Peer Review #2 of "Heavier- and lighter-load isolated lumbar extension resistance training produce similar strength increases, but different perceptual responses, in healthy males and females (v0.3)"

Objectives Muscles dominant in type I muscle fibres, such as the lumbar extensors, are often trained using lighter loads and higher repetition ranges. However, literature suggests that similar strength adaptations can be attained by the use of both heavier- (HL) and lighter-load (LL) resistance training across a number of appendicular muscle groups. Furthermore, LL resistance exercise to momentary failure might result in greater discomfort. Design The aims of the present study were to compare strength adaptations, as well as perceptual responses of effort (RPE-E) and discomfort (RPE-D), to isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) exercise using HL (80% of maximum voluntary contraction; MVC) and LL (50% MVC) in healthy males and females. Methods Twenty-six participants (n = 14 males, n = 12 females) were divided in to sex counter-balanced HL (23 ± 5 years; 172.3 ± 9.8 cm; 71.0 ± 13.1 kg) and LL (22 ± 2 years; 175.3 ± 6.3 cm; 72.8 ± 9.5 kg) resistance training groups. All participants performed a single set of dynamic ILEX exercise 1 day/week for 6 weeks using either 80% (HL) or 50% (LL) of their MVC to momentary failure. Results Analyses revealed significant pre- to post-intervention increases in isometric strength for both HL and LL, with no significant between-group differences (p > 0.05). Changes in strength index (area under torque curves) were 2,891 Nm degrees 95% CIs [1,612–4,169] and 2,865 Nm degrees 95% CIs [1,587–4,144] for HL and LL respectively. Changes in MVC were 51.7 Nm 95% CIs [24.4–79.1] and 46.0 Nm 95% CIs [18.6–73.3] for HL and LL respectively. Mean repetitions per set, total training time and discomfort were all significantly higher for LL compared to HL (26 ± 8 vs. 8 ± 3 repetitions, 158.5 ± 47 vs. 50.5 ± 15 s, and 7.8 ± 1.8 vs. 4.8 ± 2.5, respectively; all p < 0.005). Conclusions The present study supports that that low-volume, low-frequency ILEX resistance exercise can produce similar strength increases in the lumbar extensors using either HL or LL. As such personal trainers, trainees and strength coaches can consider other factors which might impact acute performance (e.g. effort and discomfort during the exercise). This data might prove beneficial in helping asymptomatic persons reduce the risk of low-back pain, and further research, might consider the use of HL exercise for chronic low-back pain symptomatic persons.

Download Full-text

Fatigue and perceptual responses of heavier- and lighter-load isolated lumbar extension resistance exercise in males and females

PeerJ ◽

10.7717/peerj.4523 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 6 ◽

pp. e4523 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Charlotte Stuart ◽

James Steele ◽

Paulo Gentil ◽

Jürgen Giessing ◽

James P. Fisher

Keyword(s):

Resistance Training ◽

Load Resistance ◽

Exercise Duration ◽

Voluntary Contraction ◽

Effect Sizes ◽

Low Load ◽

Males And Females ◽

Lumbar Extension ◽

Female Responses ◽

Response Testing

Background There is a lack of research considering acute fatigue responses to high- and low-load resistance training as well as the comparison between male and female responses. Furthermore, limited studies have considered fatigue response testing with the inclusion of perceptions of discomfort and exertion. Methods The present study included males (n = 9; 23.8 ± 6.4 years; 176.7 ± 6.2 cm; 73.9 ± 9.3 kg) and females (n = 8; 21.3 ± 0.9 years; 170.5 ± 6.1 cm; 65.5 ± 10.8 kg) who were assessed for differences in fatigue (i.e., loss of torque at maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)) immediately following isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) exercise at heavy- (HL) and light-(LL) loads (80% and 50% MVC, respectively). Participants also reported perceptual measures of effort (RPE-E) and discomfort (RPE-D) between different resistance training protocols. Results Analysis of variance revealed significantly greater absolute and relative fatigue following LL compared to HL conditions (p < 0.001). Absolute fatigue significantly differed between males and females (p = 0.012), though relative fatigue was not significantly different (p = 0.160). However, effect sizes for absolute fatigue (HL; Males = −1.84, Females = −0.83; LL; Males = −3.11, Females = −2.39) and relative fatigue (HL; Males = −2.17, Females = −0.76; LL; Males = −3.36, Females = −3.08) were larger for males in both HL and LL conditions. RPE-E was maximal for all participants in both conditions, but RPE-D was significantly higher in LL compared to HL (p < 0.001) with no difference between males and females. Discussion Our data suggests that females do not incur the same degree of fatigue as males following similar exercise protocols, and indeed that females might be able to sustain longer exercise duration at the same relative loads. As such females should manipulate training variables accordingly, perhaps performing greater repetitions at a relative load, or using heavier relative loads than males. Furthermore, since lighter load exercise is often prescribed in rehabilitation settings (particularly for the lumbar extensors) it seems prudent to know that this might not be necessary to strengthen musculature and indeed might be contraindicated to avoid the increased fatigue and discomfort associated with LL exercise.

Download Full-text