Key result
Functional resistance training and traditional resistance training both significantly decreased arterial stiffness and improved maximal muscle strength in healthy young men, with no significant difference between the two modalities.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to determine and compare the vascular impact of traditional and functional resistance training on arterial stiffness.
Does functional resistance training improve arterial stiffness compared to traditional resistance training in healthy young men?
RCT (n=29)
Randomly divided
No
Does functional resistance training improve arterial stiffness compared to traditional resistance training in healthy young men?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.3% vs 5.7%
p-value: p=0.950
Both traditional and functional resistance training for 6 weeks similarly decrease arterial stiffness and improve body composition and strength in healthy young men.
No differential effects on arterial stiffness in healthy young men; larger trials in clinical populations needed before practice implications.
Abstract (1) Background: The present study attempted to determine and compare the vascular impact of traditional and functional resistance training on arterial stiffness. (2) Methods: The present study was conducted in 29 untrained healthy young males aged 18–29 years who were randomly divided into two groups, namely traditional resistance training (TRT, n = 15) and functional resistance training (FRT, n = 14). All subjects underwent numerous tests before and after the 6-week training such as body composition, cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI), blood pressure, heart rate, and maximal strength. The exercise training comprised whole-body strength training exercises 3 days a week for 6 weeks. The total training volume and number of sets (4–5 sets) were kept constantly similar in each group. The TRT group completed 4–5 sets of 8–12 repetitions [70% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM)], whereas the FRT group completed 4–5 sets of 15–22 repetitions (40–50% of 1RM). (3) Results: After the 6-week intervention, lean body mass (TRT: Pre: 59.5 ± 5.4 kg; Post: 60.4 ± 4.9 kg vs. FRT: Pre: 57.7 ± 6.7 kg; Post: 58.8 ± 5.9 kg) significantly increased in both TRT and FRT groups, whereas body fat (TRT: Pre: 18.8% ± 5.8%; Post: 16.5% ± 5.3% vs. FRT: Pre: 16.7% ±4.6%; Post: 15.3% ± 4.7%), R-CAVI (TRT: Pre: 6.2 ± 0.6 m/sec; Post: 5.7 ± 0.6 m/sec vs. FRT: Pre: 5.9 ± 0.5 m/sec; Post: 5.3 ± 0.6 m/sec), and L-CAVI (TRT: Pre: 6.2 ± 0.6 m/sec; Post: 5.7 ± 0.6 m/sec vs. FRT: Pre: 6.0 ± 0.6 m/sec; Post: 5.4 ± 0.6 m/sec) decreased. Additionally, the maximal strength increased significantly in both the groups (p < 0.01). However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups. (4) Conclusions: A similar training volume of TRT and FRT with unstable surface significantly decreased body fat and arterial stiffness and improved lean body mass and maximal muscle strength in young men.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zuo et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Healthy (untrained) (n=29). Functional resistance training (FRT) vs. Traditional resistance training (TRT) (4-5 sets of 8-12 repetitions at 70% of 1RM) was evaluated on Right cardio-ankle vascular index (R-CAVI) at 6 weeks (p=0.950). Functional resistance training and traditional resistance training both significantly decreased arterial stiffness and improved maximal muscle strength in healthy young men, with no significant difference between the two modalities.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: