Objective: To evaluate the levels of anxiety, depression, and stress associated with the practice of physical exercise (PE) during pandemic by COVID-19. Methods: This study has a cross-sectional characteristic and was carried out between May 12 and 14, 2020. An online questionnaire was applied with questions to assess sociodemographic characteristics and physical exercise during the CoVID-19 pandemic, in addition to depression, anxiety, and stress analysis. The study was approved by the local ethics committee (CAAE: 31521720.8.0000.5082). Results: One thousand one hundred and fifty four answered the questionnaire (69.84% female). During the isolation period, the number of participants who declared not to exercise was 54.16%. Women generaly presented higher levels of anxiety, depression, and stress when compared to men ( p < 0.0001 for all domains). The risk of having increased anxiety were 118% higher (OR = 2.183; 95% CI = 1.717–2.775), the risk of depression was 152% higher (OR = 2.525; 95% CI = 1.991–3.205), and the risk of stress symptoms increased 75.1% (OR = 1.751; 95% CI = 1.386–2.213) in the participants who did not perform PE when compared to those who maintain regular PE. Conclusion: People who was not involved with PE during the COVID-19 pandemic had higher anxiety, depression, and stress scores. Based on this, it seems important to advise people to continue PE, following all the recommendations of preventive measures of the pertinent health organizations.

High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) can be performed with different effort to rest time-configurations, and this can largely influence training responses. The purpose of the study was to compare the acute physiological responses of two HIIT and one moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) protocol in young men. A randomised cross-over study with 10 men [age, 28.3 ± 5.5years; weight, 77.3 ± 9.3 kg; height, 1.8 ± 0.1 m; peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 peak), 44 ± 11 mL.kg −1 .min −1 ].Participants performed a cardiorespiratory test on a treadmill to assess VO 2 peak, velocity associated with VO 2 peak (vVO 2 peak), peak heart rate (HRpeak) and perceived exertion (RPE). Then participants performed three protocols equated by distance: Short HIIT (29 bouts of 30s at vVO 2 peak, interspersed by 30s of passive recovery, 29 min in total), Long HIIT (3 bouts of 4 min at 90% of vVO 2 peak, interspersed by 3 min of recovery at 60% of vVO 2 peak, 21 min in total) and MICT (21 min at 70% of vVO 2 peak). The protocols were performed in a randomised order with ≥48 h between them. VO 2 , HRpeak and RPE were compared. VO 2 peak in Long HIIT was significantly higher than Short HIIT and MICT (43 ± 11 vs 32 ± 8 and 37 ± 8 mL.kg −1 .min −1 , respectively, P < 0.05), as well as peak HR (181 ± 10 vs 168 ± 8 and 167 ± 11, respectively, P < 0.05), and RPE (17 ± 4 vs 14 ± 4 and 15 ± 4, respectively, P < 0.05), with no difference between Short HIIT and MICT. In conclusion, Long HIIT promoted higher acute increases in VO 2 , HR and RPE than Short HIIT and MICT, suggesting a higher demand on the cardiorespiratory system. Short HIIT and MICT presented similar physiologic and perceptual responses, despite Short HIIT being performed at higher velocities.

The aim of this study was to compare the heart rate (HR) dynamics and variability before and after high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) protocols with workloads based on treadmill workload at which maximal oxygen uptake was achieved (WLnormalV˙O2maxfalse). Ten participants performed cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to obtain oxygen uptake (WLnormalV˙O2maxfalse). All training protocols were performed on a treadmill, with 0% grade, and had similar total distance. The MICT was composed by 21 min at 70% of WLnormalV˙O2max. The first HIIT protocol (HIIT-30 : 30) was composed by 29 repetitions of 30 s at 100% of sV˙O2max and the second HIIT protocol (HIIT-4 : 3) was composed by three repetitions of 4 min at 90% of WLV˙O2max. Before, during and after each training protocol, HR dynamics and variability (HRV) were analysed by standard kinetics and linear (time and frequency domains). The repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that the HR dynamics, which characterizes the speed of HR during the rest to exercise transition, was statistically (p < 0.05) slower during MICT in comparison to both HIIT protocols. The HRV analysis, which characterizes the cardiac autonomic modulation during the exercise recovery, was statistically higher in HIIT-4 : 3 in comparison to MICT and HIIT-30 : 30 protocols (p < 0.005 and p = 0.012, respectively), suggesting that the HIIT-4 : 3 induced higher sympathetic and lower parasympathetic modulation during exercise in comparison to the other training protocols. In conclusion, HIIT-4 : 3 demonstrated post-exercise sympathetic hyperactivity and a higher HRpeak, while the HIIT-30 : 30 and MICT resulted in better HRV and HR in the exercise-recovery transition. The cardiac autonomic balance increased in HIIT-30 : 30 while HIIT-4 : 3 induced sympathetic hyperactivity and cardiac overload.

Different exercise models have been used in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), like moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) and high intensity interval training (HIIT); however, their effects on autonomic modulation are unknown. The present study aimed to compare the effects of different exercise modes on autonomic modulation in patients with T2D. In total, 44 adults with >5 years of T2D diagnosis were recruited and stratified into three groups: HIIT-30:30 (n = 15, age 59.13 ± 5.57 years) that performed 20 repetitions of 30 s at 100% of VO2peak with passive recovery, HIIT-2:2 (n = 14, age 61.20 ± 2.88) that performed 5 repetitions of 2 min at 100% of VO2peak with passive recovery, and MICT (n = 15, age 58.50 ± 5.26) that performed 14 min of continuous exercise at 70% of VO2peak. All participants underwent anamnesis and evaluation of cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiac autonomic modulation. All protocols were equated by total distance and were performed two times per week for 8 weeks. Group × time interactions were observed for resting heart rate (HRrest) [F(2.82) = 3.641; p = 0.031] and SDNN [F(2.82) = 3.462; p = 0.036]. Only the HIIT-30:30 group significantly reduced SDNN (p = 0.002 and 0.025, respectively). HRrest reduced more in the HIIT-30:30 group compared with the MICT group (p = 0.038). Group × time interactions were also observed for offTAU [F(2.82) = 3.146; p = 0.048] and offTMR [F(2.82) = 4.424; p = 0.015]. The MICT group presented increased values of offTAU compared with the HIIT-30:30 and HIIT-2:2 groups (p = 0.001 and 0.013, respectively), representing a slower HR response after eight weeks of intervention. HIIT, specially HIIT-30:30, represents a promising measure for improving autonomic modulation in patients with T2D.