Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A
obtain superior results compared with self-directed training.
wide variety of exercise training methodologies
We hypothesized that club members randomized to receive
are used for improving health- and performance-
an evidence-based training program would accrue greater im-
related fitness outside the research setting, e.g.,
provements in lean body mass (LBM) and other fitness meas- among practitioners such as personal trainers
ures than members randomized to self-training. Men, aged 30 (PTrs) working with private clients or within a health/fitness
44 years, who were members of a single Southern California club. In addition, training guidance is available to individuals
fitness club were randomized to exercise with a PTr adminis- through print and electronic media. Indeed, a recent Internet
tering a nonlinear periodized training program (TRAINED, N = search using key words exercise for increasing lean body
17) or to self-directed training (SELF, N = 17); both groups mass (LBM) yielded over 8.6 million references. Whether
trained 3 days per week for 12 weeks. Lean body mass was these references provide appropriate guidance or whether this
determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Secondary guidance can be correctly interpreted and applied by individ-
outcomes included muscle strength 1 repetition maximum uals without training and experience in strength and condi-
(1RM), leg power (vertical jump), and aerobic capacity tioning, such as members of health/fitness clubs is unknown.
In 2011, there were 51.4 million health club members in
(V_ O2max). TRAINED individuals increased LBM by 1.3 (0.4)
the United States representing a 24% increase over the
kg, mean (SEM) vs. no change in SELF, p = 0.029. Similarly,
previous 6 years (18). Reasons for joining fitness clubs are
significantly greater improvements were seen for TRAINED vs.
varied (18,26), but a recent report from the International
SELF in chest press strength (42 vs. 19%; p = 0.003), peak Health and Racquet Sports Club Association (a trade asso-
leg power (6 vs. 0.6%; p , 0.0001), and V_ O2max (7 vs. ciation representing health and fitness facilities, gyms, spas,
20.3%; p = 0.01). Leg press strength improved 38 and sports clubs, and suppliers worldwide) indicated that almost
half of current health club members cited overall health/
Address correspondence to Thomas W. Storer, tstorer@partners.org. well-being and progress toward goals as reasons for sustain-
28(7)/19952006 ing membership (18). However, there are few published data
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research to suggest that these outcomes are realized even when exer-
2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association cise training is supervised by PTrs. Significant improvements
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Exercise With Personal Trainers vs. Self-Training
in LBM, muscle strength, power, and endurance, as well as administered by PTrs (TRAINED) yielded superior in-
aerobic capacity have been demonstrated for decades in creases in LBM compared with 12 weeks of self-training
well-controlled research studies. However, these studies (SELF) in the context of a health/fitness club setting. The
are generally administered by expert scientists using proven primary objective for all subjects was to increase LBM as
methodologies or new methods that are hypothesized to be measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). All
of similar or greater benefit. No published study has evalu- subjects were asked to limit exercise training to 3 days per
ated the application of exercise training methods by personal week with types, durations, and intensities assigned by
fitness trainers outside the research setting, i.e., in a health trainers (TRAINED group) or self-selected (SELF group).
club environment where exercise training methods and Additional outcome measures included other body compo-
training guidance are less certain than in the insulated labo- sition variables as well as muscle strength and power, and
ratory setting. Whether exercising health club members or aerobic performance. Blinded investigators assessed out-
individuals outside the club setting achieve their fitness ob- come measures at baseline and after 12 weeks regardless of
jectives has not been reported but such data would provide whether all 36 prescribed training sessions had been
useful information on successes that might alter the manner completed.
in which these individuals train to achieve important health-
Subjects
and performance-related outcomes.
The membership records at the Century City (California)
The Equinox Health/Fitness Club chain has developed
EFC were used to identify and recruit 40 healthy men, 3044
general templates for exercise training regimens using
years of age, with a history of exercising 57 days per month
evidence-based recommendations (1) and scientifically sup-
at the club over the previous 3 months. All members meeting
ported methods (23,29,30). Members have the opportunity
these criteria were asked to volunteer for the study via in-
to exercise under the guidance of well-qualified PTrs who
person communications and or e-mail with IRB approved
systematically apply these progressive, periodized exercise
text. Volunteers were subsequently excluded if they had a body
programming templates that are individually adjusted. How-
mass index (BMI) .30 kg$m22, musculoskeletal conditions
ever, not all health/fitness club members use PTrs to help
or unstable cardiovascular, pulmonary, metabolic, or other
fulfill their training objectives; nationally, only about 13% of
disorders that would preclude high-intensity exercise training.
health club members do so (17). Currently, there are no
In addition, subjects were excluded if they had used any drug
published data that indicate whether individual health/fit-
or supplement known to enhance anabolic responses. Dietary
ness club members who exercise with a PTr attain greater
intake was not controlled apart from the requirement of not
improvements in health-related fitness including body com-
starting a dietary supplement that might affect LBM. A sta-
position, muscle strength and power, and aerobic perfor-
tistical power analysis indicated that 18 subjects in each of the
mance (5), compared with members who self-direct and
2 groups would provide 80% power to detect a change of 2.5
self-regulate their own training programs.
kg in LBM, the primary outcome variable, at a # 0.05. The
The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy
UCLA Institutional Review Board approved the study, and all
of the Equinox Fitness Club (EFC) training method admin-
subjects gave their written informed consent. After consent
istered by PTrs for increasing LBM compared with club
was obtained, subjects were randomized to either the
members who self-direct their own training programs within
TRAINED or SELF group.
the context of the club setting. Secondary outcomes included
changes in other health- and performance-related fitness Exercise Trainers
variables and compliance with the training protocol. We The PTrs used in this study were employees of the same
tested the hypothesis that subjects randomized to receive fitness club from which the subjects had volunteered.
the periodized training regimen by individually assigned PTrs Trainers possessed undergraduate or graduate degrees in
(TRAINED) would accrue significantly greater LBM than exercise science or related disciplines as well as multiple
those randomized to directing their own training (SELF) over nationally recognized fitness trainer certifications from
a 12-week training period. If this research hypothesis is organizations including the American College of Sports
accepted, it would provide PTrs with objective evidence for Medicine, National Strength and Conditioning Association,
the efficacy of professional, supervised training and opposed to and National Academy of Sports Medicine. In addition, all
self-training. Additionally, if the hypothesis is accepted, it may fitness trainers participating in this study (a) had previously
suggest that health/fitness club members wishing to increase passed written examinations and oral interviews, (b) com-
LBM should consider training with well-qualified PTrs who pleted approximately 180 hours of continuing education
successfully administer scientifically based training regimens. provided by recognized leaders in the health and fitness
industry, (c) completed 100 hours of in-house supervised
METHODS internship, and (d) completed training in the protection of
Experimental Approach to the Problem human research subjects. All PTrs were instructed at the
A prospective, randomized, single-blind study was used to outset of the study and periodically reminded to provide no
investigate whether 12 weeks of periodized exercise training dietary guidance or encouragement for additional training.
the TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Exercise With Personal Trainers vs. Self-Training
dysfunctional movement pattern, the movement was included training variables are manipulated to further stimulate LBM
for resistance training. The periodized training program did gain, i.e., speed of movement and explosiveness of exercises.
not include traditional forms of endurance training such as Subjects randomized to TRAINED received up to 36
continuous jogging or cycling. However, short duration coaching sessions over a 12-week period at no cost. These
(#30 seconds) high-intensity intervals were employed pro- subjects made formal appointments for their thrice-weekly
gressively throughout the 12 weeks of training. The PTrs training sessions with 1 of 5 PTrs who were assigned to that
received explicit training and practice in all training methods, subject for the duration of the study.
the details of which were applied with modification according In contrast, subjects randomized to SELF were permitted
to individual subjects medical and exercise history, abilities to train using methods of their own choosing but with the
and limitations, and the primary objective of LBM accretion. understanding that increased lean mass was the primary
The clubs training program templates are proprietary but objective. Members in the SELF group were incentivized
can generally be described as follows. Training cycle 1 with a 2-month membership extension and 6 no-cost
included functional and core exercise training designed in personal training sessions at the end of the study. Records
part to alleviate muscle/joint imbalances but also included of work performed during training sessions for the
low intensity, high volume resistance training using multi- TRAINED subjects were kept by their individual PTrs.
and single-joint bilateral and unilateral exercises appropri- Members in the SELF group were asked to keep simple logs
ately applied to individual characteristics. Cycle 2 training of each session that included mode of exercise, frequency,
uses the movement patterns mastered and corrected in cycle and duration of training. Intensity was subjectively rated on
1 and applies a higher intensity, lower volume loading a 05 scale, where 0 = nothing at all; 1 = very light; 2 = light;
scheme with training now focusing on the training objective; 3 = moderate; 4 = hard; 5 = very hard.
in this case increasing LBM. Cycle 3 training further pro-
gresses the client to a high intensity, high volume regimen to Measurement Logistics
increase both the time under tension and the absolute stress All DXA studies were performed at the UCLA Gonda
placed on the muscle. It is also during this time that other (Goldschmied) Diabetes Center by a trained and
the TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Weight (kg) 84.4 (9.6) 83.4 (9.3) 21.0 (3.1) 0.420 82.6 (10.2) 81.1 (9.0) 21.5 (3.5) 0.101 0.394
BMI (kg$m22) 26.8 (2.1) 26.7 (2.3) 20.2 (0.8) 0.400 25.8 (2.3) 25.3 (1.9) 20.4 (1.1) 0.532 0.396
LBM (kg) 67.3 (6.9) 68.5 (7.2) 1.3 (1.5) 0.004 68.1 (4.8) 68.1 (1.8) 0.0 (1.6) 0.985 0.029
ALTM (kg) 29.2 (3.3) 30.0 (3.1) 0.7 (0.6) 0.0002 30.3 (4.4) 30.1 (4.1) 20.2 (0.8) 0.404 0.0007
Fat mass (kg) 19.9 (4.3) 18.2 (4.9) 21.8 (1.9) 0.269 15.4 (4.1) 14.3 (3.6) 21.1 (2.0) 0.396 0.349
% Fat 23.0 (4.1) 21.1 (4.8) 22.0 (1.8) 0.206 18.5 (3.6) 17.5 (3.4) 21.0 (1.8) 0.043 0.117
*BMI = body mass index; LBM = lean body mass; ALTM = appendicular lean tissue mass.
Body weight, BMI, LBM and ALTM were not significantly different between groups at baseline. Fat mass and % fat were
significantly higher in the TRAINED group at baseline.
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Exercise With Personal Trainers vs. Self-Training
p-between
,0.0001
,0.0001
0.003
0.140
Fat Mass and % Fat. Both groups decreased FM and percent
body fat but only the 1% fat decrease in SELF reached
statistical significance (Table 2). There were no differences
between groups for change in these variables.
p-within
0.005
0.005
0.436
0.436
Body Weight and Body Mass Index. There was a mean weight
loss of 1.0 (1.0) kg and 1.5 (3.5) kg in the TRAINED and
SELF-trained (N = 17)
SELF groups, respectively, but neither change was statisti-
11.2 (12.4)
25.0 (27.3)
50.0 (258)
cally significant. Correspondingly, there was no change in
Change
17.0 (88)
BMI.
Muscle Strength and Power
Muscle Strength. Maximal voluntary strength in the chest
67.7 (14.3)
126.4 (26.1)
press and leg press exercises increased significantly in both
7,829 (680)
1,545 (326)
12 wk
groups (Table 3). Improvements in the TRAINED group
tended to be greater than SELF for both exercises but only
the change in chest press strength was significantly different
between groups. Expressed as percentage improvements, the
TRAINED group increased chest press and leg press
59.7 (15.5)
106.8 (30.4)
7,779 (594)
1,528 (294)
Baseline
strength by 42 and 35%, respectively, whereas improvements
Chest press, leg press, and leg power values were not significantly different between groups at baseline.
TABLE 3. Muscular strength and power responses to 12 weeks of exercise training, mean (SD).*
in these exercises in the SELF group were 19 and 23%,
respectively. Individual changes in upper and lower maximal
voluntary strength are shown in Figure 3.
,0.0001
,0.0001
,0.0001
,0.0001
Muscle Power. Estimated peak and average leg muscle power
improved significantly in the TRAINED group but not in p-within
the SELF group (Table 3); individual changes for these var-
iables are shown in Figure 4. The 6 and 10% increases in
peak and average leg power in TRAINED were significantly
37.4 (17.6)
461 (260)
23.5 (8.2)
Change
158 (89)
greater than the corresponding 0.6 and 0.1% increases in
TRAINED (N = 17)
SELF.
Aerobic Performance
Aerobic Capacity (V_O2max). Maximal oxygen uptake ex-
79.1 (12.7)
136.9 (27.3)
8,194 (665)
1,710 (291)
7,733 (645)
1,552 (290)
55.6 (13.0)
Baseline
Average
Peak
the TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
p-between
0.011
0.849
0.616
0.289
0.674
0.01
_ O2max = maximal oxygen uptake; V_ O2u = gas exchange lactate threshold; HRmax = maximal heart rate; RPEmax = rating of perceived exertion at maximal exercise.
p-within
0.254
0.279
0.744
0.771
0.150
0.387
20.1 (0.4)
21.5 (5.4)
(0.8)
(0.5)
(9.1)
(1.1)
Change
SELF-trained (N = 17)
20.1
0.5
23.4
0.2
Figure 3. Distribution of individual changes in maximal voluntary
strength in the leg press and seated chest press exercises. Closed
symbols represent subjects in the TRAINED group and open symbols
represent subjects in the SELF group.
(10.6)
3.4 (0.6)
41.8 (5.6)
(0.5)
(4.8)
(0.4)
12 wk
29.2
2.4
18.8
181.3
by 6 and 7%, respectively, in the TRAINED group, whereas
mean changes for the SELF group decreased by 3 and 0.8%,
respectively (Table 4). Differences in the changes in V_ O2max
3.6 (0.6)
(0.4)
(4.8)
(9.4)
(1.1)
Baseline
43.3 (6)
between groups were statistically significant. Individual
changes in V_ O2max are presented in Figure 5.
184.9
28.7
2.4
18.5
Gas Exchange (Lactate) Threshold (V_O2u). The metabolic rate
TABLE 4. Cardiovascular and aerobic responses to 12 weeks of exercise training.*
0.008
0.003
0.438
0.756
0.732
0.164
significantly in either group nor was the difference in change
between groups significant (Table 4).
(0.4)
(4.7)
(6.3)
(0.1)
Maximal heart rate and subjective RPE at maximal exercise
Change
(Table 4). These peak values were 100% of age predicted for
HRmax and within the expected range for RPE at maximal
exercise (8). Neither HRmax nor RPE at maximal effort was
3.6 (0.6)
42.3 (5.5)
(0.3)
(4.1)
(7.2)
(0.4)
12 wk
2.2
27
182.7
18.8
3.4 (0.5)
39.6 (5.4)
(0.4)
(5.5)
(8.9)
(0.5)
Baseline
183.2
27.6
2.3
18.6
mL$kg21$min21
mL$kg21$min21
L$min21
L$min21
RPEmax
V_ O2max
HRmax
*V
V_ O2u
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Exercise With Personal Trainers vs. Self-Training
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
showed a 0.8-kg decrease in LBM; individuals adding 1, day increases in LBM in men of similar age after structured resis-
increased LBM by 0.7 (1.0) kg; men who added 2 days tance exercise training conducted in research settings.
decreased LBM by 1.7 (1.6) kg. Figure 2 demonstrates that in addition to a significantly
greater mean change in LBM, 82% of TRAINED subjects
DISCUSSION increased LBM above zero change with a mean increase of
To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe the 1.8 (1.1) kg in these subjects. Correspondingly, 52% of the
effectiveness of supervised, periodized training in a health/ self-trained members who increased LBM achieved only
fitness club setting relative to individuals training with similar a 0.6 (1.1) kg increase. Despite assurance that all subjects
frequency and goals without benefit of supervision or understood that the primary objective of training was to
a scientifically based exercise prescription. Although the increase LBM, subjects who self-trained either did not
study did not control for diet or expect departures from the understand how this could best be accomplished or did
protocol-specified training frequency, the outcomes are very not include adequate amounts of resistance training of suffi-
likely to be reflective of applications in similar environments. cient intensity or correct manipulation of the acute program
The principal finding of this study was the significant variables to signal increases in LBM (29). Unlike the
increase in DXA-determined LBM seen in the TRAINED TRAINED subjects who performed no traditional form of
group compared with no change in the SELF group. endurance exercise as part of their programmed training, 11
Correspondingly, TRAINED subjects showed significant of 17 subjects in the SELF group who had complete training
increases in ALTM, which accounted for more than half of logs spent an average of 61% of their total weekly training
the increase in lean mass. In contrast, those subjects who time in activities other than resistance training. To these
directed their own exercise training lost only 0.2 kg of points, Nybo et al. (25) have recently reported changes in
ALTM. Thus, our hypothesis that health club members who DXA-determined LBM after 12 weeks of thrice-weekly
received a supervised, periodized training program would training using 3 different types of training. Subjects assigned
have greater increases in LBM than self-TRAINED mem- to strength training improved LBM by 1.8 kg, whereas sub-
bers was accepted. jects in the high-intensity interval running program and the
The 1.3-kg increase in LBM seen in TRAINED subjects is prolonged running program (60 minutes, 65% V_ O2max)
similar to increases reported in other resistance training increased LBM by 0.2 and 0.6 kg, respectively. Control sub-
studies of similar duration. One study randomized moder- jects increased LBM by 0.1 kg. Collectively, these data sup-
ately trained men 1835 years of age to a 12-week heavy port both the well-accepted convention that resistance
resistance exercise training program that was either super- training is the most potent stimulus for skeletal muscle
vised by a qualified PTr or self-supervised (22). Unlike our growth (31) and evidence-based recommendations regard-
study, however, the exercise training program was the same ing the effective manipulation of acute program variables in
for all subjects regardless of supervision and was conducted periodized training programs (1).
in a research environment. However, the supervised subjects There were no significant differences between groups with
experienced a significant 1.4-kg increase in fat-free mass respect to changes in FM or percent body fat, but there was
(determined by the skinfold technique), whereas those in a trend for men in the TRAINED group to show larger
the unsupervised group showed a nonsignificant 0.3-kg improvement in these variables than men in the SELF
increase. Interestingly, these outcomes are very similar to group. The reason for this is unclear but may be within the
those in this study and give additional support to the value error of measurement. The training intensity in TRAINED
of qualified supervision of exercise training. A recent study subjects is not known but it is possible, if not likely, that they
reported a 1.8-kg increase in LBM in untrained 36-year-old trained with greater overall intensity and therefore had
men who completed 12 weeks of progressive heavy resis- higher metabolic rates than the SELF subjects thereby
tance training (25). In contrast to the TRAINED subjects in contributing to increased fat utilization. The study protocol
this study who regularly exercised 57 days per month, these did not control for diet apart from specifically excluding the
men had not exercised for at least 2 years perhaps giving use of supplements thought to aid in increasing lean mass,
them a larger window of adaptation and hence, possibly e.g., creatine monohydrate. Consequently, without a focused
contributed to the 0.5-kg difference in change in LBM nutritional plan to accompany the exercise regimens used in
between men in the 2 studies. Finally, Montiero et al. this study, fat loss may have been more difficult to achieve.
compared strength trained men assigned to 12 weeks of Significantly greater chest press strength and leg power
non-periodized (NP), linear periodized (LP), or nonlinear gains were seen in the TRAINED group relative to SELF
periodized (NLP) resistance training using split routines along with a trend toward greater improvement in leg press
(23). Although LBM was assessed with the less accurate strength, 38 vs. 24% in TRAINED and SELF groups,
skinfold technique, men in the NP group lost 2.1 kg LBM respectively. The large and significant differences between
without significant weight loss, whereas men in LP and NLP groups for improved peak and average leg power (9-fold
both increased LBM by 0.8 and 0.2 kg. Thus, the 1.3-kg greater improvements in TRAINED compared with SELF)
increase in LBM seen in this study compares favorably to can be attributed to the periodization scheme used with
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Exercise With Personal Trainers vs. Self-Training
TRAINED subjects in which training for power is routinely the range of changes for similar types of training. It is curi-
included in the third 4-week cycle of the 12-week training ous, however, that the SELF-trained subjects showed a slight
program. The improvements seen in the TRAINED group decrease in V_ O2max. All of the SELF-trained subjects exer-
are similar to those reported in the literature with subjects of cised at least 3 times per week with about one-fourth of the
similar characteristics and training duration (23,24,27). Indi- total training time spent in endurance type training. It is
vidual changes in strength and power for the 2 training possible that the overall self-regulated intensity (average
groups are displayed in Figures 3 and 4. As with the individ- 3.3 on a 5-point scale), and perhaps inadequate progression
ual changes in LBM, the proportions of subjects in the was insufficient to increase V_ O2max beyond baseline values.
TRAINED group who increased strength and power above It is also possible that these subjects focused more on
zero change are substantially greater than in the SELF increasing LBM, the main objective of this study.
group. Although the mean change in leg press strength Figure 5 shows the distribution of changes in V_ O2max for
(Figure 3) was not statistically greater than that of the SELF individual subjects. In addition to the higher mean change in
group, 100% of the TRAINED subjects improved vs. 76% of the TRAINED group, it is notable that nearly half of the
SELF subjects. A similar pattern can be seen with the chest SELF-trained individuals exhibited a decrease in V_ O2max.
press exercise although this difference between groups was Table 5 indicates that about 27% of total training time over
significantly different favoring the TRAINED subjects. the 12-week study in the SELF group was spent in aerobic
The individual responsiveness to training for leg power type exercise, whereas 39% of exercise time was spent in
(Figure 4) again shows substantial differences in the propor- resistance training. This contrasts with no programmed
tion of subjects in the 2 groups who achieved greater than endurance training in the TRAINED group. It is evident
zero change. This has important performance implications that the NLP training program applied to the TRAINED
because most activities of daily living are associated with subjects was not only adequate to increase LBM, but aerobic
power rather than strength, and most ballistic sports and capacity as well. This is consistent with reports of improved
games demand a power component of muscle function. V_ O2max after resistance training (26,32) and with concurrent
Thus, inclusion of a safely administered power component resistance and endurance training (9). Somewhat surprising in
in a periodized training program can provide important view of the significant increase in V_ O2max in the TRAINED
functional attributes that may be valuable in everyday living group, there was no improvement in V_ O2u after training and
as well as in some sport and game activities. However, this no difference in change between groups (Table 4). The train-
remains to be demonstrated. ing regimens used in this study were not specifically designed
Changes in aerobic capacity (V_ O2max) were significantly to improve aerobic function suggesting a reason for the some-
different between the TRAINED (67%) and the SELF what small improvements observed. However, the degree to
groups (23%), as shown in (Table 4). Improvements in which aerobic performance might have been improved in
V_ O2max of 530% after training are typically reported with TRAINED subjects who inappropriately added 1, 2, or 3 days
the magnitude of increase dependent on the type of training. of aerobic training could not be determined.
Improvements in V_ O2max after different types of resistance This study was conducted in the health/fitness club
training programs are not consistent with some regimens environment with member volunteers. As such, limitations
resulting in little to no change (16) or increases in the range must be considered when interpreting the data. Although
of 49% with circuit weight training (14,26). One study subjects were informed of the 3-day per week training
examined changes in V_ O2max after 8 weeks of 1 of 4 types regimen during the consenting process, this was largely
of progressive resistance training with increases in load not adhered to by either group. Subjects in both groups
throughout the study (28). Subjects in all groups were added training days beyond those specified in the protocol.
encouraged to move quickly through the 9-station exercise However, the additional number of training days was similar
routine suggesting a circuit traininglike approach. Improve- between groups and the impact of the added training did not
ments ranged from 2.7% using an explosive resistance appear to drive the training response. That is, men who
training routine (1 3 15, 40% 1RM) to 13.2% for a heavy exercised 2 or 3 additional days showed less rather than
strength routine (days 1 and 2: 1 3 10RM and day 3: 1 3 more improvement in the primary outcome variable. From
3RM). The endurance trained group (2 sets, 15RM load) a practical point of view, it is possible that subjects working
and the strength trained group (3 sets, 6RM load) with a coach may have been inspired to add training to show
increased V_ O2max by 9 and 11%, respectively. In another effectiveness of the method while subjects in SELF may
12-week study, subjects who performed 2 days per week of have added training to demonstrate that they were able to
heavy strength training improved VO2max by 3%, those improve as much as members who trained with a PTr
assigned to 150 minutes per week of prolonged running although this is purely speculative. This has been described
experienced a 7% increase in VO2max, and subjects who as John Henry Effect, where respondents receiving less
performed high-intensity interval run training improved desirable treatments demonstrate compensatory rivalry (9).
14% (27). Hence, the 67% improvements in V_ O2max dem- It is also possible that men in the TRAINED group took it
onstrated in the TRAINED subjects in this study are within on themselves to add aerobic exercise training for a more
the TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
comprehensive exercise program (13) because by design, In conclusion, significant increases in LBM are more
their training was exclusively periodized resistance exercise probable when fitness club members exercise with expert
training. Future studies of this nature should include mech- supervision using a well-designed periodized exercise training
anisms to more carefully monitor training frequency so its program compared with members who choose to train on
influence on improvement could be better controlled. The their own. Additionally, improvements in muscle strength and
extent to which the findings reported here might be seen in power and some measures of aerobic function tended to
other locations or health/fitness club chains is uncertain. improve more when members underwent personal training as
However, we speculate that with random allocation of sub- opposed to training themselves. Although it is difficult to
jects in the environment under study, subject demographics parse out the contribution to improved fitness from the
would have little impact on outcomes. training method vs. its administration, in practice they form
The study was powered only for change in LBM. It is a successful combination that yields superior improvements in
therefore uncertain if a type II error could have accounted the measures of fitness studied in this project.
for the nonsignificant difference in leg press strength. We did
not control for the Hawthorne effect in which subjects PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
change their performance in response to being observed
(12). However, this is unavoidable and therefore may be an A. The data reported in this study provide the first research
added value in working with a PTr; hence, it is a factor that evidence for greater improvements in LBM and some
may occur outside strictly controlled laboratory studies other measures of health-related fitness in health club
which may affect desired outcomes. A future study could members who exercise with well-qualified PTrs as
overcome this attention effect by using a PTr to accompany opposed to directing their own training. Under the con-
the member during training but only contribute to general ditions imposed by this study, personal fitness trainers
conversation and log the exercise regimen. now have objective evidence for the efficacy of super-
This study also had several strengths. Dual-energy x-ray vised exercise training.
absorptiometry was used to assess the primary outcome B. Although we could not parse out the separate benefits of
variable, LBM. This method is considered by many to the scientifically based, periodized training regimen used
provide acceptable accuracy under normal and most clinical in this study from its application by the well-qualified
conditions (6,34) and has small error and excellent precision PTrs, the combination was shown to be significantly
(21). The day-to-day coefficient of variation in our labora- more effective in improving outcomes than when mem-
tory using a soft tissue phantom was 0.4%. bers trained themselves. This suggests that similar com-
The pool of members from which the subjects were binations in other settings may yield similar results
drawn were of similar demographics and similar exercise although this remains to be shown. We do not know if
training history suggesting that baseline fitness would be PTrs who are less qualified or those who use training
equivalent between groups and therefore the window for designs other than the NLP scheme used in this study
improvement would be similar. Clear strengths and major would obtain similar results when administered under
features of this study included the application of current similar circumstances. Logic suggests, however, that PTrs
evidence-based recommendations that suggest the superior- with more education, credentialing, and experience who
ity of nonlinear (e.g., undulating) periodization schemes in apply evidence-based recommendations for training
which acute program variables are manipulated frequently in would obtain superior results.
a nonlinear pattern (11,29). In addition, the use of high cal- C. Exercise scientists engaged in strength and conditioning
iber, well-trained, and experienced PTrs is an obvious research might consider investigations that are carried
strength. Although it might be expected that members exer- out in different exercise training settings including other
cising with a PTr would improve more than individuals fitness clubs, private training centers, in-home training,
training alone, the variety of training and experience among corporate fitness, and clinical settings. In addition, studies
PTrs working today may not have led to the outcomes to differentiate the effectiveness of different levels of PTr
observed in this study. The more homogeneous and exten- preparation and experience on client-important out-
sive background and training of the PTrs used in this study comes would be useful for advancing the personal train-
were undoubtedly factors in the successes observed. Consid- ing profession, as well as entities that employ these
ering both the training regimen and its administration, it is individuals.
unclear whether the clubs progressive, 3-cycle, nonlinear, D. The positive outcomes reported in the club members
periodized training template or its implementation by the who exercised with a PTr in the fitness club setting sug-
expert trainers used in this study had the primary influence gests that health/fitness clubs should seek the best qual-
on the improvements reported here. We posit that the com- ified and experienced PTrs and maintain quality control
bination of both factors reinforced the well-accepted under- over their application of training methods. This is not
standing that evidence-based training programs administered meant to stifle the art of the PTr but rather to gain a
by expert trainers yield superior results. degree of uniformity for exercise training using
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Exercise With Personal Trainers vs. Self-Training
evidence-based recommendations within the health/fit- 16. Hurley, BF, Seals, DR, Ehsani, AA, Cartier, LJ, Dalsky, GP, Hagberg, JM,
and Holloszy, JO. Effects of high-intensity strength training on
ness club environment.
cardiovascular function. Med Sci Sports Exerc 16: 483488, 1984.
17. IHRSA. IHRSA Health Club Consumer Report: 2012 Health Club
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Activity, Usage, Trends & Analysis. Boston, MA: IHRSA, 2012. PP.
18. IHRSA. The IHRSA Trend Report: 2011 Quarter 4 Executive Summary.
This study was supported by a research grant from Equinox Boston, MA: IHRSA, 2012. pp. 125.
Fitness Club. The authors gratefully acknowledge the 19. International Association of FirefightersInternational Association
contributions of the Equinox personal trainers in implement- of Fire Chiefs. The Fire Service Joint Labor Management Wellness/fitness
ing the protocol. Disclosures: T.W.S. and C.B.C. are uncom- Initiative. Washington, DC: International Association of Firefighters,
International Association of Fire Chiefs, 1997.
pensated members of the Equinox Health Advisory Board.
20. Leard, JS, Cirillo, MA, Katsnelson, E, Kimiatek, DA, Miller, TW,
The results of this study do not constitute endorsement of Trebincevic, K, and Garbalosa, JC. Validity of two alternative
Equinox Fitness Club nor its programs by the authors or the systems for measuring vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 21:
National Strength and Conditioning Association. 12961299, 2007.
21. Lohman, TG. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. In: Human Body
REFERENCES Composition. A.F. Roche, S.B. Heymsfield, and T.G. Lohman, eds.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996.
1. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports
Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training 22. Mazzetti, SA, Kraemer, WJ, Volek, JS, Duncan, ND, Ratamess, NA,
for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687708, 2009. Gomez, AL, Newton, RU, Hakkinen, K, and Fleck, SJ. The influence
of direct supervision of resistance training on strength performance.
2. Arena, R, Myers, J, Williams, MA, Gulati, M, Kligfield, P, Balady, GJ, Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:11751184, 2000.
Collins, E, and Fletcher, G. Assessment of functional capacity in
clinical and research settings: A scientific statement from the 23. Miranda, F, Simao, R, Rhea, M, Bunker, D, Prestes, J, Leite, RD,
American Heart Association Committee on Exercise, Rehabilitation, Miranda, H, de Salles, BF, and Novaes, J. Effects of linear vs. daily
and Prevention of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and
on Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation 116: 329343, 2007. submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 25: 18241830, 2011.
3. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Wathen, D. Resistance training. In: 24. Monteiro, AG, Aoki, MS, Evangelista, AL, Alveno, DA,
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R. Baechle and Monteiro, GA, Picarro Ida, C, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Nonlinear
R.W. Earle, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000. pp. 406417. periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training
routines. J Strength Cond Res 23: 13211326, 2009.
4. Borg, G. Borgs Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign IL:
Human Kinetics, 1998. 25. Nybo, L, Sundstrup, E, Jakobsen, MD, Mohr, M, Hornstrup, T,
Simonsen, L, Bulow, J, Randers, MB, Nielsen, JJ, Aagaard, P, and
5. Caspersen, CJ, Powell, KE, and Christenson, GM. Physical activity, Krustrup, P. High-intensity training versus traditional exercise
exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health- interventions for promoting health. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42:
related research. Public Health Rep 100: 126131, 1985. 19511958, 2010.
6. Coin, A, Sergi, G, Minicuci, N, Giannini, S, Barbiero, E, Manzato, E, 26. Petersen, SR, Miller, GD, Quinney, HA, and Wenger, HA. The
Pedrazzoni, M, Minisola, S, Rossini, M, Del Puente, A, Zamboni, M, influence of high-velocity resistance circuit training on aerobic
Inelmen, EM, and Enzi, G. Fat-free mass and fat mass reference values power. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 9: 339344, 1988.
by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in a 20-80 year-old
Italian population. Clin Nutr 27: 8794, 2008. 27. Prestes, J, Frollini, AB, de Lima, C, Donatto, FF, Foschini, D,
de Cassia Marqueti, R, Figueira, A Jr, and Fleck, SJ. Comparison
7. Cook, G, Burton, L, and Hoogenboom, B. Pre-participation between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to
screening: The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of increase strength. J Strength Cond Res 23: 24372442, 2009.
functionpart 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 1: 6272, 2006.
28. Reid, CM, Yeater, RA, and Ullrich, IH. Weight training and strength,
8. Cook, G, Burton, L, and Hoogenboom, B. Pre-participation cardiorespiratory functioning and body composition of men. Br J
screening: The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of Sports Med 21: 4044, 1987.
functionpart 2. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 1: 132139, 2006.
29. Rhea, MR and Alderman, BL. A meta-analysis of periodized versus
9. Cook, T and Campbell, D. Quasi-ExperimentationDesign and nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res Q Exerc
Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1979. Sport 75: 413422, 2004.
10. Cooper, CB and Storer, TW. Exercise Testing and Interpretation: 30. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, Phillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison
A Practical Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001. of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated
11. Fleck, SJ. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J Strength volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 250255,
Cond Res 13: 8289, 1999. 2002.
12. Franke, RH and Kaul, JD. The Hawthorne experiments: First 31. Spiering, BA, Kraemer, WJ, Anderson, JM, Armstrong, LE,
statistical interpretation. Am Sociol Rev 43: 623643, 1978. Nindl, BC, Volek, JS, and Maresh, CM. Resistance exercise biology:
13. Garber, CE, Blissmer, B, Deschenes, MR, Franklin, BA, Lamonte, MJ, Manipulation of resistance exercise programme variables
Lee, IM, Nieman, DC, and Swain, DP. American College of Sports determines the responses of cellular and molecular signalling
Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for pathways. Sports Med 38: 527540, 2008.
developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and 32. Stone, MH, Fleck, SJ, Triplett, NT, and Kraemer, WJ. Health- and
neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: Guidance for performance-related potential of resistance training. Sports Med 11:
prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 13341359, 2011. 210231, 1991.
14. Gettman, LR, Ayres, JJ, Pollock, ML, and Jackson, A. The effect 33. Thompson, WR, ed. ACSMs Guidelines for Exercise Testing and
of circuit weight training on strength, cardiorespiratory function, and Prescription. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams
body composition of adult men. Med Sci Sports 10: 171176, 1978. & Wilkins, 2010.
15. Harman, EA, Rosenstein, MT, Frykman, PN, Rosenstein, RM, and 34. Wagner, DR and Heyward, VH. Validity of two-component models
Kraemer, WJ. Estimation of human power output from vertical for estimating body fat of black men. J Appl Physiol (1985) 90:
jump. J Appl Sports Sci Res 5: 116120, 1991. 649656, 2001.
the TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.