Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity: Age and gender comparisons

J. T. Lemmer, F. M. Ivey, A. S. Ryan, G. F. Martel, D. E. Hurlbut, E. Metter, J. L. Fozard, J. L. Fleg, B. F. Hurley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

111 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare age and gender effects of strength training (ST) on resting metabolic rate (RMR), energy expenditure of physical activity (EEPA), and body composition. Methods: RMR and EEPA were measured before and after 24 wk of ST in 10 young men (20-30 yr), 9 young women (20-30 yr), 11 older men (65-75 yr), and 10 older women (65-75 yr). Results: When all subjects were pooled together, absolute RMR significantly increased by 7% (5928 ± 1225 vs 6328 ± 1336 kJ·d, P < 0.001). Furthermore, ST increased absolute RMR by 7% in both young (6302 ± 1458 vs 6719 ± 1617 kJ·d-1, P < 0.01) and older (5614 ± 916 vs 5999 ± 973 kJ·d-1, P < 0.05) subjects, with no significant interaction between the two age groups. In contrast, there was a significant gender × time interaction (P < 0.05) for absolute RMR with men increasing RMR by 9% (6645 ± 1073 vs 7237 ± 1150 kJ·d-1 P< 0.001), whereas women showed no significant increase (5170 ± 884 vs 5366 ± 692 kJ·d-1, P = 0.108). When RMR was adjusted for fat-free mass (FFM) using ANCOVA, with all subjects pooled together, there was still a significant increase in RMR with ST. Additionally, there was still a gender effect (P < 0.05) and no significant age effect (P = NS), with only the men still showing a significant elevation in RMR. Moreover, EEPA and TEE estimated with a Tritrac accelerometer and TEE estimated by the Stanford Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire did not change in response to ST for any group. Conclusions: In conclusion, changes in absolute and relative RMR in response to ST are influenced by gender but not age. In contrast to what has been suggested previously, changes in body composition in response to ST are not due to changes in physical activity outside of training.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)532-541
Number of pages10
JournalMedicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
Volume33
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Basal Metabolism
Resistance Training
Exercise
Energy Metabolism
Body Composition
Age Groups
Fats

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity : Age and gender comparisons. / Lemmer, J. T.; Ivey, F. M.; Ryan, A. S.; Martel, G. F.; Hurlbut, D. E.; Metter, E.; Fozard, J. L.; Fleg, J. L.; Hurley, B. F.

In: Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 33, No. 4, 01.01.2001, p. 532-541.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lemmer, J. T. ; Ivey, F. M. ; Ryan, A. S. ; Martel, G. F. ; Hurlbut, D. E. ; Metter, E. ; Fozard, J. L. ; Fleg, J. L. ; Hurley, B. F. / Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity : Age and gender comparisons. In: Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2001 ; Vol. 33, No. 4. pp. 532-541.
@article{91077a428edb421b8c5faba8d9850b92,
title = "Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity: Age and gender comparisons",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare age and gender effects of strength training (ST) on resting metabolic rate (RMR), energy expenditure of physical activity (EEPA), and body composition. Methods: RMR and EEPA were measured before and after 24 wk of ST in 10 young men (20-30 yr), 9 young women (20-30 yr), 11 older men (65-75 yr), and 10 older women (65-75 yr). Results: When all subjects were pooled together, absolute RMR significantly increased by 7{\%} (5928 ± 1225 vs 6328 ± 1336 kJ·d, P < 0.001). Furthermore, ST increased absolute RMR by 7{\%} in both young (6302 ± 1458 vs 6719 ± 1617 kJ·d-1, P < 0.01) and older (5614 ± 916 vs 5999 ± 973 kJ·d-1, P < 0.05) subjects, with no significant interaction between the two age groups. In contrast, there was a significant gender × time interaction (P < 0.05) for absolute RMR with men increasing RMR by 9{\%} (6645 ± 1073 vs 7237 ± 1150 kJ·d-1 P< 0.001), whereas women showed no significant increase (5170 ± 884 vs 5366 ± 692 kJ·d-1, P = 0.108). When RMR was adjusted for fat-free mass (FFM) using ANCOVA, with all subjects pooled together, there was still a significant increase in RMR with ST. Additionally, there was still a gender effect (P < 0.05) and no significant age effect (P = NS), with only the men still showing a significant elevation in RMR. Moreover, EEPA and TEE estimated with a Tritrac accelerometer and TEE estimated by the Stanford Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire did not change in response to ST for any group. Conclusions: In conclusion, changes in absolute and relative RMR in response to ST are influenced by gender but not age. In contrast to what has been suggested previously, changes in body composition in response to ST are not due to changes in physical activity outside of training.",
author = "Lemmer, {J. T.} and Ivey, {F. M.} and Ryan, {A. S.} and Martel, {G. F.} and Hurlbut, {D. E.} and E. Metter and Fozard, {J. L.} and Fleg, {J. L.} and Hurley, {B. F.}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00005768-200104000-00005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "532--541",
journal = "Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise",
issn = "0195-9131",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity

T2 - Age and gender comparisons

AU - Lemmer, J. T.

AU - Ivey, F. M.

AU - Ryan, A. S.

AU - Martel, G. F.

AU - Hurlbut, D. E.

AU - Metter, E.

AU - Fozard, J. L.

AU - Fleg, J. L.

AU - Hurley, B. F.

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare age and gender effects of strength training (ST) on resting metabolic rate (RMR), energy expenditure of physical activity (EEPA), and body composition. Methods: RMR and EEPA were measured before and after 24 wk of ST in 10 young men (20-30 yr), 9 young women (20-30 yr), 11 older men (65-75 yr), and 10 older women (65-75 yr). Results: When all subjects were pooled together, absolute RMR significantly increased by 7% (5928 ± 1225 vs 6328 ± 1336 kJ·d, P < 0.001). Furthermore, ST increased absolute RMR by 7% in both young (6302 ± 1458 vs 6719 ± 1617 kJ·d-1, P < 0.01) and older (5614 ± 916 vs 5999 ± 973 kJ·d-1, P < 0.05) subjects, with no significant interaction between the two age groups. In contrast, there was a significant gender × time interaction (P < 0.05) for absolute RMR with men increasing RMR by 9% (6645 ± 1073 vs 7237 ± 1150 kJ·d-1 P< 0.001), whereas women showed no significant increase (5170 ± 884 vs 5366 ± 692 kJ·d-1, P = 0.108). When RMR was adjusted for fat-free mass (FFM) using ANCOVA, with all subjects pooled together, there was still a significant increase in RMR with ST. Additionally, there was still a gender effect (P < 0.05) and no significant age effect (P = NS), with only the men still showing a significant elevation in RMR. Moreover, EEPA and TEE estimated with a Tritrac accelerometer and TEE estimated by the Stanford Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire did not change in response to ST for any group. Conclusions: In conclusion, changes in absolute and relative RMR in response to ST are influenced by gender but not age. In contrast to what has been suggested previously, changes in body composition in response to ST are not due to changes in physical activity outside of training.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare age and gender effects of strength training (ST) on resting metabolic rate (RMR), energy expenditure of physical activity (EEPA), and body composition. Methods: RMR and EEPA were measured before and after 24 wk of ST in 10 young men (20-30 yr), 9 young women (20-30 yr), 11 older men (65-75 yr), and 10 older women (65-75 yr). Results: When all subjects were pooled together, absolute RMR significantly increased by 7% (5928 ± 1225 vs 6328 ± 1336 kJ·d, P < 0.001). Furthermore, ST increased absolute RMR by 7% in both young (6302 ± 1458 vs 6719 ± 1617 kJ·d-1, P < 0.01) and older (5614 ± 916 vs 5999 ± 973 kJ·d-1, P < 0.05) subjects, with no significant interaction between the two age groups. In contrast, there was a significant gender × time interaction (P < 0.05) for absolute RMR with men increasing RMR by 9% (6645 ± 1073 vs 7237 ± 1150 kJ·d-1 P< 0.001), whereas women showed no significant increase (5170 ± 884 vs 5366 ± 692 kJ·d-1, P = 0.108). When RMR was adjusted for fat-free mass (FFM) using ANCOVA, with all subjects pooled together, there was still a significant increase in RMR with ST. Additionally, there was still a gender effect (P < 0.05) and no significant age effect (P = NS), with only the men still showing a significant elevation in RMR. Moreover, EEPA and TEE estimated with a Tritrac accelerometer and TEE estimated by the Stanford Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire did not change in response to ST for any group. Conclusions: In conclusion, changes in absolute and relative RMR in response to ST are influenced by gender but not age. In contrast to what has been suggested previously, changes in body composition in response to ST are not due to changes in physical activity outside of training.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035057708&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035057708&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00005768-200104000-00005

DO - 10.1097/00005768-200104000-00005

M3 - Article

C2 - 11283427

AN - SCOPUS:0035057708

VL - 33

SP - 532

EP - 541

JO - Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

JF - Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

SN - 0195-9131

IS - 4

ER -