Energy cost of walking with and without hand weights while performing rhythmic arm movements

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Authors

Cigala, Kenneth Jr.

License

DOI

Type

Thesis

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Grantor

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the energy cost of walking while performing hand-weighted exercises. Ss, 15 active healthy males (x=48.9 yrs), walked at 3.0 performing the following: normal walk (NW), and rhythmic arm movements to the shoulder level of excursion (SLE) and head level of excursion (HLE), with no weight (0-), 1 lb (1-), and 2 lb (2-) hand weights. The 7 exercises were NW, O-SLE, 1-SLE, 2-SLE, O-HLE, 1-HLE, and 2-HLE. Following a practice session, the Ss participated in 3 test sessions where the exercises were randomly performed on 3 different days, with no more than 3 exercises per session. Variables measured were HR, VE, VO2, METS, RER, RPE general, and RPE arms. A 1 and 2 way ANOVA with a Scheffe post hoc analysis revealed several significant differences. The average energy cost for the 6 arm exercises were 3.8, 4.1, 4.5, 4.1, 4.8, and 5.1 METS, respectively. These and the and the other energy cost values were significantly higher than NW energy cost, except for O-SLE. HLE produced significantly higher energy cost and HR values than SLE. A significantly greater energy cost was noted for adding 1 and 2 lb weights to the no weight exercise, and signicant increase for adding 1 1 lb to the 1 1 lb exercise. HR significantly increased with the addition of 2 Ib to the no weight exercise. The RPE values were not greatly different from each other and accurately reflected increases in exercise intensity at the relatively higher workloads. These findings suggest hand-weighted exercises evaluated would assist in reducing body weight because of the increased energy cost when compared to NW. The intensity level of the hand-weighted exercises could not produce a training effect for the subjects tested, however, the MET level was appropriate for persons with a maximal MET capacity below 10 METS.

Description

Related Material and Data

Citation

Sponsorship

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By