A. Morse, J. Miller FACSM

Oklahoma City University, Oklahoma City, OK

Caloric expenditure might vary depending on arrangement of volume, intensity of exercise, type of movement, and many other factors. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship of set scheme and energy costs of weighted arm curls. METHODS: Six college-aged students (1 female, 5 males, age = 20±2 yrs, height = 71.8±6.8in, weight = 165.9±45.3 lbs.) performed two different set configurations (10x3 and 3x10) while breathing through a metabolic cart using the same load (70%1RM), total volume (30 repetitions), work time (22±2min.) and measured excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) (15 min) for both set/reps configurations. A paired t-test was used to compare caloric expenditure between training volume strategies. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in calories burned during work (p< 0.01, 3x10= 23.7±9.5kcal, 10x3=30.1±10kcal). During EPOC, caloric difference was not significant (p=0.17, 3x10= 32±9.5kcal, 10x3=29.5±9.3kcal), nor in total calories (p=0.08, 3x10= 55.7±18.9kcal, 10x3=59.5±19kcal). There was a trend of higher calorie expenditure during EPOC following 3x10 which may have negated the greater calories burned during the 10x3 training bout and caused the total calories between strategies to be non-significant. CONCLUSION: For individuals concerned with burning the most calories within a lifting session, low rep, high load training is no less effective than high rep, low load training when volume is equated.

This document is currently not available here.