| Title |
Programming and supervision of resistance training leads to positive effects on strength and body composition: results from two randomised trials of community fitness programmes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-018-5289-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steven Mann, Alfonso Jimenez, James Steele, Sarah Domone, Matthew Wade, Chris Beedie |
| Abstract |
Many sedentary adults have high body fat along with low fitness, strength, and lean body mass (LBM) which are associated with poor health independently of body mass. Physical activity can aid in prevention, management, and treatment of numerous chronic conditions. The potential efficacy of resistance training (RT) in modifying risk factors for cardiovascular and metabolic disease is clear. However, RT is under researched in public health. We report community-based studies of RT in sedentary (Study 1), and overweight and pre-diabetic (Study 2) populations. Study 1 - A semi randomised trial design (48-weeks): Participants choosing either a fitness centre approach, and randomised to structured-exercise (STRUC, n = 107), or free/unstructured gym use (FREE, n = 110), or not, and randomised to physical-activity-counselling (PAC, n = 71) or a measurement only comparator (CONT, n = 76). Study 2 - A randomised wait list controlled trial (12-weeks): Patients were randomly assigned to; traditional-supervised-exercise (STRUC, n = 30), physical-activity-counselling (PAC, n = 23), either combined (COMB, n = 39), or a wait-list comparator (CONT, n = 54). Outcomes for both were BF mass (kg), LBM (kg), BF percentage (%), and strength. Study 1: One-way ANCOVA revealed significant between group effects for BF% and LBM, but not for BF mass or strength. Post hoc paired comparisons revealed significantly greater change in LBM for the STRUC group compared with the CONT group. Within group changes using 95%CIs revealed significant changes only in the STRUC group for both BF% (- 4.1 to - 0.9%) and LBM (0.1 to 4.5 kg), and in FREE (8.2 to 28.5 kg) and STRUC (5.9 to 26.0 kg) for strength. Study 2: One-way ANCOVA did not reveal significant between group effects for strength, BF%, BF mass, or LBM. For strength, 95%CIs revealed significant within group changes for the STRUC (2.4 to 14.1 kg) and COMB (3.7 to 15.0 kg) groups. Strength increased in both studies across all RT treatments compared to controls, yet significant improvements in both strength and body-composition occurred only in programmed and/or supervised RT. As general increases in physical activity have limited impact upon body-composition, public health practitioners should structure interventions to include progressive RT. Study 1: ISRCTN13024854 , retrospectively registered 20/02/2018. Study 2: ISRCTN13509468 , retrospectively registered 20/02/2018). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 30% |
| Canada | 3 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Cabo Verde | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 57% |
| Scientists | 6 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 144 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Researcher | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 54 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 31 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Unknown | 58 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,434,455
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,852
of 16,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,622
of 336,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#88
of 323 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,903 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 323 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.