No abstract

High intensity functional training (HIFT) emphasizes constantly varied, high intensity, functional activity by programming strength and conditioning exercises, gymnastics, Olympic weightlifting, and specialty movements. Conversely, traditional circuit training (TCT) programs aim to improve muscular fitness by utilizing the progressive overload principle, similar movements weekly, and specified work-to-rest ratios. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if differences exist in health and performance measures in women participating in HIFT or TCT after a six-week training program. Recreationally active women were randomly assigned to a HIFT (n = 8, age 26.0 + 7.3 yrs) or TCT (n = 11, age 26.3 + 9.6 yrs) group. Participants trained three days a week for six weeks with certified trainers. Investigators examined body composition (BC), aerobic and anaerobic capacity, muscular strength, endurance, flexibility, power, and agility. Repeated-measures ANOVA were used for statistical analyses with an alpha level of 0.05. Both groups increased body mass (p = .011), and improved muscular endurance (p < .000), upper body strength (p = .007), lower body power (p = .029) and agility (p = .003). In addition, the HIFT group decreased body fat (BF) %, while the TCT group increased BF% (p = .011). No changes were observed in aerobic or anaerobic capacity, flexibility, upper body power, or lower body stair climbing power. Newer, high intensity functional exercise programs such as HIFT may have better results on BC and similar effects when compared with TCT programs on health and fitness variables such as musculoskeletal strength and performance.

In three experiments using crossover designs, we investigated the effects of Classroom Response Systems (CRS) when presenting multiple-choice questions in real classrooms. In Experiment 1, students either used CRS for bonus points or simply saw the questions. There were no differences on a unit exam. In Experiment 2, students were told prior to a unit that they would either use CRS for course credit or no credit. Students using CRS for credit performed better on pre-lecture questions and a unit exam. In Experiment 3, students used CRS to answer pre-lecture questions for course credit or no credit. Students using CRS for credit again performed better on a unit exam. CRS appear to enhance learning when they encourage student accountability and increase readiness for lectures.Large lecture classes are not uncommon in many American universities today. Despite some calls to eliminate these large classes, more universities may be considering increasing class sizes due to challenging economic times (Krueger,

No abstract