57%) and FFM tended to increase (0.51%). Several studies have also found improvements in physical capacity and body composition through training in an aquatic environment (Colado et al., 2009a; Tsourlou et al., 2006; Volaklis et al., 2007). However, only one of these studies used methods of assessing these parameters similar to those used in our work, including selecting selleck a sample from the same sector of the population (Colado et al., 2009b). That study found a higher improvement in various parameters using a program similar to the one described here. However, these differences could be because their training program had a duration and training volume much higher than ours (i.e., 24 weeks). It should also be noted that the subjects in the ADIDFG showed increases in upper limb FFM (3.7% and 2.

06% for the left and right sides, respectively) with no differences in the FFM of the lower limbs. When considering that the other experimental groups also failed to show significant increases in FFM in the legs, one can conclude that the intensity and volume of our program were not sufficient to cause these changes, as has been noted in previous studies (Colado et al., 2009b). In turn, this could have influenced the fact that there were no improvements in the FFM in the ADIDFG, yet there were improvements in the EBG and WMG, because the increase in muscle mass of the upper limbs does not require a sufficient percentage of the total weight for the appearance of a general improvement in the FFM.

This happened in the other two groups because although they did not show significant increases in FFM of the lower limbs, there were no improvements that were superior to those of the ADIDFG. Programs with the other two devices found similar improvements. The EBG showed a significant increase in the post-test of 30.62%, 16.27% and 27.4% in the number of pushups, crunches and squats respectively. In addition, there was a decrease in FM of 1.93% and a 1.15% increase in FFM; both were significant changes. Furthermore, the group training with WMs managed in the post-test to significantly increase the number of push-ups (62.62%), crunches (31.11%) and squats (21.14%) completed and also showed increases in the FFM (2.52%) and decreases in body fat (5.15%). In addition, there were few differences between the effectiveness of the various devices for strength training when comparing the results of the post-test.

One of the most striking results was the greater reduction of body fat using WMs in contrast to EBs as previous studies have failed to observe these differences (Colado and Triplett, 2008). It is possible that the non-significant divergences found between these groups in the pre-test (i.e. 28.39 in the EBG group and 22.34 Batimastat in the WMG group) are responsible for these results. Finally, by observing the percentage reduction in FM in both groups, the EBs reduced its body fat by 1.93% and the WMG by 5.15%. On the other hand, the ADIDFG showed a 2.