Key result
Functional low-intensity resistance training reduced the cardio-ankle vascular index by 9.63% from baseline, but the difference compared to traditional high-intensity resistance training was not statistically significant (p=0.053).
Why the study?
Discrepancies in the effect of resistance training on arterial stiffness have led to divergent views regarding its cardiovascular health effects, potentially influenced by external load, baseline health, and measurement methods.
Does functional low-intensity resistance training compared to traditional high-intensity resistance training improve systemic arterial stiffness in untrained young men?
RCT (n=29)
simple randomization method
No
Does functional low-intensity resistance training compared to traditional high-intensity resistance training improve systemic arterial stiffness in untrained young men?
Standardized Mean Difference: -0.2
Absolute Event Rate: 5.35% vs 5.69%
p-value: p=0.053
Functional low-intensity resistance training significantly reduced arterial stiffness (CAVI) in untrained young men, though not significantly different from traditional high-intensity training.
Tailored resistance training by intensity and baseline CV status may optimize arterial outcomes; extends conflicting prior data with RCT evidence.
Background: Resistance training-induced changes in the muscle function is essential for the health promotion of the young and older, but the discrepancies of the effect of resistance training on arterial stiffness leads to the divergence regarding to the effect of resistance training on cardiovascular health. What confuses our understanding in this field may be the following factors: external load (higher intensity vs. lighter intensity), participants’ cardiovascular health, and arterial stiffness assessment measurement. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of the whole-body traditional high-intensity vs. functional low-intensity resistance training protocol on systemic arterial stiffness, and their association with muscular fitness components in untrained young men. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, twenty-nine untrained young men (mean age about 22.5 years old) were randomized into a 6-weeks (three sessions per week) supervised whole-body traditional high-intensity resistance group (TRT, n = 15) consisting of 4–5 sets of 12 repetitions (70%1RM, lower-repetitions) or a whole-body functional low-intensity resistance group (FRT, n = 14) with 4–5 sets of 20 repetitions (40%1RM, higher-repetitions) to volitional failure. The systemic arterial stiffness (cardio-ankle vascular index, CAVI) and muscular fitness components were assessed before and after the 6-weeks training program. Results: There was a significant decrease (pre-post) for CAVI only in FRT group ( p < 0.05), but no significant difference was observed between two groups. In addition, the TRT and FRT groups showed equally significantly increased in maximal strength, muscular endurance and power (within group: both p < 0.01); however, the independent t test exhibited that the difference between two groups in terms of change in maximal strength, muscular endurance and power were no significant ( p > 0.05). Furthermore, the reduction in CAVI was negatively correlated with the increase in 1RM of bench press for all participants (r = −0.490, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Using present criterion-standard assessments measurements demonstrates that CAVI was significantly reduced after 6-weeks functional resistance training with beneficial effect on muscular fitness. Negative and significant association between CAVI and 1RM bench press indicated the cardiovascular health may be involved in the regulation of resistance training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zuo et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Untrained young men (n=29). Functional low-intensity resistance training vs. Traditional high-intensity resistance training (70% 1RM, 4-5 sets of 12 repetitions) was evaluated on Change in cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) (Cohen's d -0.20, p=0.053). Functional low-intensity resistance training reduced the cardio-ankle vascular index by 9.63% from baseline, but the difference compared to traditional high-intensity resistance training was not statistically significant (p=0.053).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: