AUTHOR=João Gustavo A. , Almeida Gustavo P. L. , Tavares Lucas D. , Kalva-Filho Carlos Augusto , Carvas Junior Nelson , Pontes Francisco L. , Baker Julien S. , Bocalini Danilo S. , Figueira Aylton J. 

TITLE=Acute Behavior of Oxygen Consumption, Lactate Concentrations, and Energy Expenditure During Resistance Training: Comparisons Among Three Intensities

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Sports and Active Living

VOLUME=3

YEAR=2021

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.797604

DOI=10.3389/fspor.2021.797604

ISSN=2624-9367

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Purpose:</bold> This study aimed to compare the oxygen consumption, lactate concentrations, and energy expenditure using three different intensities during the resistance training sessions.</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> A total of 15 men (22.9 ± 2.61 years) experienced in resistance training underwent 3 sessions composed of 8 exercises (chest press, pec deck, squat, lat pull-down, biceps curl, triceps extension, hamstring curl, and crunch machine), which were applied in the same order. The weight lifted differed among the sessions [high session: 6 sets of 5 repetitions at 90% of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM); intermediary session: 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 75% of 1-RM; and low session: 2 sets of 15 repetitions at 60% of 1-RM]. The oxygen consumption (VO<sub>2</sub>)—during and after (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC)) the session, blood lactate concentration, and energy expenditure (i.e., the sum of aerobic and anaerobic contributions, respectively) were assessed.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> The VO2 significantly decreased in the function of the weight lifting (<italic>F</italic><sub>(2.28)</sub> = 17.02; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.01; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>η</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>G</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.32). However, the aerobic contributions significantly increase in the function of the weight lifting (<italic>F</italic><sub>(2.28)</sub> = 79.18; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.01; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>η</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>G</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.75). The anaerobic contributions were not different among the sessions (<italic>p</italic> &gt; 0.05; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>η</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>G</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01). Thus, the total energy expenditure during the session (kcal) significantly increased in the function of the weight lifting (<italic>F</italic><sub>(2.28)</sub> = 86.68; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.01; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>η</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>G</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.75). The energy expenditure expressed in time unit (kcal·min<sup>−1</sup>) was higher in low session than in high session (<italic>F</italic><sub>(2.28)</sub> = 6.20; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.01; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>η</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>G</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> = 0.15).</p><p><bold>Conclusion:</bold> The weight lifted during resistance training-induced different physiological responses, which induced higher energy expenditure per unit of time during the low session.</p>