Effect of High-Volume Cluster Sets vs. Lower-Volume Traditional Sets on Accuracy of Estimated Repetitions to Failure.

ABSTRACT: Davies, TB, Li, J, and Hackett, DA. Effect of high-volume cluster sets vs. lower-volume traditional sets on accuracy of estimated repetitions to failure. J Strength Cond Res 37(6): 1191-1198, 2023-This study investigated the effects of resistance training using cluster (CLUS) vs. traditional (TRAD) set structures on the accuracy of estimated repetitions to failure (ERF). Nineteen healthy male resistance trainers (age 21.0 ± 4.4 years) were randomized into 1 of the 2 bench press training routines performed for 6 weeks. Cluster ( n = 10) performed 6 sets of 5 repetitions at 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with 30-second interrepetition rest and 3 minutes of interset rest. Traditional ( n = 9) performed 3 sets of 5 repetitions at 85% 1RM with 5 minutes of interset rest. Maximum repetitions at 85% 1RM was performed before and after intervention to assess error in ERF and mean concentric velocity (MCV). The ERF, rating of perceived exertion, and maintenance of MCV were assessed throughout the intervention. Rating of perceived exertion was lower for sets 1-3 in CLUS compared with TRAD from weeks 1 to 4 (effect size [ES] = 0.8-2.4, p ≤ 0.04). The ERF was greater for sets 1-3 in CLUS than in TRAD during all intervention weeks (ES = 1.0-5.1, p ≤ 0.04). Maintenance of MCV was greater in CLUS compared with TRAD for all sets at week 1 (ES = 0.76, p = 0.002) and sets 4-6 at week 6 (ES = 0.77, p = 0.006). After the intervention, error in ERF did not change, and no differences were found between the groups. Findings indicate that accuracy of ERF does not improve after resistance training using set structures that induce different transient fatigue-related effects when using high loads in experienced resistance trainers.

Self-Reported Training and Supplementation Practices Between Performance-Enhancing Drug-User Bodybuilders Compared with Natural Bodybuilders.

ABSTRACT: Li, J, Davies, TB, and Hackett, DA. Self-reported training and supplementation practices between performance-enhancing drug-user bodybuilders compared with natural bodybuilders. J Strength Cond Res 37(5): 1079-1088, 2023-This study aimed to examine whether the training and supplementation practices differ between performance-enhancing drug (PED)-using bodybuilders (BB) and natural BB. One hundred eighty-seven competitive male bodybuilders with a median age of 27.0 years completed an online survey. Of this sample, 40 respondents reported using PED (PED-user) and 147 respondents reported to be natural. Compared with natural BB, PED-user BB reported greater off-season body weight ( p < 0.001) and weight loss before a competition ( p < 0.001). In the off-season, PED-user BB performed a greater number of exercises per muscle group ( p < 0.001), number of repetition maximum (RM) per set ( p < 0.01), and less recovery between the sets ( p < 0.01). During the precompetition phase, the natural BB increased their number of RM; however, the PED-user BB still reported using a greater number of RM per set ( p = 0.02), exercises per muscle group ( p < 0.001), and less recovery time between the sets ( p < 0.01). Both the PED-user BB and natural BB reported greater aerobic exercise frequency ( p < 0.001) and session duration ( p < 0.001), although PED-user BB performed a greater number of aerobic exercise sessions ( p = 0.04) and at a higher intensity ( p < 0.01). Advanced training techniques, including negatives, partial repetitions, preexhaustion sets, and timed repetitions, were more popular among PED-user BB ( p < 0.05). Creatine monohydrate usage was more popular among natural BB ( p < 0.001), whereas branched-chain and essential amino acids were more popular among PED-user BB ( p ≤ 0.001). Findings suggest that PED-user BB perform more metabolically demanding resistance training sessions, more strenuous aerobic training during the precompetition phase, and may have different supplementation preferences compared with natural BB.

Effect of Set-Structure on Upper-Body Muscular Hypertrophy and Performance in Recreationally-Trained Male and Female.

ABSTRACT: Davies, TB, Halaki, M, Orr, R, Mitchell, L, Helms, ER, Clarke, J, and Hackett, DA. Effect of set structure on upper-body muscular hypertrophy and performance in recreationally trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 36(8): 2176-2185, 2022-This study explored the effect of volume-equated traditional-set and cluster-set structures on muscular hypertrophy and performance after high-load resistance training manipulating the bench press exercise. Twenty-one recreationally trained subjects (12 men and 9 women) performed a 3-week familiarization phase and were then randomized into one of two 8-week upper-body and lower-body split programs occurring over 3 and then progressing to 4 sessions per week. Subjects performed 4 sets of 5 repetitions at 85% one repetition maximum (1RM) using a traditional-set structure (TRAD, n = 10), which involved 5 minutes of interset rest only, or a cluster-set structure, which included 30-second inter-repetition rest and 3 minutes of interset rest (CLUS, n = 11). A 1RM bench press, repetitions to failure at 70% 1RM, regional muscle thickness, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry were used to estimate changes in muscular strength, local muscular endurance, regional muscular hypertrophy, and body composition, respectively. Velocity loss was assessed using a linear position transducer at the intervention midpoint. TRAD demonstrated a significantly greater velocity loss magnitude (g = 1.50) and muscle thickness of the proximal pectoralis major (g = -0.34) compared with CLUS. There were no significant differences between groups for the remaining outcomes, although a small effect size favoring TRAD was observed for the middle region of the pectoralis major (g = -0.25). It seems that the greater velocity losses during sets observed in traditional-set compared with cluster-set structures may promote superior muscular hypertrophy within specific regions of the pectoralis major in recreationally trained subjects.

Effect of Set-Structure on Upper-Body Muscular Hypertrophy and Performance in Recreationally-Trained Male and Female.

ABSTRACT: Davies, TB, Halaki, M, Orr, R, Mitchell, L, Helms, ER, Clarke, J, and Hackett, DA. Effect of set structure on upper-body muscular hypertrophy and performance in recreationally trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2021-This study explored the effect of volume-equated traditional-set and cluster-set structures on muscular hypertrophy and performance after high-load resistance training manipulating the bench press exercise. Twenty-one recreationally trained subjects (12 men and 9 women) performed a 3-week familiarization phase and were then randomized into one of two 8-week upper-body and lower-body split programs occurring over 3 and then progressing to 4 sessions per week. Subjects performed 4 sets of 5 repetitions at 85% one repetition maximum (1RM) using a traditional-set structure (TRAD, n = 10), which involved 5 minutes of interset rest only, or a cluster-set structure, which included 30-second inter-repetition rest and 3 minutes of interset rest (CLUS, n = 11). A 1RM bench press, repetitions to failure at 70% 1RM, regional muscle thickness, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry were used to estimate changes in muscular strength, local muscular endurance, regional muscular hypertrophy, and body composition, respectively. Velocity loss was assessed using a linear position transducer at the intervention midpoint. TRAD demonstrated a significantly greater velocity loss magnitude (g = 1.50) and muscle thickness of the proximal pectoralis major (g = -0.34) compared with CLUS. There were no significant differences between groups for the remaining outcomes, although a small effect size favoring TRAD was observed for the middle region of the pectoralis major (g = -0.25). It seems that the greater velocity losses during sets observed in traditional-set compared with cluster-set structures may promote superior muscular hypertrophy within specific regions of the pectoralis major in recreationally trained subjects.

Changes in Bench Press Velocity and Power After 8 Weeks of High-Load Cluster- or Traditional-Set Structures.

Davies, TB, Halaki, M, Orr, R, Helms, ER, and Hackett, DA. Changes in bench press velocity and power after 8 weeks of high-load cluster- or traditional-set structures. J Strength Cond Res 34(10): 2734-2742, 2020-This study investigated the effects of high-load cluster- vs. traditional-set structures using the bench press on velocity and power. Twenty-one resistance-trained individuals (male = 12, female = 9) performed a 3-week familiarization block followed by randomization into 1 of 2 upper- and lower-body split training routines performed for 8 weeks. The bench press was the only exercise manipulated with subjects using either cluster-set (CLUS, n = 11) or traditional-set (TRAD, n = 10) structures during training sessions. Subjects performed 4 sets of 5 repetitions at 85% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with CLUS having a 30-second inter-repetition, and 3-minute interset rest while TRAD had a 5-minute interset rest. A load-velocity profile of relative loads derived from a 1RM test was used to assess velocity and power (absolute and relative to body mass) on the bench press. Significant improvements over time were found across various loads ranging from 45 to 75% 1RM for absolute and relative peak power (p = 0.006-0.041), and mean power (p = 0.001-0.032). Significant decreases over time were found at 55% 1RM and 65% 1RM for peak velocity (p = 0.027 and p = 0.012, respectively) and mean velocity (p = 0.047 and p = 0.022, respectively). There were no significant group or group by time interactions found for all outcomes. Within the context of high-load resistance training, set structure seems to be of less importance for changes in bench press velocity and power provided there is an intention to lift with maximal concentric velocity.

Accuracy in Estimating Repetitions to Failure During Resistance Exercise.

Hackett, DA, Cobley, SP, Davies, TB, Michael, SW, and Halaki, M. Accuracy in estimating repetitions to failure during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 31(8): 2162-2168, 2017-The primary aim of this study was to assess the accuracy in estimation of repetitions to failure (ERF) during resistance exercise. Furthermore, this investigation examined whether the accuracy in ERF was affected by training status, sex, or exercise type. Eighty-one adults (men, n = 53 and women, n = 28) with broad range of resistance training experience participated in this study. Subjects performed up to 10 sets of 10 repetitions at 70% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and 80% 1RM for the chest press and leg press, respectively. At the completion of each set, subjects reported their ERF and then continued repetitions to failure to determine actual repetitions to failure (ARF). The accuracy (amount of error) of ERF was determined over an ARF 0-10. Significant differences were found for error of ERF among ARF (p < 0.001), with the error of ERF ∼1 repetition at ARF 0-5 compared with >2 repetitions at ARF 7-10. Greater accuracy was found for the chest press compared with leg press, with the error of ERF ≤1 repetition for ARF 0-5 and ARF 0-3, respectively (p = 0.012). Men were found to be more accurate than women at specific ARFs for the leg press (p = 0.008), whereas no interaction was found for the chest press. Resistance training experience did not affect the accuracy in ERF. These results suggest that resistance trainers can accurately estimate repetitions to failure when close to failure and that ERF could importantly be practically used for prescription and monitoring of resistance exercise.

Effect of resistance training on local muscle endurance in middle-aged and older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Local muscle endurance (LME) is a significant indicator of muscle health and function in middle-aged and older adults. However, resistance training (RT) practices which optimise performance in this population are currently unclear. This study examined: 1) the effect of RT on LME; and 2) the impact of acute resistance exercise program variables on LME in middle-aged and older adults. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched using terms related to RT, LME, and older adults. Random effects (Hedges' g) meta-analyses were undertaken to estimate the effect of RT on upper and lower body LME assessed via maximal repetitions during an isotonic test. The impact of resistance exercise program variables on LME effects was explored using meta-regression analyses. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Upon sensitivity analysis, one study was removed. Large effects favoured RT for LME of the upper body (g = 1.10, p < 0.001) and lower body (g = 1.18, p < 0.001). Large effects on LME from RT were found irrespective of training intensity or other resistance exercise program variables. Moderate heterogeneity and publication bias were found in most analyses. DISCUSSION: RT is an effective means for improving LME in middle-aged and older adults. Optimal training characteristics have not been defined by this review, as improvement in LME was unrelated to RT volume or loading intensity. Caution is warranted when interpreting the findings due to heterogeneity and bias present in existing literature. Additional studies are needed with direct comparisons of various training techniques.

Effect of 10 sets versus 5 sets of resistance training on muscular endurance.

BACKGROUND: A paucity of research exists examining whether resistance training with a greater number of sets per exercise enhances the development of muscular endurance. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of ten sets versus five sets of resistance training on muscle endurance. METHODS: Fifteen healthy males (age 23.7±4.6 y) with at least 1 year resistance training experience were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of 10 sets (10-SET) or 5 sets (5-SET) of 10 repetitions at 60-80% one-repetition maximum (1RM) for specific compound resistance exercises with rest intervals between sets of 60-90 s and 60 s between exercises, performed 3 times per week. Relative muscle endurance was assessed via maximal repetitions using 70% 1RM for the bench press, lat pulldown and leg press. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the number of repetitions to failure in the muscle endurance test for the leg press in 10-SET (40.9%, P=0.04) and 5-SET (27.9%; P=0.03), although no statistical differences between groups in the post-intervention results. Both groups increased volume-load in the muscle endurance test for the bench press (≥14.3%, P<0.05) and leg press (≥36.7%, P<0.05), but there were no statistical differences between groups in the post-intervention results. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that performing 10 sets compared to 5 sets of resistance training does not enhance the development of relative muscle endurance. The volume-load accrued within an individual set rather than across sets may be of greater importance when targeting muscular endurance.

Effect of high-volume cluster sets versus lower-volume traditional sets on muscular performance.

BACKGROUND: Similar muscle performance adaptations have been shown following volume-equated resistance training using cluster (CLUS) versus traditional (TRAD) set structures. This study aimed to examine the effects of higher-volume CLUS compared to lower-volume TRAD set structures on muscle performance. METHODS: Twenty resistance-trained males (age 20.9±4.3 years) were randomized into one of two bench press training routines performed for 6 weeks. Subjects in CLUS (N.=10), performed six sets of five repetitions at 85% one-repetition maximum (1RM) with 30 seconds inter-repetition rest and three minutes of inter-set rest. In contrast, subjects in TRAD (N.=10) performed three sets of five repetitions at 85% 1RM with five minutes of inter-set rest. Muscular strength (1RM), concentric velocity, power, local muscular endurance and maintenance of muscle performance (in training sessions) were assessed. RESULTS: For 1RM there was a significant time effect (P<0.001) with moderate effect sizes (ES) within each group (CLUS: ES=0.48; TRAD: ES=0.67). A trend towards significant time effect was found for concentric velocity (P=0.05; CLUS: ES=-0.36; TRAD ES=-0.96). There were no other significant time or group effects nor group × time interactions. Greater maintenance of concentric velocity and power (sets 1-3) was found for CLUS compared to TRAD at week one (P<0.05) but not at week 6. CONCLUSIONS: High load resistance training in the bench press exercise, utilizing intra-set rest periods to increase the training volume, does not yield any muscular performance benefits compared to traditional set structures.

Chronic Effects of Altering Resistance Training Set Configurations Using Cluster Sets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The acute responses to cluster set resistance training (RT) have been demonstrated. However, as compared to traditional sets, the effect of cluster sets on muscular and neuromuscular adaptations remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of RT programs implementing cluster and traditional set configurations on muscular and neuromuscular adaptations. METHODS: Systematic searches of Embase, Scopus, Medline and SPORTDiscus were conducted. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized or non-randomized comparative studies; (2) publication in English; (3) participants of all age groups; (4) participants free of any medical condition or injury; (5) cluster set intervention; (6) comparison intervention utilizing a traditional set configuration; (7) intervention length ≥ three weeks and (8) at least one measure of changes in strength/force/torque, power, velocity, hypertrophy or muscular endurance. Raw data (mean ± SD or range) were extracted from included studies. Hedges' g effect sizes (ES) ± standard error of the mean (SEM) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. No differences between cluster and traditional set configurations were found for strength (ES = - 0.05 ± 0.10, 95% CI - 0.21 to 0.11, p = 0.56), power output (ES = 0.02 ± 0.10, 95% CI - 0.17 to 0.20, p = 0.86), velocity (ES = 0.15 ± 0.13, 95% CI - 0.10 to 0.41, p = 0.24), hypertrophy (ES = - 0.05 ± 0.14, 95% CI - 0.32 to 0.23, p = 0.73) or endurance (ES = - 0.07 ± 0.18, 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.29, p = 0.70) adaptations. Moreover, no differences were observed when training volume, cluster set model, training status, body parts trained or exercise type were considered. CONCLUSION: Collectively, both cluster and traditional set configurations demonstrate equal effectiveness to positively induce muscular and neuromuscular adaptation(s). However, cluster set configurations may achieve such adaptations with less fatigue development during RT which may be an important consideration across various exercise settings and stages of periodized RT programs.

Effects of Rest Interval Duration in Resistance Training on Measures of Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Rest interval (RI) duration is an important resistance-training variable underlying gain in muscular strength. Recommendations for optimal RI duration for gains in muscular strength are largely inferred from studies examining the acute resistance training effects, and the generalizability of such findings to chronic adaptations is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this systematic literature review are: (i) to aggregate findings and interpret the studies that assessed chronic muscular strength adaptations to resistance training interventions involving different RI durations, and (ii) to provide evidence-based recommendations for exercise practitioners and athletes. METHODS: The review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines with a literature search encompassing five databases. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies comprising a total of 491 participants (413 males and 78 females) were found to meet the inclusion criteria. All studies were classified as being of good to moderate methodological quality; none of the studies were of poor methodological quality. CONCLUSION: The current literature shows that robust gains in muscular strength can be achieved even with short RIs (< 60 s). However, it seems that longer duration RIs (> 2 min) are required to maximize strength gains in resistance-trained individuals. With regard to untrained individuals, it seems that short to moderate RIs (60-120 s) are sufficient for maximizing muscular strength gains.

Effect of movement velocity during resistance training on muscle-specific hypertrophy: A systematic review.

Currently, it is unclear whether manipulation of movement velocity during resistance exercise has an effect on hypertrophy of specific muscles. The purpose of this systematic review of literature was to investigate the effect of movement velocity during resistance training on muscle hypertrophy. Five electronic databases were searched using terms related to movement velocity and resistance training. Inclusion criteria were randomised and non-randomised comparative studies; published in English; included healthy adults; used dynamic resistance exercise interventions directly comparing fast training to slower movement velocity training; matched in prescribed intensity and volume; duration ≥4 weeks; and measured muscle hypertrophy. A total of six studies were included involving 119 untrained participants. Hypertrophy of the quadriceps was examined in five studies and of the biceps brachii in two studies. Three studies found significantly greater increases in hypertrophy of the quadriceps for moderate-slow compared to fast training. For the remaining studies examining the quadriceps, significant within-group increase in hypertrophy was found for only moderate-slow training in one study and for only fast training in the other study. The two studies that examined hypertrophy of the biceps brachii found greater increases for fast compared to moderate-slow training. Caution is required when interpreting the findings from this review due to the low number of studies, hence insufficient data. Future longitudinal randomised controlled studies in cohorts of healthy adults are required to confirm and extend our findings.

Effect of Resistance Training Frequency on Gains in Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations on resistance training (RT) frequency for gains in muscular strength are based on extrapolations from limited evidence on the topic, and thus their practical applicability remains questionable. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate this issue, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies that compared muscular strength outcomes with different RT frequencies. METHODS: To carry out this review, English-language literature searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were conducted. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The meta-analysis models were generated with RT frequencies classified as a categorical variable as either 1, 2, 3, or 4+ times/week, or, if there were insufficient data in subgroup analyses, the training frequencies were categorized as 1, 2, or 3 times/week. Subgroup analyses were performed for potential moderators, including (1) training volume; (2) exercise selection for the 1 repetition maximum (RM) test (for both multi-joint and single-joint exercises); (3) upper and lower body strength gains; (4) training to muscular failure (for studies involving and not involving training to muscular failure); (5) age (for both middle-aged/older adults and young adults); and (6) sex (for men and for women). The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the modified Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria. The average score on the Downs and Black checklist was 18 (range 13-22 points). Four studies were classified as being of good methodological quality, while the rest were classified as being of moderate methodological quality. Results of the meta-analysis showed a significant effect (p = 0.003) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Effect sizes increased in magnitude from 0.74, 0.82, 0.93, and 1.08 for training 1, 2, 3, and 4+ times per week, respectively. A subgroup analysis of volume-equated studies showed no significant effect (p = 0.421) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. The subgroup analysis for exercise selection for the 1RM test suggested a significant effect of RT frequency on multi-joint (p < 0.001), but not single-joint, 1RM test results (p = 0.324). The subgroup analysis for upper and lower body showed a significant effect of frequency (p = 0.004) for upper body, but not lower body, strength gains (p = 0.070). In the subgroup analysis for studies in which the training was and was not carried out to muscular failure, no significant effect of RT frequency was found. The subgroup analysis for the age groups suggested a significant effect of training frequency among young adults (p = 0.024), but not among middle-aged and older adults (p = 0.093). Finally, the subgroup analysis for sex indicated a significant effect of RT frequency on strength gains in women (p = 0.030), but not men (p = 0.190). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a significant effect of RT frequency as higher training frequencies are translated into greater muscular strength gains. However, these effects seem to be primarily driven by training volume because when the volume is equated, there was no significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Thus, from a practical standpoint, greater training frequencies can be used for additional RT volume, which is then likely to result in greater muscular strength gains. However, it remains unclear whether RT frequency on its own has significant effects on strength gain. It seems that higher RT frequencies result in greater gains in muscular strength on multi-joint exercises in the upper body and in women, and, finally, in contrast to older adults, young individuals seem to respond more positively to greater RT frequencies. More evidence among resistance-trained individuals is needed as most of the current studies were performed in untrained participants.

Effect of Movement Velocity During Resistance Training on Dynamic Muscular Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Movement velocity is an acute resistance-training variable that can be manipulated to potentially optimize dynamic muscular strength development. However, it is unclear whether performing faster or slower repetitions actually influences dynamic muscular strength gains. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of movement velocity during resistance training on dynamic muscular strength. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched using terms related to movement velocity and resistance training. Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: randomized and non-randomized comparative studies; published in English; included healthy adults; used isotonic resistance-exercise interventions directly comparing fast or explosive training to slower movement velocity training; matched in prescribed intensity and volume; duration ≥4 weeks; and measured dynamic muscular strength changes. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were identified that investigated movement velocity in accordance with the criteria outlined. Fast and moderate-slow resistance training were found to produce similar increases in dynamic muscular strength when all studies were included. However, when intensity was accounted for, there was a trend for a small effect favoring fast compared with moderate-slow training when moderate intensities, defined as 60-79% one repetition maximum, were used (effect size 0.31; p = 0.06). Strength gains between conditions were not influenced by training status and age. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results suggest that fast and moderate-slow resistance training improve dynamic muscular strength similarly in individuals within a wide range of training statuses and ages. Resistance training performed at fast movement velocities using moderate intensities showed a trend for superior muscular strength gains as compared to moderate-slow resistance training. Both training practices should be considered for novice to advanced, young and older resistance trainers targeting dynamic muscular strength.

The feasibility and effectiveness of high-intensity boxing training versus moderate-intensity brisk walking in adults with abdominal obesity: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) performed on exercise cycle or treadmill is considered safe and often more beneficial for fat loss and cardiometabolic health than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). The aim of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a 12-week boxing training (HIIT) intervention compared with an equivalent dose of brisk walking (MICT) in obese adults. METHODS: Men and women with abdominal obesity and body mass index >25 kg/m(2) were randomized to either a boxing group or a brisk walking (control) group for 12 weeks. Each group engaged in 4 training sessions per week, equated for total physical activity. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rates, assessment of training intensities, adherence and adverse events. Effectiveness was assessed pre and post intervention via pertinent obesity-, cardiovascular-, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. RESULTS: Nineteen individuals expressed an interest and 63% (n = 12) consented. Recruitment was slower than anticipated (1.3 participants/week). The boxing group trained at a significantly higher intensity each week versus the brisk walking group (p < 0.05). Two participants in the boxing group experienced an adverse event; both continued to exercise with modifications to the exercise program. No other adverse events were noted. The boxing group attended more sessions (79% vs. 55%) and had a lower attrition rate (n = 0 vs. n = 2) than the walking group. Analysis of covariance revealed that the boxing group significantly improved body fat percentage (p = 0.047), systolic blood pressure (p = 0.026), augmentation index (AIx; p < 0.001), absolute VO2max (p = 0.015), and Physical Functioning (p = 0.042) and Vitality (p = 0.024) domains of HRQoL over time. The walking group did not improve any clinical outcomes, and experienced a worsening of Vitality (p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Boxing training (HIIT) in adults with abdominal obesity is feasible and may elicit a better therapeutic effect on obesity, cardiovascular, and HRQoL outcomes than an equivalent dose of brisk walking (MICT). Robustly designed randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings and inform clinical guidelines and practice for obesity treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12615000007538.