The COVID-19 outbreak has led to wide-scale self-isolation, as a result of the quarantine period recommended by the World Health Organization. Consequently, people's mental health, including their anxiety levels, may be becoming impaired. To cope with the situation, the exergame appears to be an enjoyable easy-to-use tool for reducing social isolation, as well as an interesting mode of home-based exercise for tackling anxiety disorders and sedentary behavior. This article critically appraises the opportunities and challenges exergames present for the prevention and treatment of anxiety disorders in a home-based environment during the COVID-19 quarantine period.
ObjectivesTo compare the effects of interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training (MOD) on body adiposity in humans, and to perform subgroup analyses that consider the type and duration of interval training in different groups.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEnglish-language, Spanish-language and Portuguese-language searches of the electronic databases PubMed and Scopus were conducted from inception to 11 December 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies that met the following criteria were included: (1) original articles, (2) human trials, (3) minimum exercise training duration of 4 weeks, and (4) directly or indirectly compared interval training with MOD as the primary or secondary aim.ResultsOf the 786 studies found, 41 and 36 were included in the qualitative analysis and meta-analysis, respectively. Within-group analyses showed significant reductions in total body fat percentage (%) (interval training: −1.50 [95% CI −2.14 to −0.86, p<0.00001] and MOD: −1.44 [95% CI −2.00 to −0.89, p<0.00001]) and in total absolute fat mass (kg) (interval training: −1.58 [95% CI −2.74 to −0.43, p=0.007] and MOD: −1.13 [95% CI −2.18 to −0.08, p=0.04]), with no significant differences between interval training and MOD for total body fat percentage reduction (−0.23 [95% CI −1.43 to 0.97], p=0.705). However, there was a significant difference between the groups in total absolute fat mass (kg) reduction (−2.28 [95% CI −4.00 to −0.56], p=0.0094). Subgroup analyses comparing sprint interval training (SIT) with MOD protocols favour SIT for loss of total absolute fat mass (kg) (−3.22 [95% CI −5.71 to −0.73], p=0.01). Supervised training, walking/running/jogging, age (<30 years), study quality and intervention duration (<12 weeks) favourably influence the decreases in total absolute fat mass (kg) observed from interval training programmes; however, no significant effect was found on total body fat percentage (%). No effect of sex or body mass index was observed on total absolute fat mass (kg) or total body fat percentage (%).ConclusionInterval training and MOD both reduce body fat percentage (%). Interval training provided 28.5% greater reductions in total absolute fat mass (kg) than MOD.Trial registration numberCRD42018089427.
The objective of this study was to determine differences in 2 distinct resistance training protocols and if true variability can be detected after accounting for random error. Individuals (n = 151) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (i) a traditional exercise group performing 4 sets to failure; (ii) a group performing a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test; and (iii) a time-matched nonexercise control group. Both exercise groups performed 18 sessions of elbow flexion exercise over 6 weeks. While both training groups increased 1RM strength similarly (∼2.4 kg), true variability was only present in the traditional exercise group (true variability = 1.80 kg). Only the 1RM group increased untrained arm 1RM strength (1.5 kg), while only the traditional group increased ultrasound measured muscle thickness (∼0.23 cm). Despite these mean increases, no true variability was present for untrained arm strength or muscle hypertrophy in either training group. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate the importance of taking into consideration the magnitude of random error when classifying differential responders, as many studies may be classifying high and low responders as those who have the greatest amount of random error present. Additionally, our mean results demonstrate that strength is largely driven by task specificity, and the crossover effect of strength may be load dependent. Novelty Many studies examining differential responders to exercise do not account for random error. True variability was present in 1RM strength gains, but the variability in muscle hypertrophy and isokinetic strength changes could not be distinguished from random error. The crossover effect of strength may differ based on the protocol employed.
The exergame Zumba Fitness seems to be a useful tool to reduce state anxiety in a nonclinical sample of healthy women.
Blood flow restriction exercise involves using a pneumatic cuff or elastic band to restrict arterial inflow into the muscle and block venous return out of the muscle during the exercise bout. The resultant ischemia in conjunction with low-load exercise has shown to be beneficial with increasing muscle size and strength. However, a limitation of using blood flow restriction (BFR) is the accompanying discomfort associated with this type of exercise. Factors that may influence discomfort are applied pressure, width of the cuff, cuff material, sex, and training to failure. The goal of this review was to evaluate the existing literature and elucidate how these factors can be manipulated to reduce discomfort during exercise as well as provide possible directions for future research. Thirty-eight different studies were located investigating BFR and discomfort. It was found that BFR training causes more discomfort than exercise without BFR. However, chronic use of BFR may increase tolerability, but discomfort may still be elevated over traditional non-blood flow restricted exercise. Discomfort can be attenuated by the application of lower applied pressures and stopping short of task failure. Finally, in the upper body, wider cuffs seem to increase ratings of discomfort compared with more narrow cuffs. In conclusion, applying the proper-sized cuff and making the applied pressure relative to both the individual and the cuff applied may attenuate discomfort. Reducing discomfort during exercise may help increase adherence to exercise and rehabilitation programs.
Interval training (IT) has been used for many decades with the purpose of increasing performance and promoting health benefits while demanding a relatively small amount of time. IT can be defined as intermittent periods of intense exercise separated by periods of recovery and has been divided into high-intensity interval training (HIIT), sprint interval training (SIT), and repeated sprint training (RST). IT use has resulted in the publication of many studies and many of them with conflicting results and positions. The aim of this article was to move forward and understand the studies' protocols in order to draw accurate conclusions, as well as to avoid previous mistakes and effectively reproduce previous protocols. When analyzing the literature, we found many inconsistencies, such as the controversial concept of 'supramaximal' effort, a misunderstanding with regard to the term 'high intensity,' and the use of different strategies to control intensity. The adequate definition and interpretation of training intensity seems to be vital, since the results of IT are largely dependent on it. These observations are only a few examples of the complexity involved in IT prescription, and are discussed to illustrate some problems with the current literature regarding IT. Therefore, it is our opinion that it is not possible to draw general conclusions about IT without considering all variables used in IT prescription, such as exercise modality, intensity, effort and rest times, and participants' characteristics. In order to help guide researchers and health professionals in their practices it is important that experimental studies report their methods in as much detail as possible and future reviews and meta-analyses should critically discuss the articles included in the light of their methods to avoid inappropriate generalizations.
Alves, RR, Viana, RB, Silva, MH, Guimarães, TC, Vieira, CA, Santos, DdAT, and Gentil, PRV. Postactivation potentiation improves performance in a resistance training session in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 35(12): 3296–3299, 2021—This study aims to analyze the influence of postactivation potentiation (PAP) on performance during a resistance training (RT) session in trained individuals. Fourteen trained men (25.0 ± 3.5 years; 89.9 ± 16.3 kg; 1.77 ± 0:08 m; 28.0 ± 4.0 kg·m−2; and 5 ± 4 years of RT experience) were tested in 2 situations: with PAP and without PAP (CON). Both situations involved 3 sets of the bench press exercise performed to muscle failure at 75% of the 1 repetition maximum load and with 1.5-minute interval between sets. Total work was greater (p < 0.001) for PAP (1,601 ± 504 kg) than for CON (1,379 ± 364 kg). The number of repetitions performed in the first and second sets of PAP (11.5 ± 3.1 and 6.5 ± 1.9, respectively) were greater (p < 0.05) than those performed in CON (10.4 ± 2.7, 5.5 ± 1.8, respectively). No significant difference was found in the number of repetitions in the last set between the situations. The present study suggests that PAP might be beneficial to improve total work and performance during multiple sets of RT in trained men. Therefore, PAP might be used during RT to promote higher total work and potentially increase results over long term. Thus, the protocol can use in sports centers, fitness centers, and gyms per coaches and athletes to increase performance and total work in trained individuals.
Purpose: To compare the effects of 8 weeks of two types of interval training, Sprint Interval Training (SIT) and High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT), on anthropometric measures and cardiorespiratory fitness in healthy young women.Methods: A randomized clinical trial in which 49 young active women [age, 30.4 ± 6.1 years; body mass index, 24.8 ± 3.1 kg.m−2; peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak), 34.9±7.5 mL.kg−1.min−1] were randomly allocated into a SIT or HIIT group. The SIT group performed four bouts of 30 s all-out cycling efforts interspersed with 4 min of recovery (passive or light cycling with no load). The HIIT group performed four bouts of 4-min efforts at 90–95% of peak heart rate (HRpeak) interspersed with 3 min of active recovery at 50–60% of HRpeak. At baseline and after 8 weeks of intervention, waist circumference, skinfolds (triceps, subscapular, suprailiac, abdominal, and thigh), body mass and BMI were measured by standard procedures and cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed by cardiorespiratory graded exertion test on an electromagnetically braked cycle ergometer.Results: The HIIT and SIT groups improved, respectively, 14.5 ± 22.9% (P < 0.001) and 16.9 ± 23.4% (P < 0.001) in VO2peak after intervention, with no significant difference between groups. Sum of skinfolds reduced 15.8 ± 7.9 and 22.2 ± 6.4 from baseline (P < 0.001) for HIIT and SIT groups, respectively, with greater reduction for SIT compared to HIIT (P < 0.05). There were statistically significant decreases in waist circumference (P < 0.001) for the HIIT (−3.1 ± 1.1%) and SIT (−3.3 ± 1.8%) groups, with no significant difference between groups. Only SIT showed significant reductions in body weight and BMI (p < 0.05).Conclusions: Eight weeks of HIIT and SIT resulted in improvements in anthropometric measures and cardiorespiratory fitness, even in the absence of changes in dietary intake. In addition, the SIT protocol induced greater reductions than the HIIT protocol in the sum of skinfolds. Both protocols appear to be time-efficient interventions, since the HIIT and SIT protocols took 33 and 23 min (16 and 2 min of effective training) per session, respectively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.