Running head: BENEFITS OF RESISTANCE TRAINING VERSUS AEROBICS 1

Benefits of Resistance Training Versus Aerobics in Patient Centered Care

Colin M. Miller

Mt. San Jacinto Community College

N224 Beginning Medical Surgical Nursing II

March 29th, 2017

Peer Reviewed by Janelle Blake

Professors Susan Farrington and Charlene Le

RESISTANCE TRAINING VS AEROBICS 2

Benefits of Resistance Training Versus Aerobics in Patient Centered Care

The physiological and psychological effects of exercise, especially for hospitalized or

elderly patients, have been and continue to be heavily researched. Current and recent studies

have resulted in a plethora of evidence suggesting the positive effects of exercise on physical and

mental health. Given all the research that has presently been conducted, one interesting

commonality seems to emerge from nearly all of them. External weight or resistance training

appears to have a considerably greater, more positive effect on patients than the traditional forms

of aerobic exercise. Especially for those who are of or past retirement age.

Exercise and the benefits that result from its consistent implementation is not

groundbreaking news in our current society. Our hospitals and medical facilities utilized many

forms of physical exercise and exertion with patients daily. Ranging from physical and

occupational therapy practices to exercise induced stress tests, our modern medical field employs

its use for both rehabilitation and diagnostic purposes. However, there is still very little evidence

of regular exercise, specifically resistance and strength training, being used in the healthcare

setting. This is surprising considering the vast amount of evidence showing its efficacy in

rebuilding and maintaining muscle and bone strength and integrity and improving multiple

functional body systems.

Traditionally, aerobic exercise has been touted as the fountain of youth, especially for

those approaching retirement age. There is still plenty of evidence suggesting the desirable health

benefits of this form of physical activity and as such, it can and should still be utilized. However,

there is just as much, if not more, evidence of the health benefits associated with weight and

resistance training. Recent studies have shown that most forms of resistance training performed

at a moderate level of intensity increase muscle tactile strength and size, increase bone mass and
RESISTANCE TRAINING VS AEROBICS 3

density, and even improve the functionality of the body’s systems such as the respiratory, cardiac

and nervous systems (Vuori, 2013). These forms of physical benefits are important in the clinical

hospital setting due to heavy decline in the injured, bedridden, or elderly patient. Far too many

non-communicable diseases and injuries exist today that can be directly correlated to a lack of

physical exercise, especially resistance training (Miles, 2012). By increasing physical and mental

strength, and the efficiency and health of the body’s systems, quality lives may be extended

substantially. This in turn would provide stable, elevated mental processes and even boost overall

psychological health (Miles, 2012).

The research articles that were analyzed appear to complement one another quite

seamlessly. Included in all research experiments were the same or similar, general components.

Specifically, they all utilized some form of external resistance such as bands, free weights, static

force, and similar implements. These studies calculated a very organized training routine for the

patients involved, and all of them incorporated some degree of body system analysis in an effort

to document changes at the organ, endocrine, and cellular levels. Virtually all the research on this

subject produced similar results. These being an elevation or increase in the health and

functionality of the human body and mind (Thiebaud et al, 2013). Within the content of these

research methods, one can find little if any evidence of bias in favor of strength training. Many

of them employed the use of test groups who used aerobic activity exclusively or congruently

with resistance methods. This lack of bias is of extreme importance in the determination of either

method’s efficacy. With that said, all the tests and analyses performed produced the same results.

Aerobic activity was effective at stimulating cardio-respiratory function, but lacked the necessary

stimulus for muscle, bone, nervous and endocrine growth or function (Thiebaud et al, 2013). In

order to enrich the quality of life of hospitalized patients young and old, physical growth and
RESISTANCE TRAINING VS AEROBICS 4

strength of the body in general is paramount. The vast majority of the research that was analyzed

provided sound evidence of resistance training’s ability to correct many of the underlying causes

for common ailments (Miles, 2012). Ailments involving mobility, strength, cardio-respiratory

function, and metabolic and organ function, which have all become an enormous dilemma for

our modern society. These studies also resulted in a marked increase in skeletal muscle size or

lean body mass. This increase was noticed within all age groups that were tested.

As a registered nursing student, the same principles contained within the analyzed

research would be easy to implement. The student nurse would formulate and organize a training

plan similar to those previously used, obtain patient and facility consent, and reenact the tests

performed in within the research studies. The patient would be instructed on how to perform the

handful of simple compound exercises and explain their purpose and function. Student teaching

would be of the utmost importance in this endeavor, as the training routine would have to be

tailored to each individual patient. Depending on the patients’ physical and mental capabilities,

one would in theory have to account for deficits that may be present and know how to modify the

tests performed in order to accommodate the patient.

Aside from performing the tests themselves, the student nurse could also acquire the

assistance of several facility staff nurses or appropriate personnel to assist with the actual testing

itself. In this case, the student nurse would provide the patient with the teaching aspect of the

research tests and answer any questions they may have regarding the purpose, execution, and

desirable results of the program. This method of implementation may prove to be more efficient

and practical considering the limited amount of time the student is able to spend within the

clinical setting itself. Utilizing the help of others who are present more often would ensure a

more accurate level of participation and thus, a more accurate end result.
RESISTANCE TRAINING VS AEROBICS 5

There would be very few changes needed in order for the student nurse to perform these

tests as a practicing registered nurse. As an nurse, the more permanent schedule that they would

be working within would provide more frequent opportunity for patient interaction, teaching, and

analysis. The working nurse would potentially have more experience with patient interaction and

bedside manner which would directly affect the quality of the care provided throughout the

duration of these physical tests. The patients involved within these forms of research experiments

might feel more comfortable working with a licensed healthcare professional as opposed to a

student nurse as well. This could potentially allow for a better end result due to the fact that

patient compliance and comfort in regards to this type of experimentation is of the utmost

importance (Thiebaud et al, 2013). Aside from the aforementioned aspects, there would appear to

be very little difference in regards to a registered nurse versus a student nurse performing the

tests with patients.

In conclusion, the research that was utilized was found to be very consistent and

congruent. They all provided simple, organized methods for testing their hypotheses and created

clear and concise results. The summarized outcomes of virtually all the experiments that were

used point to resistance training’s superiority over aerobic exercise. The majority of the studies

suggested that this type of training or physical therapy produced increases in lean muscle mass,

improved cardiovascular and cardiorespiratory function, elevated function of organ and

endocrine systems, and heightened the test subjects’ sense of well-being and general mental

health. Continued research and experimentation within the context of this topic are still

warranted, however, the existing data obtained thus far provides a significant amount of

evidence. Evidence that supports the therapeutic power of resistance training and its potential to

enrich the lives of patients within our healthcare systems.

RESISTANCE TRAINING VS AEROBICS 6

References

Berman, A., Snyder, S., & Frandsen, G. (2016). Kozier & Erb's fundamentals of nursing:

concepts, process, and practice. Boston: Pearson.

Blair, M., Ignatavicius, D. D., Rebar, C. R., Winkelman, C., & Workman, M. L. (2016). Medical-

surgical nursing: patient-centered collaborative care. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier

Miles, L. (2012). Physical activity and health. Nutrition Bulletin, 32(4), 314-363.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2007.00668.x

Thiebaud, R. S., Loenneke, J. P., Fahs, C. A., Rossow, L. M., Kim, D., Abe, T., . . . Bemben, M.

G. (2013). The effects of elastic band resistance training combined with blood flow

restriction on strength, total bone-free lean body mass and muscle thickness in

postmenopausal women. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, 33(5), 344-352.

doi:10.1111/cpf.12033

Vuori, I. (2013). Physical activity and health: Metabolic and cardiovascular issues. Advances in

Physiotherapy, 9(2), 50-64. doi:10.1080/14038190701395887