The Comparative Efficacy of Aerobic and Muscle-Strengthening exercises on Health

Physical activity is essential for good health, and the Physical Activity Guidelines (PAGs) recommend that adults get at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity each week. They also recommend muscle-strengthening activity (MSPA) at least 2 days per week. Historically, research has focused on the benefits of MVPA, but a new study published in the journal Current Sports Medicine Reports suggests that MSPA can also independently protect against major health risks like heart disease, diabetes, and even death. Clinical trials show that combining MVPA and MSPA leads to even greater health benefits than focusing on MVPA alone.

Key points:

• PAGs recommend:

  • 150 minutes of MVPA per week.

  • MSPA on at least 2 days per week for additional benefits like muscular fitness and bone health.

• Historically, research:

  • Focused mainly on MVPA's contribution to health benefits.

  • Overlooked the potential of MSPA.

• Emerging evidence:

  • Suggests MSPA can independently protect against major health risks like:

    • Cardiometabolic risk factors (e.g., high blood pressure, cholesterol).

    • Chronic diseases (e.g., heart disease, diabetes).

    • Mortality (risk of death).

• Clinical trials:

  • Indicate that combining MVPA and MSPA leads to:

    • More robust improvements in cardiovascular disease risk factors.

    • Enhanced overall health benefits compared to focusing solely on MVPA.

The article's objective:

• To clarify the relative benefits of MSPA versus MVPA on various health outcomes.

• To determine the most effective type of physical activity for promoting overall health and well-being.

Word count: This summary is approximately 150 words. To reach the desired 500 words, I can delve deeper into specific aspects of the article, such as:

• Providing more details about the types of MVPA and MSPA activities recommended.

• Discussing the mechanisms by which MSPA exerts its health benefits.

• Highlighting specific studies that support the independent and combined effects of MVPA and MSPA.

• Exploring the challenges and considerations for incorporating both MVPA and MSPA into regular exercise routines.

• Contrasting the article's findings with other existing PAGs or related research.

In the realm of health and well-being, there's a common adage that rings true: "Physical activity is the key to a healthier life." The Physical Activity Guidelines recommend engaging in 150 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity (MVPA) per week. These guidelines also stress the importance of muscle-strengthening physical activity (MSPA) at least two days a week, highlighting the benefits it offers for muscular fitness and bone health. While most scientific evidence supporting these guidelines has focused on MVPA, the potential contributions of MSPA have often been overlooked. However, emerging research suggests that MSPA can independently safeguard against major cardiometabolic risk factors, chronic diseases, and even mortality. Furthermore, clinical trials indicate that the most robust health benefits are achieved through a combination of MVPA and MSPA. In this comprehensive review, we delve into the relative benefits of MSPA versus MVPA on various health-related outcomes to determine the best type of physical activity for optimal health.

Introduction

Meeting the recommended physical activity guidelines can add years to your life. Individuals who adhere to these guidelines typically enjoy an additional 3 to 4 years of life compared to their sedentary counterparts. These guidelines advocate for adults to engage in 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of both for significant health benefits. However, there is another crucial aspect to these guidelines – the muscle-strengthening component, which includes activities such as weight or resistance training. These activities are not just about building muscle; they contribute to increased bone strength and muscular fitness.

While the benefits of muscle-strengthening physical activity (MSPA) are well-documented, recent research has brought to light its significant contributions to cardiometabolic health. Questions have arisen: What are the health benefits of exclusively adhering to MSPA guidelines? Can individuals who solely engage in MSPA still experience the well-known health benefits attributed to MVPA? Are they equally effective on their own, or is there a synergistic effect when they are combined? This review aims to elucidate these questions and provide clarity on the best type of physical activity for optimal health.

MVPA versus MSPA on Mortality

A series of prospective studies conducted on nationally representative samples have compared the associations between MVPA and MSPA and the risk of all-cause mortality. The results are illuminating. Participants who meet the MVPA guidelines alone experience a significant 15% to 35% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality. Similarly, those who meet only the MSPA guidelines enjoy a 10% to 25% reduction in all-cause mortality compared to those who meet neither guideline.

However, the most intriguing finding is that individuals who meet both the MVPA and MSPA guidelines witness a substantial 30% to 45% reduction in the risk of mortality. This suggests that the most significant health benefits are achieved when MSPA and MVPA are combined.

MVPA and MSPA on Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are the two leading noncommunicable causes of death in the United States. Studies reveal that meeting the MVPA guidelines alone leads to a 20% to 35% reduction in CVD mortality compared to those who meet neither guideline. Similarly, those who meet only the MSPA guidelines experience a 20% to 30% reduction in CVD mortality.

However, the most impressive reduction in risk, ranging from 45% to 60%, is observed among those who meet both MVPA and MSPA guidelines. This underscores the undeniable benefits of combining these two types of physical activity.

The relationship between physical activity patterns and total cancer mortality is less consistent. Some studies report a 20% to 25% reduced risk of cancer mortality among those who meet the MVPA guidelines alone. On the other hand, there are studies that show no significant association between meeting MVPA guidelines and cancer mortality.

Similar trends are observed for those who meet the MSPA guidelines. Meeting both MVPA and MSPA guidelines is associated with a 30% to 40% reduced risk of cancer mortality, while no significant associations are found in those who meet either guideline separately.

In summary, prospective studies indicate that combining MVPA and MSPA is consistently associated with the most substantial reductions in mortality, whether for all-cause, CVD, or cancer mortality.

MVPA and MSPA on Chronic Diseases

Beyond mortality outcomes, cross-sectional studies have shed light on the relationship between MSPA and MVPA and various cardiometabolic risk factors. These studies reveal that both MSPA and MVPA independently reduce the prevalence of obesity. Participants adhering to either set of guidelines experience lower rates of obesity, with the lowest prevalence rates observed in individuals who engage in both MVPA and MSPA.

The prevalence of other risk factors, such as dyslipidemia, high blood pressure, and high triglycerides, also shows significant associations with physical activity. Those who meet either the MVPA guidelines or both guidelines experience lower prevalence rates of these risk factors. However, individuals who meet only the MSPA guidelines do not witness the same benefits.

Moreover, metabolic syndrome, a condition defined by a cluster of cardiometabolic risk factors, is less prevalent among those who meet the MVPA guidelines or both sets of guidelines. However, there is no significant reduction in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome among those who meet only the MSPA guidelines.

Type 2 diabetes, one of the fastest-growing chronic health conditions worldwide, is significantly impacted by physical activity. Prospective studies consistently show a 40% to 67% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes among individuals who engage in both MVPA and MSPA, compared to those who are inactive. Similar risk reductions ranging from 40% to 60% are observed among individuals who perform only MVPA.

The Role of Clinical Exercise Trials

Given the limitations of observational research, large clinical exercise trials have become the gold standard for providing reliable evidence on the comparative and combined effects of MVPA and MSPA on health. These trials typically follow a similar design, where participants are randomly assigned to one of four groups: resistance exercise only (MSPA), aerobic exercise only (MVPA), combined aerobic and resistance exercise (MSPA and MVPA), or a no-exercise control group. Exercise prescriptions are often comparable across these trials.

In general, resistance exercise groups attend three sessions per week, performing sets of exercises targeting the upper and lower body with prescribed weights. The aerobic groups also attend three sessions per week, engaging in aerobic exercise at a moderate-to-vigorous intensity.

Results from Clinical Trials

Several clinical trials have shed light on the benefits of combined exercise. In adults with type 2 diabetes, significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were observed in all three exercise groups, with the combination group showing the most significant improvements. Similar results were reported in older adults, where insulin sensitivity improved significantly in all three exercise groups, with the combined exercise group demonstrating the greatest improvement.

One limitation in some of these studies is that the combined exercise group often engaged in both aerobic and resistance exercises, effectively doubling their exercise time. To address this, a study randomly assigned adults with type 2 diabetes to time-matched aerobic, resistance, or combined exercise interventions. This study found a significant reduction in HbA1c only in the combined exercise group, emphasizing the potential benefits of combining both types of exercise.

The Need for Further Research

While these clinical trials provide valuable insights, it's essential to consider individual health profiles, exercise durations, and medication use when interpreting their results. Ongoing research aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the health benefits of different exercise modalities.

Beyond Single Outcomes

Health outcomes are complex, often influenced by multiple factors. Cardiovascular diseases, for instance, result from the interactions between various risk factors, such as hypertension, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, and excess adipose tissue. The influence of exercise on these factors may not be adequately explained by looking at single outcomes. Instead, a comprehensive approach that considers multiple risk factors is necessary.

Body Composition Changes

Several studies have found that combined exercise, compared to aerobic or resistance exercise alone, can lead to improvements in body composition, including reductions in fat mass and increases in lean mass. However, many long-duration trials have reported nonsignificant changes in individual cardiovascular risk factors when comparing exercise groups to control groups.

Composite CVD Risk Factors

The effects of different exercise modalities become more evident when outcomes reflect a composite of changes in several cardiovascular risk factors. Such a composite measure may include fasting glucose, waist circumference, mean arterial pressure, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides. In some cases, aerobic and combined exercise groups showed significant improvements in this composite measure.

The Importance of Data

Despite these findings, it's important to emphasize the need for further research and more extensive data collection to provide a comprehensive understanding of exercise's effects on cardiovascular risk factors.

The Striking Imbalance

One noteworthy trend is the discrepancy between participation in MVPA and MSPA. Population-level estimates based on self-reports consistently show that more individuals engage in MVPA than MSPA. In fact, the prevalence of those reporting meeting only the MVPA guidelines has increased over the years, while the prevalence of those meeting only the MSPA guidelines has remained stagnant. The most significant growth has been observed among individuals who meet both guidelines, highlighting the need for a balanced approach.

Barriers to MSPA

The lower participation in MSPA may be attributed to various barriers, including unfamiliar terminology, lack of gym memberships, and the perceived complexity of MSPA compared to MVPA.

The Role of Sedentary Time

Another aspect that requires further exploration is the interaction between sedentary time and MSPA. The impact of unmeasured sedentary time on the associations between MVPA and health outcomes is still a matter of debate.

Adherence in Clinical Trials

Interestingly, clinical trials have shown higher adherence and fewer dropouts in the resistance exercise only or combined exercise groups compared to aerobic exercise groups. This suggests that MSPA, once initiated, may be more sustainable in the long term. Several factors contribute to this phenomenon, including the immediate feedback provided by improvements in strength or muscle hypertrophy, social interaction during resistance exercise, and the overall variety that combined exercise offers.

The Significance of Physical Fitness

Physical fitness is a critical aspect of health, and it is influenced by exercise. Cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength are both strongly associated with health-related outcomes. Clinical trial data suggest that resistance exercise consistently leads to improvements in muscular strength, making it a valuable component of a comprehensive exercise program.

The Role of Cardiorespiratory Fitness

Cardiorespiratory fitness is a key indicator of health, and exercise plays a significant role in its improvement. However, not all individuals respond similarly to aerobic exercise. Some may not significantly improve their cardiorespiratory fitness, raising questions about its essential role in health outcomes.

The Potential of Combined Exercise

Studies have shown that combined exercise can result in significant improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength without doubling exercise times. This suggests a synergistic relationship between aerobic and resistance exercise.

Mental Health Benefits

Exercise doesn't just impact physical health but also mental well-being. While much research remains to be done in this area, preliminary findings suggest that engaging in both MVPA and MSPA can lead to improved mental health outcomes.

The Impact on Mood and Cognitive Function

Participation in MVPA and MSPA has been associated with lower levels of depression, better sleep, and improved cognitive function. Combining both types of exercise appears to have a more pronounced positive effect on mental health.

Conclusions

In summary, MVPA and MSPA are integral components of a healthy lifestyle, each offering unique and critical health benefits. Observational studies consistently emphasize the advantages of engaging in both types of activity. Clinical trials provide further insights, highlighting the potential synergistic effects of combining aerobic and resistance exercise.

The complex nature of health outcomes calls for a comprehensive approach that considers multiple risk factors. The need for further research is evident, as data collection and analysis continue to shape our understanding of the impact of MVPA and MSPA on health.

Ultimately, a balanced approach that promotes feasible ways to meet both MVPA and MSPA guidelines holds great promise in improving the health and well-being of individuals. Whether you choose to engage in aerobic exercise, resistance exercise, or a combination of both, the key is to find an approach that suits your preferences and supports your long-term commitment to a healthy lifestyle.

Reference Article

Brellenthin, A. G., Bennie, J. A., & Lee, D. C. (2022). Aerobic or Muscle-Strengthening Physical Activity: Which Is Better for Health?. Current sports medicine reports, 21(8), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1249/JSR.0000000000000981

Related Article

https://healthnewstrend.com/low-vs-high-load-resistance-training-which-is-best-for-strength-and-hypertrophy

Medical Disclaimer

The information on this website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this website.