Advanced Search

Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2010 June;50(2) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2010 June;50(2):207-13



A Journal on Applied Physiology, Biomechanics, Preventive Medicine,
Sports Medicine and Traumatology, Sports Psychology

Indexed/Abstracted in: Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,111

Frequency: Monthly

ISSN 0022-4707

Online ISSN 1827-1928


The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2010 June;50(2):207-13


    Original articles

Contrasting effects in anthropometric measures of total fatness and abdominal fat mass following endurance and concurrent endurance and resistance training

Shaw B. S., Shaw I., Mamen A.

1 Department of Sport, Rehabilitationand Dental Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology,Pretoria, Gauteng
Republic of South Africa
2 Vaal University of Technology, Department of Marketing and Sport Management, Vanderbijlpark, Republic of South Africa
3 Sogn og Fjordane University College, Department of Physical Education, Teacher Training Faculty, Sogndal, Norway.

An increased total fatness, and especially abdominal fat deposition, is associated with a greater risk for a variety of health problems and metabolic disturbances. It is commonly accepted that endurance training induces the greatest alterations in total adiposity despite resistance training possibly having other advantages on body fat distribution. Thirty-seven males were assigned to 16 weeks of endurance training (ET) (N=12), concurrent endurance and resistance training (CT) (N=13) or no exercise (N=12) to compare the effects of these modes of training on anthropometric measures of fat distribution in previously sedentary males on an Ad Libitum diet. The ET significantly (P≤0.05) reduced body mass by 3%, fat mass (FM) by 27%, sum of skinfolds (SSF) by 20%, percentage body fat (%BF) by 31%, Body Mass Index by 3%, waist circumference (WC) by 2% and waist to stature ratio (WSR) by 2%. While CT significantly (P≤0.05) decreased FM by 32%, SSF by 20% and %BF by 30%, it more importantly significantly reduced the majority of measures of abdominal fat mass, P≤0.05 (i.e. conicity index by 3%, WC by 3% and WSR by 4%). While the ET group significantly decreased their daily fat intake by 18% (P≤0.05), the CT group decreased their daily intakes of energy kilocalories by 30%, carbohydrate by 27%, protein by 29% and fat by 35% (P≤0.05). ET was more effective at reducing total fatness, while CT preferentially reduced abdominal adipose tissue.

language: English


top of page