Questioning the Resistance/Aerobic Training Dichotomy: A commentary on physiological adaptations determined by effort rather than exercise modality.

James Fisher, James Steele
Author Information
  1. James Fisher: Centre for Health Exercise and Sport Science, Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace, Southampton UK.
  2. James Steele: Centre for Health Exercise and Sport Science, Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace, Southampton UK.

Abstract

This paper discusses and challenges the current opinion that exercise adaptation is generally defined by modality; resistance exercise (RE), or aerobic exercise (AE). In presenting a strong body of recent research which demonstrably challenges these perceptions we suggest alternate hypotheses towards physiological adaptation which is hinged more upon the effort than the exercise modality. Practical implications of this interpretation of exercise adaptation might effect change in exercise adherence since existing barriers to exercise of time, costs, specialized equipment, etc. become nullified. In presenting the evidence herein we suggest that lay persons wishing to attain the health and fitness (including strength and muscle hypertrophy) benefits of exercise can choose from a wide range of potential exercise modalities so long as the effort is high. Future research should consider this hypothesis by directly comparing RE and AE for acute responses and chronic adaptations.

Keywords

References

  1. J Sports Sci Med. 2006 Dec 15;5(4):615-20 [PMID: 24357957]
  2. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1985;54(1):84-8 [PMID: 4018061]
  3. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2014 Apr;42(2):53-61 [PMID: 24508740]
  4. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Mar;38(3):534-40 [PMID: 16540842]
  5. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012 Jul;113(1):71-7 [PMID: 22518835]
  6. Exp Gerontol. 2013 Nov;48(11):1351-61 [PMID: 23999311]
  7. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2009 Nov;297(5):R1452-9 [PMID: 19692660]
  8. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000 May;32(5):963-75 [PMID: 10795788]
  9. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Dec;112(12):4183-5; author reply 4187-8 [PMID: 23053122]
  10. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2857-72 [PMID: 20847704]
  11. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2013 Jan 1;114(1):81-9 [PMID: 23104700]
  12. J Sci Med Sport. 2004 Apr;7(1 Suppl):81-92 [PMID: 15214606]
  13. Sports Med. 2014 Jan;44(1):141-2 [PMID: 24421051]
  14. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014 Apr;114(4):663-73 [PMID: 24368554]
  15. Br J Sports Med. 2014 Dec;48(22):1586-8 [PMID: 23403526]
  16. J Physiol. 2012 Mar 1;590(5):1077-84 [PMID: 22289907]
  17. J Sports Sci Med. 2010 Sep 01;9(3):374-81 [PMID: 24149629]
  18. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2010 Jul-Aug;9(4):208-13 [PMID: 20622538]
  19. Int J Sports Med. 1992 Apr;13(3):257-63 [PMID: 1601562]
  20. Physiol Rev. 1994 Jan;74(1):49-94 [PMID: 8295935]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0exerciseadaptationmodalityeffortchallengesresistanceREAEpresentingresearchsuggestphysiologicalstrengthhypertrophyadaptationspaperdiscussescurrentopiniongenerallydefinedaerobicstrongbodyrecentdemonstrablyperceptionsalternatehypothesestowardshingeduponPracticalimplicationsinterpretationmighteffectchangeadherencesinceexistingbarrierstimecostsspecializedequipmentetcbecomenullifiedevidencehereinlaypersonswishingattainhealthfitnessincludingmusclebenefitscanchoosewiderangepotentialmodalitieslonghighFutureconsiderhypothesisdirectlycomparingacuteresponseschronicQuestioningResistance/AerobicTrainingDichotomy:commentarydeterminedrathercardiovascularendurancetraining

Similar Articles

Cited By