Waisthip ratio Control 0.8 6 Endurance 0.8 6 Resistance 0.8 6 Waist (cm) Control 76.2 6 Endurance 77.1 6 Resistance 74.0 6 Hip (cm) Control 96.1 6 Endurance 94.4 6 Resistance 93.6 6 Upper arm (cm) Control 28.1 6 Endurance 29.2 6 Resistance 27.4 6 Thigh (cm) Control 55.2 6 Endurance 55.7 6 Resistance 53.5 6

9.16 77.0 6 8.81 6.20 76.6 6 6.56 5.81 75.0 6 5.43 7.53 98.4 6 8.10 3.31 95.4 6 6.45 4.23 95.1 6 4.96 3.80 28.6 6 4.28 1.85 28.7 6 2.06 3.27 29.7 6 3.46k 6.06 56.5 6 4.76 2.87 56.8 6 3.25 4.37 56.3 6 4.10

77.2 6 9.94 20.11 6 1.62 78.2 6 6.61 1.63 6 2.13 74.9 6 5.25 20.11 6 3.30 97.8 6 9.33 96. 8 6 5.14 93.87 6 3.84 28.6 6 3.90 29.3 6 2.90 27.8 6 3.57 60.0 6 6.90 60.3 6 4.51 57.3 6 4.24 20.6 6 2.35 1.4 6 2.71 20.9 6 3.27 0.2 6 0.920 0.56 6 1.69 21.4 6 1.49{# 3.6 6 3.03 3.4 6 2.30 1.56 6 2.80

*Values are given as mean 6 SD. Signicant difference from the resistance group (p , 0.05). The change is a signicant difference from the resistance group (p , 0.05) Signicant difference from the control (p , 0.05). kSignicant difference from the endurance training group (p , 0.05) {The change is a signicant difference from the control group (p , 0.05) #The change is a signicant difference from the endurance training group (p , 0.05).

VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2011 |

2249

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

2250

Training and Detraining Effects of the Resistance Vs. Endurance Program

TABLE 3. Changes in the body composition of the subjects during training and detraining.* Variable Baseline (0 wk) Training (24 wks) 22.3 6 9.67 19.4 6 6.30 16.4 6 7.03 48.77 6 3.259 50.91 6 3.567 50.77 6 3.279k 15.78 6 10.049 13.52 6 5.928 11.00 6 5.990 19.4 6 10.47 15.4 6 6.19 12.4 6 6.69 5.9 6 0.63 6.3 6 0.55 6.5 6 0.63k 1.7 6 1.38 1.3 6 0.70 1.0 6 0.70 22.6 6 8.84 19.8 6 4.71 17.9 6 6.86 17.9 6 1.40 18.60 6 1.50 18.3 6 1.41 6.0 6 3.91 5.0 6 1.72 4. 5 6 2.29 Change (024 wks) 1.1 6 3.01 20.6 6 3.29 20.4 6 1.99 20.421 6 0.588 20.552 6 0.472 0.308 6 1.590{# 1.00 6 2.470 20.452 6 2.973 20.219 6 1.565 0.4 6 3.00 20.6 6 2.98 20.9 6 1.58 20.1 6 0.34 20.1 6 0.16 0.4 6 0.29{# 0.1 6 0.32 20.1 6 0.30 20.02 6 0.13 1.1 6 3.10 20.3 6 2.73 0.1 6 2.03 0.0.2 6 0.70 20.4 6 0.47 0.02 6 0.60 0.5 6 1.01 20.2 6 0.90 0.04 6 0.59 Detraining (48 wks) 23.0 6 10.20 21.0 6 6.36 18.4 6 6.99 48.83 6 3.065 51.38 6 3.444 49.82 6 3.453 16.68 6 10.985 14.95 6 5.958 12.43 6 6.267 20.4 6 10.97 17.4 6 6.34 15.1 6 7.53 6.0 6 0.51 6.4 6 0.44 6.3 6 0.54 1.8 6 1.45 1.5 6 0.72 1.3 6 0.84 23.2 6 9.29 21.3 6 5.39 19.6 6 6.99 17.7 6 1.44 18. 8 6 1.43 18.0 6 1.40 6.2 6 4.05 5.6 6 1.98 4.9 6 2.49 Change (2448 wks) 0.7 6 1.23 1.6 6 1.57 2.1 6 2.74 0.057 6 0.979 0.470 6 1.430 20.950 6 1.065{# 0.89 6 1.407 1.43 6 1.338 0.142 6 2.440 1.0 6 1.50 2.0 6 1.47 2.7 6 2.63 0.1 6 0.27 0.2 6 0.20 20.2 6 0.22{# 0.1 6 0.19 0.2 6 0.15 0.2 6 0.31 0.7 6 1.20 1.6 6 1.37 1.6 6 2.83 20.2 6 0.77 0.2 6 0.77 20.3 6 0.54 0.2 6 0.41 0.6 6 0.45 0.4 6 0.93 Change (048 wks) 1.9 6 3.23 1.0 6 2.89 1.7 6 3.40 2141.1 6 1,285.29 2364.7 6 1,158.01 281.6 6 1,327.00{# 1.9 6 3.13 1.0 6 2.42 1.2 6 2.87 1.4 6 3.61 1.3 6 2.75 1.8 6 2.74 0.1 6 0.28 0.1 6 0.12 0.2 6 0.32{# 0.2 6 0.40 0.2 6 0.29 0.2 6 0.31 1.7 6 3.28 1.3 6 2.57 1.7 6 3.46 20.2 6 0.61 20.2 6 0.60 20.3 6 0.70 0.6 6 1.19 0.4 6 0.83 0.5 6 1.07

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

Total fat (%) Control 21.1 6 8.80 Endurance 20.0 6 5.59 Resistance 16.7 6 7.55 Total lean (kg) Control 49.19 6 3.463 Endurance 51.46 6 3.229 Resistance 50.46 6 3.973 Total fat (kg) Control 14.78 6 9.088 Endurance 13.98 6 5.156 Resistance 11.22 6 6.449 Arm fat Control 19.0 6 10.02 Endurance 16.0 6 5.23 Resistance 13.3 6 7.40 Arm lean mass (kg) Control 5.9 6 0.65 Endurance 6.3 6 0.45 Resistance 6.1 6 0.62 Arm fat (kg) Control 1.6 6 1.22 Endurance 1.3 6 0.57 Resistance 1.0 6 0.74 Leg fat Control 21.5 6 8.33 Endurance 20.1 6 4.48 Resistance 17.9 6 7.24 Leg lean mass (kg) Control 17.9 6 1.43 Endurance 19.0 6 1.41 Resistance 18. 3 6 1.54 Leg fat (kg) Control 5.5 6 3.36 Endurance 5.2 6 1.57 Resistance 4.4 6 2.417

TM

*Values are given as mean 6 SD. Signicant difference from the resistance group (p , 0.05). The change is a signicant difference from the resistance group (p , 0.05). Signicant difference from the endurance training group. kSignicant difference from the control group. {The change is a signicant difference from the control group (p , 0.05). #The change is a signicant difference from the endurance training group (p , 0.05).

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

signicance testing, estimates of effect size (partial etasquares, h2) were provided for group comparison.

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

RESULTS
Table 1 shows the physical characteristics for each group and the variables between baselines. Baseline characteristics of the subjects in 3 groups did not differ signicantly. After 24 weeks of exercise training, the weight of the ETG and RTG continued to decrease (3%, 2%) but rose again after detraining, although there were no signicant differences between groups. As shown in Figure 1 for the cardiorespiratory exercise test, _ O2max by 17% and RTG by 12%. the ETG improved their V _ The results for VO2max from both the ETG and RTG were signicantly higher than for the CG after training and detraining (F[2,81] = 7.48, p = 0.001, partial h2 = 0.156), but there were no signicant differences between the 2 experimental groups. Figure 2 shows the RTG improved signicantly more in UBS (32%) than in the ETG (6%) and in the CG (6%) after training (F[2,81] = 8.0201, p = 0.001, partial h2 = 0.165). Moreover, although after detraining, the UBS of the RTG decreased, it still remained better than the baseline strength. Figure 3 shows the LBS in the RTG increased signicantly more (71%) than in both the ETG (12%) and CG (22%) (F[2,81] = 9.14, p ,0.001, partial h2 = 0.184), and the ETG was better in strength than the CG (p = 0.012) after training. Therefore, the training and detraining effects of LBS in the RTG were signicantly better than the ETG and CG in comparison to the baseline, and also within each group (F[2,81] = 5.91, p = 0.004, partial h2 = 0.127). Table 2 shows the means, SDs, and changes data for each of the body size tests for all 3 groups during different stages of the study. The RTG showed the greatest increase in arm size after training (F[2,81] = 3.17, p = 0.004, partial h2 = 0.073). However, the other variables for the body size showed no signicant differences within groups with regard to the waisthip ratio, waist, hip, and thigh after training and detraining. As shown in Table 3, the body fat percentage increased by 10.1% in the CG after training, whereas for the ETG and RTG, the fat percentage and mass decreased 0.40.6%. The total LM and arm LM in the RTG increased more signicantly than in the ETG and CG groups after training (total LM: F[2,81] = 3.49, p = 0.035, partial h2 = 0.079; arm LM: F[2,81] = 4.20, p = 0.007, partial h2 = 0.0.95) and also showed a steadier level of maintenance from the baseline. There were no signicant differences in body FM with regard to other parts of the body.

DISCUSSION
To the best of our knowledge, this is the rst study to compare the inuences of resistance and endurance training on body composition, body size, and physical performance with regard to detraining in young men. The major ndings of this study are as follows: (a) that both kinds of training were

effective in improving resistance and aerobic endurance and (b) that after 24 weeks of detraining, body weight, body size, and cardiovascular tness all went back to the baseline values, and only the RTG had strength and LM that were higher than the baseline values after detraining. _ O2max increased with both endurance and The LBS and V resistance training, whereas strength improved signicantly in the chest (UBS) and quadriceps (LBS) only with the latter. Our data support the notion that a short, moderate-intensity resistance training program produces substantial improvements in maximal muscle strength and an increase in lean weight (2,4,5). In our experiment, the RTG showed a signicant increase in LM, which proves the presence of muscle hypertrophy. Muscle hypertrophy is the increase in both myober size and the number of capillaries (34). The increased capillary supply of blood to the skeletal muscle may play a vital role in determining aerobic metabolic function (14). Research conducted by Hoff et al. (16) showed maximal strength training with emphasis on neural adaptations improved strength, particularly rate of force development, and improved aerobic endurance performance by improving work economy in trained young athletes. Their conclusions are echoed in our nding that resistance training _ O2max). Therefore, the improved endurance performance (V _ O2max) key mechanism of the endurance performance (V increase may be the increase in muscular work economy, myober size, and the associated changes in myober contractile properties induced by resistance training (14,16,34). In contrast, it is difcult to explain the discrepancy in the lower body strength response of endurance training. This is different from the conclusions of other research, because most studies conclude that endurance training has little or no effect in progressive increases of leg strength (19,31), but our research found increases in leg strength of 11.3%, and this could be because of the sedentary lifestyles of the young adults in our sample. Previous research has shown that endurance training for the initial period stimulates the contraction of the muscles and in this way increases the leg strength (9). Moreover, a running program is a kind of lowintensity strength training, because the person exercising works with their own body weight, and this is also effective in improving strength (9). Furthermore, short-term, intermediate, and high-intensity endurance training is benecial with _ O2max (15). Based on the principles regard to strengthening V of training specicity, resistance and endurance training induce distinct physical adaptations. Some studies investigating combinations of strength and endurance training found that such programs increased maximal oxygen uptake, muscle strength, and electromyography activity (14,31). However, our data support the notion that resistance and endurance training may interact to enhance rather than to hinder strength and endurance developments, in line with previous observations during training in young men (13). The acute effects of exercise training on changing body composition are still unconrmed, because some studies
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2011 |

2251

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Training and Detraining Effects of the Resistance Vs. Endurance Program

showed changes only in body FFM (28,31), some in body composition (32,37), and some no changes in body composition (9,28). Therefore, subjects, time, exercise intervention, and measurement methods all need to be considered when conducting the experiment. Dual-energy xray absorptiometry is considered to be a valid technique for fat and muscle tissue measurement and is also the most sensitive method for assessing even small changes in body composition, and thus, it was used in this study. Although both exercise training groups had an average reduction of 0.40.6% body fat and 1.61.7% body weight, our results show that body weight and FM did not change signicantly between groups, but body LM and LM of the arms increased in the RTG compared with the ETG and CG. The results in Poehlman et al. (28) showed the same tendency with young women that body weight and FM did not change among the 3 groups, but LM was increased in the subjects who took part in resistance training. However, it is difcult to show signicant differences with regard to the effects of different exercises on body fat and weight, and many previous investigations have obtained conicting results (14,28,31,36). The subjects in this study were of normal weight at the baseline and thus likely to respond differently to the exercise intervention than subjects who are signicantly underweight or overweight. However, the effects of resistance training on increased LM and strength gains in different subjects are uncontroversial (5,28,31). Prestes et al.s (29) study showed decreased FM and increased LM after 12 weeks of progressive resistance training, similar to our ndings. Although not signicant, our data show a trend toward a reduction in body fat and change in body circumference in the RTG. In particular, the increase in the LM of the arms was signicant from baseline to training. The reason for the increase in arm circumference in the RTG was probably because of muscle hypertrophy, because our data also show a signicant increase in both the lean body mass and strength. The upper arm belongs to a small muscle group, and the early gains in strength and LM were accompanied by muscle hypertrophy and, presumably, faster neural adaptation (5,27). In contrast to the arm, the thigh belongs to a larger muscle group, and thus, the more prolonged neural adaptation related to the more complex bench and leg press movements may have delayed hypertrophy in these regions. Another reason could be that legs involve more joints and xator muscles and were used in with more complex exercises, and thus, learning and coordination played a signicant role early in training, and this may also have delayed hypertrophy (5). Different times for neural adaptation and muscle hypertrophy could also explain why the 24 weeks of short-term resistance training resulted in different effects for larger and smaller muscle groups (5). Although there were positive effects on physical performance, body composition, and some body circumferences that occurred after training ended, the results returned to baseline levels after detraining in the exercise groups. On the other hand, this study observed that LM, RTG strength, and ETG waistline were able to be maintained for the 24 weeks of detraining. The prolonged detraining resulted in reduced cardiorespiratory efciency, reduction in ber cross-sectional _ O2max area, and decreased capillary density (12,23,24). The V loss during detraining seems to be dependent on time and _ O2max initial tness level, because the recently acquired V gains were completely lost after training was stopped for a period .4 weeks (22,24). In addition, the results of this study were also in agreement with those of previous research, because UBS and LBS were maintained above baseline values after the 24-week detraining period (9,12). Although previous investigations support the idea that resistance training may maintain strength gains for a more prolonged period of time after training ceases (7,32), prolonged detraining did result in muscle atrophy and decreased voluntary strength (9,12,38). We found from our results that the effects of short-term training or detraining cause changes in regional body composition and size. This could be because the muscle adaptation happens at different times and is especially obvious in the small muscle groups during strength training (5,26). However, further observations on the changes of the regional body composition with different modes of exercise training need to be conducted. In our research, the LM of the leg and muscle size of the calf went back to the baseline values after detraining in the RTG, but LBS remained higher than the pretraining value, which means the neural adaptation was still in effect. The results of this study suggest that detraining induced strength losses because of deterioration of ber size and motor unit recruitment efciency, although the strength declined more slowly than muscle size, perhaps because neural adaptation seemed to play a greater role than muscle hypertrophy in detraining (38). This study has some important limitations. First, none of the subjects daily physical activity and dietary regimes were assessed during the investigation. Second, the subjects were instructed to retain their normal lifestyles while avoiding any form of regular exercise during the detraining, but there was no way of preventing individuals from engaging in more physical activity during this period. However, the fact that there were signicant decreases in several measurements suggests that the subjects were able to comply with these restrictions.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This study nds that both endurance and resistance training programs are effective interventions to enhance strength, cardiovascular tness, and body composition in nonobese, untrained young men. Specically, running can improve cardiovascular function and lower body strength, whereas whole-body resistance training not only benets strength but also enhances cardiovascular function. Moreover, either form of training alone can lead to training-specic improvements in body composition and body size, and there was also an

2252

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

interacting and enhancing effect with regard to physical performance. Furthermore, short-term resistance training can cause small muscle groups, such as the upper arm, to change their muscle size, and this kind of training can also help maintain the gains in strength and lean body mass for longer periods after training ceases. Therefore, resistance training is a better choice than endurance training for young men to stay t. It is thus plausible to hypothesize that resistance training is also more benecial than endurance training for long lasting positive muscle adaptations (strength and lean body mass) in young men. Therefore, for coaches and personal trainers who are training young men to gain and maintain strength for specic sports, even after training has stopped or to lose weight, resistance training must be incorporated into their training programs.

the

TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org

fat mass in untrained, endurance- and resistance-trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol 84: 310320, 2001. kkinen, K, Alen, M, Kallinen, M, Newton, R, and Kraemer, W. 12. Ha Neuromuscular adaptation during prolonged strength training, detraining and re-strength-training in middle-aged and elderly people. Eur J Appl Physiol 83: 5162, 2000. kkinen, K, Alen, M, Kraemer, W, Gorostiaga, E, Izquierdo, M, 13. Ha kkinen, A, Valkeinen, H, Kaarakainen, E, Rusko, H, Mikkola, J, Ha Romu, S, Erola, V, Ahtiainen, J, and Paavolainen, L. Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 4252, 2003. 14. Hepple, R, Mackinnon, S, Goodman, J, Thomas, S, and Plyley, M. _ O2peak and the Resistance and aerobic training in older men: effects on V capillary supply to skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol 82: 13051310, 1997. 15. Hickson, RC. Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 45: 255263, 1980. 16. Hoff, J, Gran, A, and Helgerud, J. Maximal strength training improves aerobic endurance performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 12: 288295, 2002. 17. Hubal, MJ, Gordish-Dressman, H, Thompson, PD, Price, TB, Hoffman, EP, Angelopoulos, TJ, Gordon, PM, Moyna, NM, Pescatello, LS, Visich, PS, Zoeller, RF, Seip, RL, and Clarkson, PM. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 964972, 2005. 18. Karvonen, MJ, Kentala, E, and Mustala, O. The effects of training on heart rate; a longitudinal study. Ann Med Exp Biol Fenn 35: 307315, 1957. 19. Knuttgen, HG. Strength training and aerobic exercise: Comparison and contrast. J Strength Cond Res 21: 973978, 2007. 20. Koutoubi, S and Huffman, FG. Body composition assessment and coronary heart disease risk factors among college students of three ethnic groups. J Natl Med Assoc 97: 784791, 2005. 21. Meyer, T, Auracher, M, Heeg, K, Urhausen, A, and Kindermann, W. Effectiveness of low-intensity endurance training. Int J Sports Med 28: 3339, 2007. 22. Moore, R, Thacker, E, Kelley, G, Musch, T, Sinoway, L, Foster, V, and Dickinson, A. Effect of training/detraining on submaximal exercise responses in humans. J Appl Physiol 63: 17191724, 1987. 23. Mujika, I and Padilla, S. Detraining: Loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Part I: Short term insufcient training stimulus. Sports Med 30: 7987, 2000. 24. Mujika, I and Padilla, S. Cardiorespiratory and metabolic characteristics of detraining in humans. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 413421, 2001. 25. Nelson, M, Story, M, Larson, N, Neumark-Sztainer, D, and Lytle, L. Emerging adulthood and college-aged youth: An overlooked age for weight-related behavior change. Obesity 16: 22052211, 2008. 26. Nindl, BC, Harman, EA, Marx, JO, Gotshalk, LA, Frykman, PN, Lammi, E, Palmer, C, and Kraemer, WJ. Regional body composition changes in women after 6 months of periodized physical training. J Appl Physiol 88: 22512259, 2000. 27. Pescatello, LS, Kelsey, BK, Price, TB, Seip, RL, Angelopoulos, TJ, Clarkson, PM, Gordon, PM, Moyna, NM, Visich, PS, Zoeller, RF, Gordish-Dressman, HA, Bilbie, SM, Thompson, PD, and Hoffman, EP. The muscle strength and size response to upper arm, unilateral resistance training among adults who are overweight and obese. J Strength Cond Res 21: 307313, 2007. 28. Poehlman, ET, Denino, WF, Beckett, T, Kinaman, KA, Dionne, IJ, Dvorak, R, and Ades, PA. Effects of endurance and resistance training on total daily energy expenditure in young women: A controlled randomized trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87: 10041009, 2002. 29. Prestes, J, De Lima, C, Frollini, AB, Donatto, FF, and Conte, M. Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 23: 266274, 2009.
VOLUME 25 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2011 |

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank all participants for their help and effort in this study. The study was supported by the National Science Council, 95-2413-H-006-010, Taiwan, ROC.

REFERENCES
1. Baechle, TR and Earle, RW. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. In: Resistance Training Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. 2. Binder, EF, Yarasheski, KE, Steger-May, K, Sinacore, DR, Brown, M, Schechtman, KB, and Holloszy, JO. Effects of progressive resistance training on body composition in frail older adults: results of a randomized, controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 60: 14251431, 2005. 3. Broeder, CE, Burrhus, KA, Svanevik, LS, and Wilmore, JH. The effects of either high-intensity resistance or endurance training on resting metabolic rate. Am J Clin Nutr 55: 802810, 1992. 4. Carvalho, MJ, Marques, E, and Mota, J. Training and detraining effects on functional tness after a multicomponent training in older women. Gerontology. 55: 4148, 2009. 5. Chilibeck, PD, Calder, AW, Sale, DG, and Webber, CE. A comparison of strength and muscle mass increases during resistance training in young women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 77: 170175, 1998. 6. DiPietro, L. Physical activity in the prevention of obesity: Current evidence and research issues. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31: S542S546, 1999. 7. Fatouros, I, Taxildaris, K, Tokmakidis, S, Kalapotharakos, V, Aggelousis, N, Athanasopoulos, S, Zeeris, I, and Katrabasas, I. The effects of strength training, cardiovascular training and their combination on exibility of inactive older adults. Int J Sports Med 23: 112119, 2002. 8. Fatouros, IG, Jamurtas, AZ, Villiotou, V, Pouliopoulou, S, Fotinakis, P, Taxildaris, K, and Deliconstantinos, G. Oxidative stress responses in older men during endurance training and detraining. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 20652072, 2004. 9. Fatouros, IG, Kambas, A, Katrabasas, I, Nikolaidis, K, Chatzinikolaou, A, Leontsini, D, and Taxildaris, K. Strength training and detraining effects on muscular strength, anaerobic power, and mobility of inactive older men are intensity dependent. Br J Sports Med 39: 776 780, 2005. 10. Franklin, BA, Whaley, MH, Howley, ET, and Balady, GJ. ACSMs Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription: Testing and Prescription. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2000. 11. Grund, A, Krause, H, Kraus, M, Siewers, M, Rieckert, H, and Muller, MJ. Association between different attributes of physical activity and

2253

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Training and Detraining Effects of the Resistance Vs. Endurance Program

30. Shinkai, S, Watanabe, S, Kurokawa, Y, Torii, J, Asai, H, and Shephard, RJ. Effects of 12 weeks of aerobic exercise plus dietary restriction on body composition, resting energy expenditure and aerobic tness in mildly obese middle-aged women. Eur J Appl Physiol 68: 258265, 1994. a , E, Ha kkinen, A, Nyman, K, Mattila, M, Cheng, S, 31. Sillanpa kkinen, Karavirta, L, Laaksonen, D, Huuhka, N, Kraemer, W, and Ha K. Body composition and tness during strength and/or endurance training in older men. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 950958, 2008. 32. Sipila, S and Suominen, H. Effects of strength and endurance training on thigh and leg muscle mass and composition in elderly women. J Appl Physiol 78: 334340, 1995. 33. Tabata, I, Nishimura, K, Kouzaki, M, Hirai, Y, Ogita, F, Miyachi, M, and Yamamoto, K. Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and _ O2max. Med Sci Sports Exerc 28: 13271330, 1996. V 34. Tanaka, H and Swensen, T. Impact of resistance training on endurance performance. A new form of cross-training? Sports Med 25: 191200, 1998. 35. Teixeira-Salmela, LF, Santiago, L, Lima, RC, Lana, DM, Camargos, FF, and Cassiano, JG. Functional performance and quality of life related to training and detraining of community-dwelling elderly. Disabil Rehabil 27: 10071012, 2005. 36. Tokmakidis, SP and Volaklis, KA. Training and detraining effects of a combined-strength and aerobic exercise program on blood lipids in patients with coronary artery disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 23: 193200, 2003. 37. Toraman, NF and Ayceman, N. Effects of six weeks of detraining on retention of functional tness of old people after nine weeks of multicomponent training. Br J Sports Med 39: 565, 2005. 38. Trappe, S, Williamson, D, and Godard, M. Maintenance of whole muscle strength and size following resistance training in older men. Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 57: 138143, 2002. 39. Treuth, MS, Ryan, AS, Pratley, RE, Rubin, MA, Miller, JP, Nicklas, BJ, Sorkin, J, Harman, SM, Goldberg, AP, and Hurley, BF. Effects of strength training on total and regional body composition in older men. J Appl Physiol 77: 614620, 1994. 40. Walberg, JL. Aerobic exercise and resistance weight-training during weight reduction. Implications for obese persons and athletes. Sports Med 7: 343356, 1989.

2254

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the

TM

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.