To compare the effects of 8 weeks of high-resistance circuit (HRC) training (3-6 sets of 6 exercises, 6 repetition maximum [RM], ∼35-second interset recovery) and traditional strength (TS) training (3-6 sets of 6 exercises, 6RM, 3-minute interset recovery) on physical performance parameters and body composition, 33 healthy men were randomly assigned to HRC, TS, or a control group. Training consisted of weight lifting 3 times a week for 8 weeks. Before and after the training, 1RM strength on bench press and half squat exercises, bench press peak power output, and body composition (dual x-ray absorptiometry ) were determined. Shuttle run and 30-second Wingate tests were also completed. Upper limb (UL) and lower limb 1RM increased equally after both TS and HRC training. The UL peak power at various loads was significantly higher at posttraining for both groups (p ≤ 0.01). Shuttle-run performance was significantly better after both HRC and TS training, however peak cycling power increased only in TS training (p ≤ 0.05). Significant decreases were found in % body fat in the HRC group only; HRC and TS training both resulted in an increased lean but not bone mass. The HRC training was as effective as TS for improving weight lifting 1RM and peak power, shuttle-run performance and lean mass. Thus, HRC training promoted a similar strength-mass adaptation as traditional training while using a shorter training session duration.

Background and Objectives: Indoor cycling is one of the most practiced activities in fitness centers for most people regardless of their physical conditioning level. Several studies have analyzed the effect of indoor cycling on several parameters related to health, such as maximal oxygen consumption, blood pressure, body composition, as well as biochemical markers such as HDL or LDL. However, no study has synthesized all health benefits associated with the indoor cycling practice in the form of a systematic review and established guidelines or recommendations. Therefore, the aim of this manuscript was to conduct a systematic review of published studies about the benefits of indoor cycling training and to establish recommendations for coaches, researchers, and practitioners. Materials and Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed to conduct the current systematic review. A systematic search was performed to retrieve relevant published articles until January 2019 using the following keywords: ‘indoor cycling’, ‘indoor bicycle’, and ‘spinning exercise’. Information about participants, intervention, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) was extracted. Results: A total of 300 studies were initially identified. After the revision process, 13 of them were included. The total sample size of the studies was 372 (306 women). Results revealed that indoor cycling may improve aerobic capacity, blood pressure, lipid profile, and body composition. These enhancements may be achieved as standalone intervention or combined with other physical exercises or diet. Conclusions: The combination of indoor cycling and diet is recommended to improve the lipid profile, lose weight, and reduce blood pressure. Furthermore, indoor cycling alone may also enhance aerobic capacity. Given the lack of randomized controlled trials, these conclusions should be taken with caution.

No abstract

Background and objectives: Obesity or overweight is associated with many health risk factors and preventable mortality. Even people with normal weight and without history of obesity or overweight should avoid weight gain to reduce health risks factors. In this regard Latin aerobic dances involved in Zumba® practice make this modality motivating for people. Apart from weight loss and VO2peak benefits, Zumba practice is also interesting by the increase in adherence which can also avoid weight regain. The aim was to systematically review the scientific literature about the effects of any randomized intervention of Zumba® practice on total fat mass (%) and maximum oxygen consumption (VO2peak), besides establishing directions for the clinical practice. Evidence acquisition: Two systematic searches were conducted in two electronic databases following the PRISMA guidelines. The eligibility criteria were (a) outcomes: body mass or VO2peak data including mean and standard deviation (SD) before and after Zumba® intervention, (b) study design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) and (c) language: English. GRADE guidelines were used to assess the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was performed to determine mean differences. Nine and four studies were selected for fat mass percentage and VO2peak in the systematic review, respectively. However, only eight studies for fat mass percentage and three for VO2peak could be included in the meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis: The overall standardized mean difference for fat mass was −0.25 with a 95% CI from −0.67 to 0.16 with a p-value of 0.69, with large heterogeneity. On the other hand, the overall effect size for VO2peak was 0.53 (95% CI from 0.04 to 1.02 with a p-value of 0.03) with large heterogeneity. Conclusions: Based on the evidence, we cannot conclude that Zumba® is effective at reducing body mass but it may improve VO2peak. However, the limited number of studies that met the inclusion criteria makes it too early to reach a definite conclusion, so more research is needed.