Carga e Velocidade de Movimento e o Efeito Do Gasto Energetico Durante o Treinamento Resistido em Circuito

Page 1 of 37
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.
Loads and Movement Speed Affect Energy Expenditure during Circuit Resistance Exercise
Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Colorado Libraries on 02/03/17
Kirk B. Roberson1; Kevin A. Jacobs1; Morgan J. White1; Joseph F. Signorile1, 2
1
Laboratory of Neuromuscular Research & Active Aging-University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
2
University of Miami-Miller School of Medicine, Center on Aging
Corresponding Author: Dr. Joseph Signorile

Address: 1507 Levante Ave., Coral Gables, FL, 33146
Telephone: (305)-284-3105
Fax: (305)-284-4183
Email: j.signorile@miami.edu
Page 2 of 37
Circuit and Energy Expenditure 2

ABSTRACT
Circuit resistance training (CT) constitutes a high-intensity interval program commonly used to
target weight loss; however, the loads and exercise patterns that maximize energy expenditure
(EE) remain undetermined. We examined differences in EE among CT protocols using varying
loads and contraction speeds in recreationally-trained males and females. Seven males (21.1 ±
0.5y) and eight females (20.0 ± 0.9y) performed three randomized CT protocols incorporating
three circuits using heavy-load (80%1RM) explosive (HLEC), heavy-load, controlled (2s)
(HLCC), and moderate-load (50%1RM) explosive contractions (MLEC). Expired air was
collected continuously before, during, and after exercise. Blood lactate was collected at rest,
immediately post-exercise, and five min post-exercise. No significant differences were detected
for resting EE; however, there was a significant difference among conditions during exercise
(p=.034, ηp2=.229). Post-hoc analysis revealed that MLEC produced significantly higher EE than
HLCC, but not HLEC (p=.023). There was a significant difference among conditions for rate of
EE during exercise (p=.003, ηp2=.361). Post-hoc analysis revealed that HLEC produced a
significantly higher EE rate than HLCC (p=.012) or MLEC (p=.001). A condition x sex
interaction was seen for blood lactate changes (ηp2=.249; p=.024). Females produced
significantly greater change for MLEC than HLEC (p=.011), while males showed no significant
differences. Our results favor CT using MLEC for a higher EE during a full workout; however,
the EErate was highest when using HLEC.
Key Words: Blood Lactate; Weight Loss; High-Intensity; Recreationally Trained; Circuit
Training; Resistance Exercise; Contraction Speed; Energy Expenditure

Page 3 of 37

INTRODUCTION
With the prevalence of obesity in the United States, physical activity (PA) is an integral
component of a healthy lifestyle. PA can prevent or even reverse the effects of some chronic
diseases, while reducing individual mortality risks (Long et al., 2015; Rockhill et al., 2001;
Tanasescu et al., 2002; Williams, 2001). For obese individuals, PA and diet management can
decrease overall body weight and body fat percentage (Donnelly et al., 2009). Current
recommendations from ACSM recommend endurance exercise and dietary restriction, while
resistance training (RT) has not been assigned a major role in weight loss (Donnelly et al., 2009).
Generally, RT is employed to increase muscular size, strength, and power. Recently RT
has been used for weight reduction and control (Ballor et al., 1996; Donnelly et al., 2009;
Kraemer et al., 1999; Messier et al., 2004; Villareal et al., 2010); however, due to limited interest
in this application, determining the effect of RT on energy expenditure (EE) has received little
attention. Researchers have assessed EE resulting from RT using the Weir and other similar
equations (Buitrago et al., 2013; Mazzetti et al., 2007; Mukaimoto and Ohno, 2012; Weir, 1949);
however, the non-steady state nature of RT, makes the reliability of such calculations
questionable. By including anaerobic contributions from lactate, researchers may be able to more
accurately compute EE during RT.
RT involves a number of variables including frequency, load, number of sets and
repetitions, rest intervals, exercise order, movement velocity, and type of equipment. Although
the impacts of many of these variables on EE have been studied under varying training
conditions (Aniceto et al., 2013; Ballor et al., 1987; Beckham and Earnest, 2000; Buitrago et al.,
2012; Mazzetti et al., 2007; Mazzetti et al., 2011; Mukaimoto and Ohno, 2012; Scott et al., 2009;
Wilkin et al., 2012; Wilmore et al., 1978), the effects of movement velocity during the concentric
Page 4 of 37

and eccentric segments of a typical RT circuit have yet to be quantified. In two studies, Mazzetti
et al. (2007; 2011), measured the effects of three different loading patterns and movement speeds
on EE. Their results supported the use of explosive concentric movements over slower,
controlled movement speeds. These studies, however, used a traditional RT format in which the
subject completed three sets of an exercise before moving to the next, and employed only male
participants. There have been a number of other studies that have measured metabolic responses
to RT, and attempted to identify potential mechanisms (Ballor et al., 1987; Buitrago et al., 2012;
Wilkin et al., 2012). Many of these studies, however, have examined only one exercise, such as
the bench press or seated leg press, rather than multiple exercises used during typical training
sessions.
Although EE has been examined during aerobic and classic RT, there is a paucity of data
for EE during circuit resistance exercise (CT), even though it is regularly recommended for
weight loss (Mazzetti et al., 2007; Mazzetti et al., 2011; Wilkin et al., 2012). One study
compared the effects of CT and traditional RT on EE and reported no significant differences
between the two modalities, however, the authors did indicate that there was a higher anaerobic
contribution using RT (Aniceto et al., 2013).
Two studies have also evaluated techniques that can effectively quantify EE resulting
from CT (Beckham and Earnest, 2000; Wilmore et al., 1978). It is important to note that these
studies along with one recent study by Mookerjee et al. (2016) are the only three studies to our
knowledge to assess changes in EE in women. However, in each of these studies anaerobic
contributions to EE were not considered and movement velocities were not varied. Therefore,
the purpose of this study was to examine differences in EE among CT protocols using varying
loads and movement speeds in recreation

Page 5 of 37

ally-trained men and women. Given the results of previous studies, we hypothesized that
the use of maximum speed explosive contractions with heavy loads would increase EE to a
significantly greater degree than slow, controlled speed programs using heavy loads or maximal
speed explosive programs using moderate loads.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Subjects
Seven apparently healthy men (age: 21.1±0.5 yrs; height: 68.1±2.2 in; body weight: 74.5±13.0
kg; BMI: 24.9±4.1; VO2max 43.3±6.7 ml-kg-min-1) and eight apparently healthy women (age:
20.0±0.9 yrs; height: 64.1±2.9 in; body weight: 59.2±6.2 kg; BMI: 22.3±1.7; VO2max 39.9±6.3
ml·kg·min-1) voluntarily participated in the study. Subjects were determined to be recreationally
active if they participated in some form aerobic and/or resistance training for at least 30 min/d,
on at least 3 d/wk. Information regarding physical activity was provided by each subject on a
Health History Questionnaire. All subjects were non-smokers and denied using any medications
(with the exception of birth control in women), dietary or ergogenic supplements, and reported
no disease or disorders that may have affected their metabolism. All subjects had the
experimental risks and benefits of the study explained to them and subsequently signed an
informed consent form along with a physical activity readiness questionnaire and Health History
questionnaire, approved by the Institutional Review Board for the Use and Protection of Human
Subjects at the University of Miami.
Research Design
To compare the effects of three different CT protocols on EE, each of the 15 subjects visited the
laboratory on six separate occasions at the same time each day (±1 hour) with 24-72 hours
Page 6 of 37

separating sessions. The first day consisted of completing all necessary forms and questionnaires,
completing anthropometric and resting measurements including body height and weight, blood
pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), a resting electrocardiogram (ECG), and treadmill familiarization.
On the second day, subjects completed a maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) test on a
motorized treadmill. Subjects were also familiarized with the pneumatic exercise equipment
(Keiser Corp, Fresno, CA. USA) on which they would subsequently be tested. On the third day,
subjects performed one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing on each of the seven pneumatic
machines to be used in the study. 1RM testing on each machine was completed in the following
order for each subject: Bilateral leg press, seated latissimus dorsi (lat) pull-down, seated hip
adduction, seated chest press, seated knee flexion, seated overhead press, and seated hip
abduction. 1RM testing was conducted using guidelines established by the National Strength and
Conditioning Association (Baechle and Earle, 2008). On days 4-6, subjects completed each of
the three assigned CT protocols. A brief description of each protocol is depicted in Figure 1A.
Subjects performed three circuits using heavy-load (80%1RM) explosive contraction (HLEC),
heavy-load, controlled contraction (2s) (HLCC), and moderate-load (50%1RM) explosive
contractions (MLEC). Results from our previously conducted pilot study revealed that 80% 1RM
generally correlated with each subjects 6RM, and that 50% 1RM correlated with each subjects
12RM. The order in which the protocols were completed was randomly assigned in a
counterbalanced manner.
Anthropometric and Resting Measurements
Body weight and height were measured to the nearest .1 kg and .5 cm, respectively. Body weight
was obtained using a calibrated electronic scale (Measuretek Scale, Model PS-102-200,
Vancouver, BC. Canada). Height was measured using a stadiometer that was a component of a
Page 7 of 37

medical dual beam scale (Detecto Corp, Webb City, MO, USA). Resting HR and BP were
obtained electronically (BP TRU. BPM-200, Coquitlam, BC, Canada) following a 15-min seated
rest period. A seated, resting 12-lead ECG was obtained (Model: iE 6, Shenzhen Biocare Bio-
Medical Equipment Co., Ltd., Shenzhen. P.R. China) to ensure that subjects had no pre-existing
arrhythmias that would preclude them from vigorous exercise.
Maximal Oxygen Consumption Testing
VO2max testing was conducted on a Cybex 790T motorized treadmill (Cybex International, Inc.,
Medway, MA. USA) wearing a portable breath-by-breath gas analyzer (Oxycon Mobile,
Carefusion, Yorba Linda, CA. USA). The portable metabolic unit was calibrated prior to each
testing session. A two-way non-rebreathing nasal and mouth facemask was used, and each
subject was fitted with mask size that minimized any leakage of air. The testing protocol used
was a modified version of the Astrand Treadmill Test (Åstrand, 1952). Subjects completed a
four-min warm-up at a self-directed speed. Each subject was instructed to increase gradually the
speed throughout the warm-up and at minute three to select the fastest speed at which they could
maintain a conversation (Talk-test). Once this speed was selected, it was kept constant
throughout the remainder of the test. The warm-up was conducted at a 0% grade and at the start
of the test incline increased to 2.5%. Subsequently, the grade was increased by 2.5% every two
minutes until test completion. Perceived exertion was measured using the 15-point Borg Rating
of Perceived Exertion (RPE) Scale (Borg, 1982). HR was continuously monitored using a Polar
portable HR sensor (H7 Heart Rate Sensor, Lake Success, NY. USA). RPE and HR were
obtained from the subject during the last minute of the warm-up, and at one and a half minutes
into each stage. Subjects were asked to give a maximal effort. Established criteria from ACSM
were used to determine if a true maximal effort was achieved.

Page 8 of 37

Familiarization
After resting measurements were obtained on the first day, all subjects completed a treadmill
familiarization session in which they were introduced to the equipment and all functions relevant
to the test, including emergency stop procedures and procedures for exiting the treadmill at the
completion of maximal testing. Following the completion of all 1RM testing, subjects practiced
performing the concentric and eccentric phases of each lift in synchronization with the tones of a
digital metronome (DeltaLab, DMT-1, Thousand Oaks, CA. USA) at both loads (50% and 80%
1RM) to be used during the three CT protocols. For consistency, seating and arm positions, as
well as hand and foot placement, for each of the seven pneumatic machines were recorded and
used throughout all testing sessions. For the leg press, a starting knee angle of ~1.57 rad was
established via a goniometer for all subjects.
Dietary Requirements
On the day of baseline and resting measurements, subjects were instructed not to eat or consume
caffeine two hours prior to their visit. Subjects were also instructed to keep a written record and
to consume the exact same meal at the exact same time point each day before and each day of
their testing sessions. Subjects were not limited to any particular diet and were not instructed to
change their diet, however, in order to obtain consistent baseline measures, meals prior to testing
needed to be identical in all aspects. The respiratory exchange ratio and resting HR were
examined during the resting portion of each testing session to ensure that subjects were starting
at similar baseline levels prior to the exercise phase of the session.
Experimental Protocol
Page 9 of 37

The study timeline across testing days is presented in Figure 1B, while the testing protocol for
each day is illustrated in Figure 1C. Prior to each of the three testing protocols, subjects rested in
a supine position in a dark, quiet room, on a padded treatment table for 15 min. Expired gas was
continuously collected during this resting phase and throughout the entire exercise session.
During the resting phase, subjects were instructed to remain awake and not to move, speak, or
use/view any electronic devices. Ten minutes into the resting phase a blood sample was obtained
to determine blood lactate concentration. Blood samples (~2.8 µL) were obtained via the finger-
stick method at 10 min into the resting phase and immediately following the end of the exercise
phase of each testing session. Two samples were obtained at each time point and the average was
used to determine blood lactate (BL) concentration (mmol·L). The sites chosen for the finger
sticks were midway between the edge and midpoint of the fingertip on the second, third, and
fourth fingers. Each site was properly cleaned using a 70% isopropyl alcohol solution prior to the
blood draw. Samples were taken using two identical portable lactate analyzers (Lactate plus,
Nova Biomedical, Waltham, MA. USA). Each analyzer was calibrated according to company
guidelines.
Following the resting phase, the subjects performed one of the three experimental
protocols. For the MLEC protocol, subjects attempted to complete 12 repetitions on each of the
seven machines at 50% of their established 1RM. For the concentric portion of the lift, the
subject was asked to “move the load as forcefully and as quickly as possible”. The eccentric
phase of the lift consisted of a two second, controlled motion. Instructions for the HLEC protocol
were identical to that of the MLEC protocol with the exception that the load lifted was 80% of
the subject's 1RM. For the HLCC protocol, the load used was the same as that for the HLEC
protocol; however, movement speeds for both the concentric and eccentric phases were set at
Page 10 of 37

two seconds. If a subject was not able to complete all repetitions for any protocol the total
number completed was recorded, and if additional rotations in the circuit were remaining the
subject was provided a longer recovery prior to completing the next exercise set(s). The
pneumatic resistance training exercises, in the order in which they were performed, are presented
in Figure 2.
For all testing protocols, subjects were given identical warm-up sets on the leg press (ten
reps, 40% 1RM, self-directed contraction speeds) prior to the start of exercise. Data from this
warm-up set were not included in the analyses. All exercises were conducted in a circuit-style,
meaning that the subject completed one set on each machine before moving to the next. Three
rounds of the circuit constituted one full testing session. For rest intervals, subjects were
instructed to take as much time as needed before progressing to the next machine in order to
complete successfully all of the assigned repetitions. Instructions for the rest periods were
identical for all three exercise protocols. Immediately following the exercise protocol, a blood
sample was collected and analyzed for BL concentration. Finally, the subject rested lying supine
on the padded treatment in the dark, quiet room for 30 min, which constituted the EPOC phase.
Calculations
Data from the metabolic unit were exported in 10-s intervals and used to calculate the rate of EE
(kcal•min-1) using the equations of Weir (1949) The average EE for rest, exercise, and recovery
was multiplied by that phase’s exact time to calculate the total EE (TEE, kcal) for that phase.
Anaerobic contributions to EE using BL were determined using an equation provided in
previous studies (Scott 2006; 2012; Scott et al. 2009):
[∆ mmol lactate * 3 ml O2 * body weight (kg)/1000]

Page 11 of 37

where ∆ mmol lactate is the different in BL from rest to the end of exercise, and a conversion
factor of 3.0 ml O2 · kgBW-1. This value was then divided by 1000 to convert ml to L of O2 and
was subsequently multiplied by five to convert into kcal (1L O2=5.0 kcal). Volume load was
calculated for males and females separately, and combined. Total volume load was summed for
all exercises collectively. Loads used for the heavy and moderate weight protocols are presented
in Table 1 and total volume loads for each condition are presented in Table 2. Total volume load
was calculated for each exercise by the equation:
[Volume load=sets x repetitions x load (kg)]
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented as means ± standard error (SE). A 3 x 3 analysis of variance with repeated
measures was used to test for significant condition x time x sex interactions, and Bonferroni’s
post hoc analysis was used where appropriate to determine specific pairwise differences (SPSS
ver. 22, Armonk, NY. USA). Significance for this study was defined as p ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS
Heart Rate and Rest Intervals and Volume Load
An average heart rate (HR) was calculated every two minutes during each exercise
session. There was a main effect revealing significant differences in HR at the different time
points for the HLCC (ηp2=.898; p<.001), HLEC (ηp2=.781; p<.001), and MLEC (ηp2=.750;
p<.001) protocols (Figure 3A). In all three protocols, HR significantly increased throughout the
progression of the exercise session. It is also worth noting that although each subject was
allowed to dictate their own rest intervals between sets, there were no significant differences in
rest intervals between the three protocols (HLEC: 24.24±1.00; HLCC: 24.25±1.25; MLEC:
Page 12 of 37

22.00±1.25). Data from Table 2 represent the total volume load for each condition by exercise
and when all exercises are combined. For all exercises individually and combined, mean total
volume load was higher for the MELC protocol than for HLEC/HLCC.
Lactate
Blood lactate concentration pairwise comparisons are presented in Table 3. For resting
blood lactate there was no significant difference (ηp2=.066; p=.412) or condition x sex interaction
(ηp2=.113; p=.209) and no significant differences were seen among groups for the duration of the
resting phases (ηp2=.191; p=.281). For the change in blood lactate levels across the exercise
phase, a significant condition effect was detected (ηp2=.265; p=.018) and a significant condition
x sex interaction was seen (ηp2=.249; p=.024). Separate post-hoc analyses for females and males
revealed that for females MLEC produced a significantly greater change in blood lactate across
the exercise period than HLEC (Mdiff = 1.61±0.35 mmol·L-1; p=.011), while males showed no
significant differences by condition.
Oxygen Consumption
Pairwise comparisons for VO2 across phases are presented in Table 3. No significant
differences were found by condition (ηp2=.130; p=.434) or condition x sex interaction (ηp2=.017;
p=.900) during the initial resting phase. There were also no significant differences seen during
the exercise phase for condition (ηp2=.168; p=.091) or condition x sex interaction (ηp2=.003;
p=.960). Finally, neither a significant condition effect (ηp2=.034; p=.639) nor condition x sex
interaction (ηp2=.001; p=.982) were detected during the recovery phase. There were no
significant findings for oxygen consumption with any condition or between sexes for each time
point during each testing session.

Page 13 of 37

Energy Expenditure Based on Oxygen Consumption
Figures 3B and 3C illustrate the changes in rate of energy expenditure (EErate) across the
exercise and recovery phases under each exercise condition. Comparisons for EErate across
phases are presented in Table 4. Since EE was not assessed during the initial resting phase,
results are presented for EErate only. For this phase, no significant differences were detected in
EErate among conditions (ηp2=.032; p=.654) nor was there a significant condition x sex
interaction (ηp2=.016; p=.810).
While there was a significant difference due to condition for total EE during the exercise
phase of the assessment (ηp2=.246; p=.026), there was no significant condition x sex interaction
(ηp2=.038; p=.601). Although pairwise comparisons revealed no significant differences among
conditions, the difference between the HLCC and MLEC approached significance (Mdiff = -12.51
± 4.70 Kcal; p=.059). For EErate during the exercise phase there was a significant difference by
condition (ηp2=.216; p=.043), but no significant condition x sex interaction (ηp2=.033; p=.646).
Pairwise comparisons revealed a significantly higher EErate for HLEC compared to HLCC
(Mdiff=.51 ± .16 Kcal; p=.024).
There were no significant differences in EE for condition (ηp2=.033; p=.648) or condition
x sex interaction (ηp2=.001; p=.984), or in EErate for condition (ηp2=.035; p=.633) or condition x
sex interaction (ηp2=.016; p=.984) during recovery.
When EE for the exercise and recovery phases was combined, a significant difference
was detected for condition (ηp2=.228; p=.035), but not for condition x sex (ηp2=.041; p=.579).
Post hoc analysis produced only a single pairwise comparison that approached significance, with
MLCC producing a higher value than HLCC (Mdiff = -12.42 ± 5.07 Kcal; p=.088). When EErate
Page 14 of 37

for the exercise and recovery phases was combined, no significant differences were seen for
condition (ηp2=.149; p=.122) or condition x sex (ηp2=.029; p=.684). Post hoc analyses revealed
no significant differences between groups; however, the difference between HLEC and HLCC
approached significance (Mdiff = .23 ± .09 Kcal; p=.066).
Energy Expenditure Based on Oxygen Consumption and Blood Lactate
Table 4 provides pairwise comparisons EE computed using anaerobic and aerobic
sources across the exercise and recovery phases.
For EE during exercise there was a significant difference due to condition (ηp2=.229;
p=.034), but no significant condition x sex interaction (ηp2=.014; p=.831). As was the case for
our analysis based on VO2, pairwise comparisons revealed no significant differences among
conditions; however, the difference between the HLCC and MLEC approached significance
(Mdiff = -12.14 ± 4.71 Kcal; p=.069). For EErate during the exercise phase there was also a
significant difference by condition (ηp2=.361; p=.003), but not significant condition x sex
interaction (ηp2=.032; p=.636). Pairwise comparisons revealed a significantly higher EErate for
HLEC compared to HLCC (Mdiff=.62 ±.21 Kcal; p=.036) and MLEC (Mdiff=.84 ±.21 Kcal;
p=.004).
For the total EE computed as the sum of exercise phase EE using VO2 and blood lactate
and recovery EE using VO2 alone in the computation, there was neither a significant difference
seen for condition (ηp2=.192; p=.063) nor a condition x sex interaction (ηp2=.013; p=.838).
When EErate for the exercise and recovery phases were combined, no significant differences were
seen for condition (ηp2=.076; p=.357) or condition x sex (ηp2=.027; p=.703).
Ratings of Perceived Exertion

Page 15 of 37

An analysis of the average RPE during the exercise stage revealed a significant difference by
condition (ηp2=.663; p=.0001), but no condition x sex interaction (ηp2=.104; p=.267). Post hoc
analyses revealed that RPE was significantly higher for HLEC (7.2±.5; Mdiff = 1.8±0.3; p=.001)
and MLEC (7.2±.4; Mdiff = 1.8±0.3; p=.0001) than for HLCC (5.4±.4).
DISCUSSION
To compare the effects of different contraction speeds and loads on energy expenditure, we
tested three different protocols, HLCC, HLEC and MLEC, in both men and women using
identical exercises. Repetition numbers and sets were consistent among each respective protocol
for each subject, regardless of sex. For this study, we chose to allow subjects to dictate their own
recovery period between sets, based on previous findings in our pilot study, which revealed no
significant differences in rest intervals when this method was applied. Notably, on average, the
total time to complete the MLEC (20.17 min) was longer than that required to complete either
the HLEC (16.07 min) or HLCC (17.12 min). This was likely because more repetitions
wereassigned to each exercise in the MLEC circuit, because of the lower assigned load.
Therefore, the MLEC protocol resulted in double the number of repetitions as compared to each
of the heavy-load protocols. It is likely that the difference in assigned repetitions caused the
overall mean difference in total volume load between the moderate and heavy load protocols. We
recognize the inherent limitations when interpreting TEE due to overall differences in the time
and volume load of each protocol and rather, stress the findings about EErate as they are not
entirely dependent on total exercise time, but better reflect exercise intensity. It is also worth
noting that although total volume load and total time were greater for the MLEC protocol, RPE
was not significantly higher when compared to HLEC, suggesting that greater volume alone was
not enough to elicit a greater perception of exertion. This design was chosen since it reflects real-
Page 16 of 37

world application, rather than attempting to equilibrate volume or total work across exercise
conditions.
Influence of Resistance Exercise on Oxygen Consumption

Our VO2 results during all exercise (HLEC=14.5 ± 0.4 ml·kg-1·min-1; HLCC=14.9 ± 0.5 ml·kg-
1
·min-1; MLEC=15.6± 0.6 ml·kg-1·min-1) and recovery sessions (HLEC=5.5 ± 0.2 ml·kg-1·min-1;
HLCC=5.5 ± 0.2 ml·kg-1·min-1; MLEC=5.3 ± 0.2 ml·kg-1·min-1) exceeded those reported by
Braun et al. (2005) (exercise=11.5 ± 1.2 ml·kg-1·min-1; recovery=2.9 ± 0.2 ml·kg-1·min-1) in
eight, untrained women (31.3±9.1 years; BM=63.9±10.2 kg). Differences may be attributable to
the differences in population samples or between the CT protocols. In addition to the
incorporation of both sexes in our sample, our subjects were also approximately a decade
younger, were resistance-trained, and had a considerably higher VO2max values for our women
(39.9±6.3 ml·kg·min-1) and men (43.3±6.7 ml·kg-1·min-1) than for the women in their study
(31.9±4.1 ml·kg·min-1). For CT, both studies employed three sets; however, their study used 15
reps at 65% 1RM at controlled speed, while these patterns differed for our protocols depending
on load (80% 1RM or 50 1RM) and movement speed (2s concentric/2s eccentric; max speed
concentric / 2s eccentric). Additionally, allowing our subjects to self-select recoveries between
sets may have provided a more effective work/recovery interval than the 30-s transition time
provided in their study. Finally, the use of pneumatic machines in our study may have produced
more consistent loading throughout exercise ranges of motion that the plate-loaded machines in
their study.
Buitrago et al. (2013) examined VO2 during the chest press performed under four
different conditions, strength endurance (55% 1RM; 4s concentric/4s eccentric), fast force
Page 17 of 37

endurance (55% 1RM; max speed concentric/1s eccentric), hypertrophy (70% 1RM; 2s
concentric/2s eccentric), and maximum strength (85% 1RM; max speed concentric/1s eccentric).
They reported that mean VO2 during fast force endurance (11.4±16.9 ml·kg·min-1) was
significantly higher than for all other RTMs (p<0.01). While this pattern reflects that seen in the
current study, once again the VO2 values are notably lower than those in our study. Given that
both studies used young, resistance-trained individuals, the most likely reason for the differences
between studies were: the use of three sets of circuit resistance exercise compared to one set
resulting in velocity-specific failure; pneumatic versus plate-loaded resistance; and, the use of a
single exercise that targets moderate muscle mass vs. multiple exercises targeting a variety of
large and smaller muscle groups.
Lactate Concentration and Resistance Exercise
In the study cited earlier by Buitrago et al. (2013) blood lactate levels were significantly higher
after fast force endurance than strength endurance, hypertrophy or maximum strength protocols.
These results are similar to those seen in the current study for females with MLEC producing
significantly greater changes in blood lactate across the exercise phase than HLEC. Additionally,
Mazzeti et al. (2011) observed pre-exercise and post-exercise lactate levels that are similar to
those reported in this study. However, they found blood lactate levels reached significantly
higher values with a heavy load-slow contraction protocol (2s concentric/2s eccentric) than either
a heavy explosive (maximal concentric/2s eccentric) or recreational lifting protocol (~1s
concentric/~1s eccentric). This differed from our findings that showed no significant differences
between the two heavy protocols. Differences could be attributed to the dissimilar protocol
designs, in which we utilized a circuit resistance exercise design, while Mazzetti and colleagues
(2011) used a protocol in which multiple sets of a single exercise were completed prior to
Page 18 of 37

moving to the next exercise. These differences may have been the result of different methods of
providing recovery, and perhaps, our use of a circuit training protocol consisting of contrasting
agonist/antagonist muscle exercises and alternating the targeting of the upper and lower body
across sets. Potential mechanisms could be related to more efficient lactate clearance and
ATP/CP replenishment at the site of the active muscles; however, future research needs to be
conducted to confirm these possibilities. The differences in protocol design may have offset any
significant changes that would have otherwise been observed in a single-exercise/multi-set
protocol such as that employed by Mazzetti and colleagues (2011). In a study similar to ours
using a circuit resistance exercise protocol (60%1RM, 10 reps/set, 24 sets, 1s concentric/1s
eccentric), Aniceto et al (2013) reported a peak blood lactate level of 11.1±2.5 mmol·dL-1. This
is similar to that seen for the male participants in our study (HLCC: 11.7±.9; MLEC: 11.0±,7;
HLEC: 10.7±1.1); however, we could find no comparable results for women.
Influence of Contraction Speed and Load on Energy Expenditure
To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare EE between men and women
resulting from resistance exercise utilizing multiple loads and movement speeds. While others
have reported on EE during resistance exercise in women via indirect calorimetry (Beckham and
Earnest, 2000; Mookerjee et al., 2016; Wilmore et al., 1978), none to date have combined this
data with the anaerobic contributions which can be derived by assessing blood lactate before and
following exercise. Additionally, while others have examined the effects of contraction speed
and load differences on EE using traditional hypertrophy and strength protocols (Ballor et al.,
1987; Buitrago et al., 2012; Buitrago et al., 2013; Mazzetti et al., 2007; Mazzetti et al., 2011;
Scott et al., 2009), our approach was to quantify EE during circuit resistance exercise, which is
the resistance-exercise protocol most commonly employed when targeting weight loss.
Page 19 of 37

When basing EE on VO2 alone, MLEC resulted in the highest EEex values (kcals)
compared to HLEC and HLCC. Additionally, MLEC resulted in the highest EEtot values when
compared to HLEC and HLCC. It should be noted that none of the pairwise comparisons reached
statistical significance, although there was a strong trend for MLEC over HLCC (p=.059). The
findings regarding total EE do not support our hypothesis that HLEC would produce the highest
total EE. However, when considering EErate, we found that HLEC produced significantly greater
values when compared to HLCC and greater values when compared to MLEC although this
difference did not reach statistical significance.
When accounting for anaerobic contributions to total EE, we found that for EE during
exercise MLEC resulted in significantly higher values compared to HLCC. MLEC was also
higher, though not significantly, when compared to HLEC (105.2±4.5 > 93.1±4.2; 105.2±4.5 >
95.6±4.2 kcals). MLEC resulted in the highest EEtot values (kcals) when compared to HLEC
and HLCC (159.2±5.9 > 148.5±6.0; 159.2±5.9 > 147.5±6.1 kcals), but none were statistically
significant. Again, this data does not support our hypothesis concerning overall EE. However,
when looking at rates of EE both during exercise, we found significant differences that did not
exist when anaerobic contributions were not considered. We found that the EErate during exercise
was significantly greater with HLEC than both HLCC and MLEC (6.1±.2 > 5.4±.3; 6.1±.2 >
5.2±.2).
Based on these results, we can say that when looking at a complete exercise session,
including recovery, it appears that using a moderate load (50% 1RM) and maximally explosive
contractions will result in the greatest EE. However, it should be noted that the rate of EE is
greater when using a heavier load (80% 1RM) and maximally explosive contractions. Moreover,
during the third circuit of both the HLCC and HLEC protocols, subjects were more often unable
Page 20 of 37

to complete all of the assigned repetitions than during the MLEC protocol. Thus, it can be
inferred that the MLEC protocol may be able to be continued for a longer duration, while
completing additional circuits of the HLCC or HLEC protocol would be more unlikely without
adequate rest.
Gender Differences
As previously discussed, the only significant gender difference observed was the recorded
change in lactate concentration during the exercise session, which revealed greater changes
during the MLEC protocol than the HLEC. Beckham and Earnest (2000) reported significant
gender differences in VO2 and EE during a light resistance CT protocol where men had higher
values in each, however, those differences were not observed with our study. This could be
because the light resistance protocol utilized the same weight (~3 lbs) for men and women and
this weight was much lower than those used in the current study. Wilmore et al. (1978) reported
significant differences in EE (kcal/min) for men and women where men’s values were greater
than those for women; however, after accounting for differences in body weight these differences
were no longer statistically significant. Mookerjee et al. (2016) compared EE during resistance
training between men and women and reported significant gender differences in absolute and
relative EE where men’s values were higher, however, unlike the current study, a CT protocol
was not utilized, and anaerobic contributions to EE were not considered. It is not possible to
compare our results to those of previous studies involving women due to several differences
among the protocols including, changes in movement speed, differences in assigned load and rest
periods, and inclusion of anaerobic contributions to EE. Additionally, our findings indicating
significant differences for changes in lactate between sexes during CT are unique, in that no
similar data, to our knowledge, are currently available for women.

Page 21 of 37

Change in Blood Lactate Concentration as a Marker of Anaerobic Contributions to
Metabolism
When using the Weir equation or other similar equations designed to calculate EE using indirect
calorimetry, an assumption must be met that the subject maintains a steady-state level of exertion
throughout the exercise period. We know, however, that during RT, particularly circuit resistance
exercise, the subject may never reach a steady state, as exercises performed, rest periods,
contraction speeds, and loads lifted are changing. In a recent article, Scott and Reis discuss
limitations and potential solutions to determining EE during RT. They suggest that the energy
costs of brief, intense, intermittent exercise should be quantified in the context of a capacity
estimate, where a bout of exercise and/or amount of work completed is associated with a specific
energy cost (Scott and Reis, 2014). Under these settings, EE is calculated as the product of an
estimation of the total oxygen consumption (VO2), generally in liters, for the entire bout of
exercise, and a constant, which represents aerobic EE, estimated at 1 L O2 = 21.1 kJ. A
thorough discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper. For this study, we chose to
use the method of applying a steady-state equation to estimate EE from oxidative sources, rather
than applying a capacity-to-cost estimate technique. Although neither method may be truly
accurate in terms of quantifying EE during intermittent resistance exercise, we believe that it is
important to account for changes in VCO2, and subsequently, the respiratory exchange ratio,
when estimating EE.
In their studies examining EE with resistance exercise, Mazzetti et al. (2007), accounted
for anaerobic contributions to total EE using a model presented by Gladden et al. (1978) in
which the energy equivalent for each millimole increase in blood lactate after exercise (0.02698
kcal·kg-1 body mass) was utilized. Additionally, in their research Mazzetti et al. continued to
Page 22 of 37

measure blood lactate and account for anaerobic contributions during the post-exercise period.
While there is an ongoing discussion concerning the validity of this method, based on
information presented in the recent research we chose not to utilize this procedure (Gladden and
Welch, 1978; Mazzetti et al., 2007; Mazzetti et al., 2011). It is plausible that utilizing anaerobic
fuel sources during intense, intermittent exercise may contribute to EE generated through
oxidative sources; however, we believe that during the recovery period the stress and imbalance
between the systems is resolved rather quickly, with the energy coming predominantly from
aerobic systems with lactate and fat being the major substrates in mitochondrial respiration
(Scott, 2011). Thus, accounting for anaerobic processes, in addition to oxidative processes, may
be unnecessary. Other researchers, in order to account for these unique conditions, have
attempted to derive constants (kcal·min-1) for resistance exercises that may serve to better
estimate true EE (Katch et al., 1985). Unfortunately, research into this area is limited and data
are only available for specific exercise equipment and exercise modalities. Due to the ongoing
nature of this discussion, we chose to present the data from this study in both formats:
accounting for only oxidative processes and accounting for oxidative and anaerobic processes.
While the caloric contributions when accounting for changes in blood lactate concentration may
appear marginal in the context of overall TEE, this method resulted in a 6.2%, 8.2%, and 6.8%
increase in TEE. Perhaps more meaningful was the finding of an increase in the significant
difference between EErate after accounting for changes in blood lactate concentration, favoring
HLEC, when compared to both other protocols.
Due to the nature and collection methods of the current study, it is not feasible for us to
provide an explanation regarding potential cellular and enzymatic mechanisms that may have led
to our outcomes. Other researchers, have reported significant overall differences in blood lactate
Page 23 of 37

concentrations during (Mazzetti et al., 2007; Mazzetti et al., 2011) and post exercise (Buitrago et
al., 2012; Mazzetti et al., 2007; Mazzetti et al., 2011). These findings lead to suggestions that the
inherent characteristics of skeletal muscle such as fiber type properties and their usage at
different loads and speeds, and lactate shuttle type and location, may explain why some protocols
would elicit a greater EE response than others (Ballor et al., 1996; Buitrago et al., 2013; Scott
and Reis, 2014).
In summary, we examined the effects of three different circuit resistance exercise
protocols on EE in recreationally trained males and females. This was the first study, to our
knowledge, to assess the effects of different loads and movement velocities on EE using
continuous expired gas sampling via a portable oxygen consumption unit during circuit
resistance exercise. We therefore chose, as did other researchers that examined energy
expenditure resulting from resistance training, to use a more active population in our preliminary
study, especially given the inclusion of a high-speed circuit, to reduce the risks. Although there
were no significant differences in total EE between the three protocols, HLEC resulted in the
highest EErate. This finding was even more pronounced when EErate was computed using
anaerobic energy system contributions. The finding of a greater EErate when utilizing a HLEC
type of exercise protocol is beneficial for individuals seeking to maximize caloric expenditure
and performance, particularly when time available to exercise is limited. If the goal were greater
volume and the ability to exercise for a greater amount of time, then the MLEC protocol would
be more appropriate. These results provide practical implications for recreational exercisers and
fitness training professionals when designing an exercise program aimed at maximizing EE to
assist with weight management and fitness goals.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Page 24 of 37

The authors have no conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank all of the loyal participants of the Laboratory of Neuromuscular
Research & Active Aging, Matthew Hagan, Sean Chowdhari and our undergraduate students for
their continued dedication and help. No external grant funding was used for this study. The
results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or
inappropriate data manipulation.

Page 25 of 37

REFERENCES
Aniceto, R. R., Ritti-Dias, R. M., Scott, C. B., Lima, F. F. M. d., Prazeres, T. M. P. d., & Prado,
W. L. d. 2013. Acute effects of different weight training methods on energy expenditure

in trained men. Revista Brasileira De Medicina Do Esporte, 19(3): 181-185.
Åstrand, P.-O. 1952. Experimental studies of physical working capacity in relation to sex and
age: E. Munksgaard.
Baechle, T. R., Earle, R. W., & National Strength & Conditioning Association (U.S.). 2008.
Essentials of strength training and conditioning (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Ballor, D. L., Becque, M. D., & Katch, V. L. 1987. Metabolic responses during hydraulic
resistance exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 19(4): 363-367.
Ballor, D. L., HarveyBerino, J. R., Ades, P. A., Cryan, J., & CallesEscandon, J. 1996.
Contrasting effects of resistance and aerobic training on body composition and
metabolism after diet-induced weight loss. Metab. Clin. Exp, 45(2): 179-183. doi:
10.1016/S0026-0495(96)90050-5.
Beckham, S. G., & Earnest, C. P. 2000. Metabolic cost of free weight circuit weight training. J.
Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 40(2): 118-125.
Borg, G. 1982. Ratings of perceived exertion and heart rates during short-term cycle exercise and
their use in a new cycling strength test. Int. J. Sports Med, 3(3): 153-158. doi:10.1055/s-
2008-1026080.
Page 26 of 37

Braun, W. A., Hawthorne, W. E., & Markofski, M. M. 2005. Acute EPOC response in women to
circuit training and treadmill exercise of matched oxygen consumption. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol, 94(5-6): 500-504. doi:10.1007/s00421-005-1383-7.

Buitrago, S., Wirtz, N., Yue, Z., Kleinoder, H., & Mester, J. 2012. Effects of load and training
modes on physiological and metabolic responses in resistance exercise. Eur. J. Appl.
Physiol, 112(7): 2739-2748.
Buitrago, S., Wirtz, N., Yue, Z., Kleinoder, H., & Mester, J. 2013. Mechanical load and
physiological responses of four different resistance training methods in bench press
exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res, 27(4): 1091-1100. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318260ec77.
Donnelly, J. E., Blair, S. N., Jakicic, J. M., Manore, M. M., Rankin, J. W., Smith, B. K., 2009.
American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Appropriate physical activity
intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc, 41(2): 459-471. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181949333.
Gladden, L. B., & Welch, H. G. 1978. Efficiency of anaerobic work. J. Appl. Physiol. Respir.
Environ. Exerc. Physiol, 44(4): 564-570.
Howley, E. T. et al., 2000. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (6th ed.).
Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Katch, F. I., Freedson, P. S., & Jones, C. A. 1985. Evaluation of acute cardiorespiratory
responses to hydraulic resistance exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 17(1): 168-173.
Kraemer, W. J., Volek, J. S., Clark, K. L., Gordon, S. E., Puhl, S. M., Koziris, L. P., et al. 1999.
Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss
Page 27 of 37

in men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 31(9): 1320-1329. doi:Doi 10.1097/00005768-
199909000-00014.
Long, G., Watkinson, C., Brage, S., Morris, J., Tuxworth, B., Fentem, P., et al. 2015. Mortality
benefits of population-wide adherence to national physical activity guidelines: a
prospective cohort study. Eur. J. Epidemiol, 30(1): 71-79.
Mazzetti, S., Douglass, M., Yocum, A., & Harber, M. 2007. Effect of explosive versus slow
contractions and exercise intensity on energy expenditure. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 39(8):
1291-1301. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318058a603.
Mazzetti, S., Wolff, C., Yocum, A., Reidy, P., Douglass, M., Cochran, et al. 2011. Effect of
maximal and slow versus recreational muscle contractions on energy expenditure in
trained and untrained men. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness, 51(3): 381-392.
Messier, S. P., Loeser, R. F., Miller, G. D., Morgan, T. M., Rejeski, W. J., Sevick, M. A., et al.
2004. Exercise and dietary weight loss in overweight and obese older adults with knee
osteoarthritis - The arthritis, diet, and activity promotion trial. Arthritis Rheum, 50(5):
1501-1510. doi:10.1002/art.20256.
Mookerjee, S., Welikonich, M., & Ratamess, N. 2016. Comparison of Energy Expenditure
During Single-Set vs. Multiple-Set Resistance Exercise. J Strength Cond. Res, 30(5):
1447-1452.
Mukaimoto, T., & Ohno, M. 2012. Effects of circuit low-intensity resistance exercise with slow
movement on oxygen consumption during and after exercise. J. Sports Sci, 30(1): 79-90.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.616950.
Page 28 of 37

Rockhill, B., Willett, W. C., Manson, J. E., Leitzmann, M. F., Stampfer, M. J., Hunter, D. J., et
al. 2001. Physical activity and mortality: a prospective study among women. Am. J.
Public Health, 91(4): 578-583.

Scott, C. B. 2006. Contribution of blood lactate to the energy expenditure of weight training. J.
Strength Cond. Res, 20(2): 404-411. doi:10.1519/R-17495.1.
Scott, C. B. 2011. Quantifying the immediate recovery energy expenditure of resistance training.
J. Strength Cond. Res, 25(4): 1159-1163. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d64eb5.
Scott, C. B. 2012. The effect of time-under-tension and weight lifting cadence on aerobic,
anaerobic, and recovery energy expenditures: 3 submaximal sets. Appl. Physiol. Nutr.
Metab, 37(2): 252-256. doi:10.1139/h11-158
Scott, C. B., Croteau, A., & Ravlo, T. 2009. Energy expenditure before, during, and after the
bench press. J. Strength Cond. Res, 23(2): 611-618.
Scott, C. B., & Reis, V. M. 2014. Steady state models provide an invalid estimate of intermittent
resistance-exercise energy costs. Eur. J. Hum. Mov, 33: 70-78.
Tanasescu, M., Leitzmann, M. F., Rimm, E. B., Willett, W. C., Stampfer, M. J., & Hu, F. B.
2002. Exercise type and intensity in relation to coronary heart disease in men. JAMA,
288(16): 1994-2000.
Villareal, D. T., Chode, S., Parimi, N., Sinacore, D., Hilton, T., Qualls, C., et al. 2010. Effects of
Weight Loss, Exercise, or Combined on Physical Function in Frail, Obese Older Adults.
Gerontologist, 50: 171-171.

Page 29 of 37

Weir, J. B. 1949. New methods for calculating metabolic rate with special reference to protein
metabolism. J. Physiol, 109(1-2): 1-9.
Wilkin, L. D., Cheryl, A., & Haddock, B. L. 2012. Energy expenditure comparison between
walking and running in average fitness individuals. J. Strength Cond. Res. 26(4): 1039-
1044,
Williams, P. T. 2001. Physical fitness and activity as separate heart disease risk factors: a meta-
analysis. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 33(5): 754-761.
Wilmore, J. H., Parr, R. B., Ward, P., Vodak, P. A., Barstow, T. J., Pipes, T. V., et al. 1978.
Energy cost of circuit weight training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 10(2): 75-78.
al use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version Page 30 of 37
2 Table 1. Assigned Load for Each Exercise
Condition LP LAT ADD CP LC OHP ABD
Males
50%1RM 331.0±43.5 101.0±18.3 122.0±18.3 83.3±18.6 81.1±17.6 70.4±17.1 62.1±15.6
80%1RM 534.3±52.3 163.5±29.3 197.3±31.6 134.4±29.2 131.0±28.1 113.4±26.7 100.4±25.6
Females
50%1RM 194.9±48.4 50.3±7.2 64.3±11.9 35.6±7.5 51.1±8.2 37.4±8.7 45.3±7.7
80%1RM 312.0±77.3 80.6±11.1 103.0±30.5 56.7±11.9 82.1±12.8 59.9±14.2 72.9±12.2
Combined
50%1RM 267.5±83.0 77.3±29.6 95.1±34.8 61.0±28.3 67.1±20.6 55.0±21.6 54.3±14.9
80%1RM 430.5±135.2 124.8±48.1 153.3±57.2 98.1±45.8 108.2±33.2 88.4±34.8 87.5±24.4
3 Note: Table represent loads (kg) used for each condition by gender and combined. LP=Leg press; LAT=Lat pull-down; ADD=Hip
4 adduction; CP=Chest press; LC=Leg curl (knee flexion); OHP=Overhead press; ABD=Hip abduction; 1RM=One repetition
5 maximum. All values are means ±standard deviations.
al use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version
Page 31 of 37

6 Table 2. Total Volume Load
Combined UPPER BODY
Condition LAT CP OHP
50%1RM 1265.5±484.0 998.2±463.6 900.0±353.7
80%1RM 1021.1±393.7 802.9±374.4 723.3±284.3
LOWER BODY
LP ADD LC ABD
50%1RM 4376.7±1358.5 1555.6±568.9 1098.5±336.7 888.0±243.9
80%1RM 3522.5±1106.5 1254.0±467.8 885.3±271.5 716.2±199.4
ALL EXERCISES COMBINED
50%1RM 21759.3±1304.6
80%1RM 17519.5±1052.2
7 Note: Data represent total volume load (kg) used for each condition for males and females combined for upper body, lower body, and
8 all exercises combined. All values are means ± standard deviation.
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 32 of 37
9 Table 3. Lactate and Oxygen Consumption.
Condition [La-] at rest [La-] post exercise ∆ [La-]
Males
HLEC 1.3 ± .2 10.7 ± 1.1 9.4 ± 1.2
HLCC 1.1 ± .2 11.7 ± .9 10.6 ± 1.0
MLEC 1.8 ± .4 11.0 ± .7 9.3 ± 1.0
Females
HLEC 1.6 ± .2 4.9 ± .6 3.3 ± .5
HLCC 1.6 ± .3 5.7 ± .6 4.1 ± .6
MLEC 1.5 ± .3 6.4 ± .4 4.9 ± .5*
Males and Females Oxygen Consumption (ml/kg/min)
HLEC 4.3 ± .2 14.5 ± .4 5.5 ± .2
HLCC 4.1 ± .2 14.9 ± .5 5.5 ± .2
MLEC 4.3 ± .2 15.6 ± .6 5.3 ± .2
10 Note: [La-] = concentration of blood lactate in mmol/dL.

11 * Significantly greater than HLEC at p < .05. All values are mean ± standard error.
12
13
Page 33 of 37

14 Table 4. Rate of EE and TEE with and without ∆ [La-] method.
Condition Calculation Rest Exercise Recovery
Method
Rate of EE (kcal/min)
HLEC w/o ∆ [La-] 1.4 ± .1 5.1 ± .2* 1.8 ± .1
w/ ∆ [La-] - 6.1 ± .2 † -
HLCC w/o ∆ [La-] 1.4 ± .1 4.6 ± .2 1.8 ± .1
w/ ∆ [La-] - 5.4 ± .3 -
MLEC w/o ∆ [La-] 1.3 ± .1 4.9 ± .2 1.8 ± .1
w/ ∆ [La-] - 5.23 .2 -
TEE (kcal)
HLEC w/o ∆ [La-] 89.6 ± 3.9 52.9 ± 2.3 142.6 ± 5.7
w/ ∆ [La-] 95.6 ± 4.2 - 148.5 ± 6.0
HLCC w/o ∆ [La-] 85.5 ± 3.8 54.5 ± 2.4 139.9 ± 5.7
w/ ∆ [La-] 93.1 ± 4.2 - 147.6 ± 6.1
MLEC w/o ∆ [La-] 98.0± 4.1 54.0 ± 2.0 152.3 ± 5.2
w/ ∆ [La-] 105.2± 4.5 - 159.2 ± 5.9
15 Note: EE = energy expenditure; ∆ [La-] = change in the concentration of blood lactate; TEE =
16 total energy expenditure.* Significantly greater than HLCC at p < .05. † Significantly greater
17 than HLCC and MLEC at p < .05. All values are mean ± standard error.
18
19
Page 34 of 37

20 FIGURE CAPTIONS
21
22 Figure 1. Exercise protocol (A), daily experimental protocol (B), and study timeline (C) used to
23 compare the effects of heavy load controlled contractions (HLCC), heavy load explosive
24 contractions (HLEC), and moderate load explosive contractions (MLEC) on energy expenditure
25 during and following resistance circuit training in recreationally trained men and women. BP:
26 blood pressure; ECG: electrocardiogram; 1RM: heaviest load that can be displaced at one time;
27 BL: blood lactate; EE: energy expenditure.
28 Figure 2. Pneumatic resistance circuit training exercises displayed in the order in which they
29 were performed. Subjects completed each exercise once per circuit. The entire circuit was
30 performed three times, consecutively.
31 Figure 3. (A) Heart rate response during exercise. Depicts heart rate at separate time points for
32 each of the three protocols. HR = heart rate; bpm = beats per minute; min = minute. (B) Rates of
33 energy expenditure (kcal·min-1) during the recovery phase of the exercise session. (C) Rates of
34 energy expenditure (kcal·min-1) during exercise for males and females combined, for each of the
35 three randomly assigned protocols: heavy load controlled contraction (HLCC), heavy load
36 explosive contraction (HLEC), and moderate load explosive contraction (MLEC). Data are
37 means ± SE.
Page 35 of 37
Figure 1. Exercise protocol (A), daily experimental protocol (B), and study timeline (C) used to compare the
effects of heavy load controlled contractions (HLCC), heavy load explosive contractions (HLEC), and
moderate load explosive contractions (MLEC) on energy expenditure during and following resistance circuit
training in recreationally trained men and women. BP: blood pressure; ECG: electrocardiogram; 1RM:
heaviest load that can be displaced at one time; BL: blood lactate; EE: energy expenditure.
consecutively.
Figure 2. Pneumatic resistance circuit training exercises displayed in the order in which they were
performed. Subjects completed each exercise once per circuit. The entire circuit was performed three times,
Page 36 of 37
Page 37 of 37
Figure 3. (A) Heart rate response during exercise. Depicts heart rate at separate time points for each of the
three protocols. HR = heart rate; bpm = beats per minute; min = minute. (B) Rates of energy expenditure
(kcal·min-1) during the recovery phase of the exercise session. (C) Rates of energy expenditure (kcal·min-
1) during exercise for males and females combined, for each of the three randomly assigned protocols:
heavy load controlled contraction (HLCC), heavy load explosive contraction (HLEC), and moderate load
explosive contraction (MLEC). Data are means ± SE.
215x279mm (300 x 300 DPI)

Carga e Velocidade de Movimento e o Efeito Do Gasto Energetico Durante o Treinamento Resistido em Circuito

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carga e Velocidade de Movimento e o Efeito Do Gasto Energetico Durante o Treinamento Resistido em Circuito

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 37

Kirk B. Roberson1; Kevin A. Jacobs1; Morgan J. White1; Joseph F. Signorile1, 2

Corresponding Author: Dr. Joseph Signorile

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 2

(EE) remain undetermined. We examined differences in EE among CT protocols using varying

the EErate was highest when using HLEC.

Training; Resistance Exercise; Contraction Speed; Energy Expenditure

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 3

Generally, RT is employed to increase muscular size, strength, and power. Recently RT

accurately compute EE during RT.

RT involves a number of variables including frequency, load, number of sets and

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 4

compared the effects of CT and traditional RT on EE and reported no significant differences

contribution using RT (Aniceto et al., 2013).

knowledge to assess changes in EE in women. However, in each of these studies anaerobic

loads and movement speeds in recreation

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 5

speed explosive programs using moderate loads.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

ml·kg·min-1) voluntarily participated in the study. Subjects were determined to be recreationally

Subjects at the University of Miami.

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 6

heavy-load, controlled contraction (2s) (HLCC), and moderate-load (50%1RM) explosive

Anthropometric and Resting Measurements

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 7

arrhythmias that would preclude them from vigorous exercise.

Maximal Oxygen Consumption Testing

were used to determine if a true maximal effort was achieved.

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 8

established via a goniometer for all subjects.

at similar baseline levels prior to the exercise phase of the session.

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 9

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 10

Anaerobic contributions to EE using BL were determined using an equation provided in

previous studies (Scott 2006; 2012; Scott et al. 2009):

[∆ mmol lactate * 3 ml O2 * body weight (kg)/1000]

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 11

was calculated for each exercise by the equation:

[Volume load=sets x repetitions x load (kg)]

Heart Rate and Rest Intervals and Volume Load

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 12

significant differences by condition.

point during each testing session.

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 13

Energy Expenditure Based on Oxygen Consumption

interaction (ηp2=.016; p=.810).

(ηp2=.038; p=.601). Although pairwise comparisons revealed no significant differences among

(Mdiff=.51 ± .16 Kcal; p=.024).

There were no significant differences in EE for condition (ηp2=.033; p=.648) or condition

sex interaction (ηp2=.016; p=.984) during recovery.

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 14

approached significance (Mdiff = .23 ± .09 Kcal; p=.066).

Energy Expenditure Based on Oxygen Consumption and Blood Lactate

Table 4 provides pairwise comparisons EE computed using anaerobic and aerobic

sources across the exercise and recovery phases.

seen for condition (ηp2=.076; p=.357) or condition x sex (ηp2=.027; p=.703).

Ratings of Perceived Exertion

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 15

Circuit and Energy Expenditure 16

Influence of Resistance Exercise on Oxygen Consumption

HLCC=5.5 ± 0.2 ml·kg-1·min-1; MLEC=5.3 ± 0.2 ml·kg-1·min-1) exceeded those reported by

Braun et al. (2005) (exercise=11.5 ± 1.2 ml·kg-1·min-1; recovery=2.9 ± 0.2 ml·kg-1·min-1) in

the differences in population samples or between the CT protocols. In addition to the