This study compared the effects of aerobic, resistance and concurrent aerobic and resistance training on pulmonary function and cardiorespiratory endurance in at-risk smokers. 50 sedentary, male smokers with pulmonary function impairments at risk for developing chronic lung diseases were randomly assigned to an aerobic (AerG; n = 12), resistance (ResG; n = 13), concurrent (ConG; n = 13) or non-exercising control (NexG; n = 12) group for 16 weeks. AerG subjects performed 45 min of aerobic exercise at 60%HRmax, ResG subjects performed 8 resistance exercises at 60%1-RM for 3 sets, 15 repetitions while ConG subjects performed both aerobic and resistance exercises. ANOVA revealed no significant difference between the groups in their pre-/post-test changes for FEV1/FVC ratio (AerG -4.13%; ResG -2.13%; ConG -0.56%); FEF-50 (AerG -4.59%; ResG -7.62%; ConG 5.76%), FEF-75 (AerG -2.36%; ResG -7.62%; ConG 10.71%) and FEF25to75 (AerG -3.53%; ResG -6.43%; ConG 7.63%). Significant differences were found between the groups in their pre-/post-test changes for FVC (AerG 8.05%; ResG 7.22%; ConG 11.55%), FEV1 (Aer 9.60%; ResG 5.13%; ConG 12.10%), PEF (AerG 11.29%; ResG 7.49%; ConG 20.18%), PIF (AerG 24.80%; ResG 19.41%; ConG 28.15%), IVC (AerG 9.04%; ResG 6.21%; ConG 16.35%), FEF-25 (AerG 5.88%; ResG 5.37%; ConG 11.88%) and cardiorespiratory fitness (AerG 25.44%; ResG 11.59%; ConG 22.83%). Post-hoc analysis revealed concurrent and aerobic training were equally effective at improving PIF and cardiorespiratory fitness with concurrent training most effective at improving FVC, FEV1, PEF, IVC and FEF-25. This suggests synergy between aerobic and resistance exercise in preventing or reducing the detrimental effects of smoking while gaining the unique benefits of each mode of exercise.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher