Govindasamy Karuppasamy, Gogoi Hemantajit, Jebabli Nidhal, Bediri Sultan Mansour, Aljahni Mohammed, Parpa Koulla, Clark Cain C T, Granacher Urs, Zouhal Hassane
Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Science and Humanities, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India.
Department of Physical Education, Rajiv Gandhi University, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, 791112, India.
BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2024 May 7;16(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s13102-024-00894-6.
This study aimed to explore the effects of different types of resistance training using kettlebells versus the own body mass, in comparison to a passive control, on key physical fitness and physiological parameters in young, obese adults.
Data from 60 sedentary, obese male college students, aged 17-26, were used for final analyses. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a control group (CG, n = 20, no training), a kettlebell resistance training group (KRTG, n = 20), or a bodyweight resistance training group (BWRTG, n = 20). Selected measures of physical fitness were tested using the 12-minutes run test, the push-up test, the sit-up test, and the sit-and-reach test. Physiological measures included vital capacity, resting and maximum heart rate (HRmax), mean arterial blood pressure, breath holding time, and respiratory rate. Biochemical variables were measured in the morning, in a fasted state, and comprised high and low density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, and triglycerides. The 12-weeks progressive KRTG and BWRTG were specifically tailored using sets, repetitions, and intensity levels.
Notable findings include significant body fat reductions in BWRTG (p < 0.001; d = 1.53) and KRTG (p < 0.001; d = 1.43), and a substantial increase in VO2max for BWRTG (p < 0.001; d = 1.32) and KRTG (p < 0.001; d = 1.34) compared to CG. KRTG also showed significant improvements in vital capacity (p < 0.001; d = 1.61) and reductions in resting heart rate (p = 0.024, d = 1.05) and respiratory rate (p = 0.001, d = 1.55), with BWRTG showing similar trends (resting heart rate: p = 0.041, d = 1.35; respiratory rate: p = 0.001, d = 1.98). Both intervention groups significantly improved breath holding time (KRTG: p = 0.001, d = 1.58; BWRTG: p < 0.001, d = 1.98) and reduced total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein levels compared to CG.
This study demonstrates that both KRTG and BWRTG are effective in improving body composition and selected fitness and physiological measures. Thus, resistance training using kettlebells or bodyweight training are recommended if the goal is to improve body composition and fitness in obese male adults.
OSF, September, 28th 2023. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z6Y9Gosf.io/2mb98.
本研究旨在探讨与被动对照组相比，使用壶铃进行不同类型的阻力训练与利用自身体重进行阻力训练，对年轻肥胖成年人的关键身体素质和生理参数的影响。
来自60名年龄在17 - 26岁、久坐不动的肥胖男性大学生的数据用于最终分析。参与者被随机分配到三组中的一组：对照组（CG，n = 20，不进行训练）、壶铃阻力训练组（KRTG，n = 20）或体重阻力训练组（BWRTG，n = 20）。使用12分钟跑测试、俯卧撑测试、仰卧起坐测试和坐位体前屈测试来测试选定的身体素质指标。生理指标包括肺活量、静息心率和最大心率（HRmax）、平均动脉血压、屏气时间和呼吸频率。生化变量在早晨空腹状态下测量，包括高密度和低密度脂蛋白、总胆固醇和甘油三酯。12周的渐进性KRTG和BWRTG是根据组数、重复次数和强度水平专门定制的。
显著发现包括BWRTG（p < 0.001；d = 1.53）和KRTG（p < 0.001；d = 1.43）的体脂显著减少，与CG相比，BWRTG（p < 0.001；d = 1.32）和KRTG（p < 0.001；d = 1.34）的最大摄氧量大幅增加。KRTG在肺活量方面也有显著改善（p < 0.001；d = 1.61），静息心率（p = 0.024，d = 1.05）和呼吸频率降低（p = 0.001，d = 1.55），BWRTG呈现类似趋势（静息心率：p = 0.041，d = 1.35；呼吸频率：p = 0.001，d = 1.98）。与CG相比，两个干预组的屏气时间均显著改善（KRTG：p = 0.001，d = 1.58；BWRTG：p < 0.001，d = 1.98），总胆固醇和低密度脂蛋白水平降低。
本研究表明，KRTG和BWRTG均能有效改善身体成分以及选定的健康和生理指标。因此，如果目标是改善肥胖男性成年人的身体成分和健康状况，建议使用壶铃进行阻力训练或进行体重训练。
OSF，2023年9月2日。https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z6Y9Gosf.io/2mb98 。
