Acute effect of resistance exercise on cognitive function in people living with HIV

Abstract

People living with HIV are at an increased risk of developing cognitive deficits. Physical exercise is an important strategy to improve the brain health of people living with HIV. This randomized, controlled study aimed to investigate the acute effect of a single resistance exercise session on the cognitive function of people living with HIV. Twenty-three people living with HIV were randomized (1:1) to a control group (n = 12) or the exercise group (n = 11). Cognitive function was assessed by the Stroop test and the Trail Making Test. The exercise group was evaluated before and after the exercise session; meanwhile, the control group was evaluated before and after a 40-minute rest period. No statistical difference was found on the effect of exercise on cognitive function ( p > 0.05). This result suggests that one session of resistance exercise was not capable of improving the cognitive function of people with HIV.

Effects of resistance exercises on inhibitory control and plasma epinephrine levels: A registered report of a crossover randomized controlled trial

“…To further identify and address the potential methodological limitations of previous acute resistance exercise‐inhibitory control studies, 22 studies that investigated the effect of acute exercise on the Stroop task (Brush et al., 2016; Chang & Etnier, 2009; Chang et al., 2014; Chou et al., 2021; Coelho‐Júnior et al., 2021; de Almeida et al., 2021; de Souza et al., 2020; Dora et al., 2021a, 2021b; Engeroff et al., 2019; Harveson et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2016; Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Nutt et al., 2021; Sardeli et al., 2018; Tomoo et al., 2020; Tsuk et al., 2019; Tsukamoto et al., 2017; Vonk et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Wilke et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021) were also reviewed (Table 1). Although 82% of studies (18/22) (Chang & Etnier, 2009; Chou et al., 2021; Coelho‐Júnior et al., 2021; de Almeida et al., 2021; de Souza et al., 2020; Dora et al., 2021a, 2021b; Engeroff et al., 2019; Harveson et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2016; Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Nutt et al., 2021; Sardeli et al., 2018; Tomoo et al., 2020; Tsukamoto et al., 2017; Vonk et al., 2019; Wilke et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021) claimed to implement randomization, only 2 (Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Engeroff et al., 2019) and 1 (Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021) out of these 18 studies reported the process of allocation sequence generation (random number generation) and concealment, respectively.…”

“…To further identify and address the potential methodological limitations of previous acute resistance exercise‐inhibitory control studies, 22 studies that investigated the effect of acute exercise on the Stroop task (Brush et al., 2016; Chang & Etnier, 2009; Chang et al., 2014; Chou et al., 2021; Coelho‐Júnior et al., 2021; de Almeida et al., 2021; de Souza et al., 2020; Dora et al., 2021a, 2021b; Engeroff et al., 2019; Harveson et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2016; Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Nutt et al., 2021; Sardeli et al., 2018; Tomoo et al., 2020; Tsuk et al., 2019; Tsukamoto et al., 2017; Vonk et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Wilke et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021) were also reviewed (Table 1). Although 82% of studies (18/22) (Chang & Etnier, 2009; Chou et al., 2021; Coelho‐Júnior et al., 2021; de Almeida et al., 2021; de Souza et al., 2020; Dora et al., 2021a, 2021b; Engeroff et al., 2019; Harveson et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2016; Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Nutt et al., 2021; Sardeli et al., 2018; Tomoo et al., 2020; Tsukamoto et al., 2017; Vonk et al., 2019; Wilke et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021) claimed to implement randomization, only 2 (Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Engeroff et al., 2019) and 1 (Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021) out of these 18 studies reported the process of allocation sequence generation (random number generation) and concealment, respectively. These two steps are crucial in randomized controlled trials (Sterne et al., 2019, Full guidance document, section 4.1).…”

“…Without reporting these processes, readers are not able to judge whether there is bias arising from the randomization. Second, while 82% of these studies (18/22) (Chang & Etnier, 2009; Chang et al., 2014; Chou et al., 2021; Coelho‐Júnior et al., 2021; de Almeida et al., 2021; de Souza et al., 2020; Dora et al., 2021a, 2021b; Engeroff et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2016; Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Sardeli et al., 2018; Tomoo et al., 2020; Tsuk et al., 2019; Tsukamoto et al., 2017; Vonk et al., 2019; Wilke et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021) conducted a cognitive pretest before the intervention, only 13 studies (Brush et al., 2016; de Almeida et al., 2021; Dora et al., 2021a, 2021b; Engeroff et al., 2019; Harveson et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2016; Tomoo et al., 2020; Tsuk et al., 2019; Tsukamoto et al., 2017; Vonk et al., 2019; Wilke et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021) implemented a familiarization of the test. Both pretest and familiarization are a means of reducing noise; the former controls the daily fluctuation of participants' cognitive performance and the latter alleviates the practice effect.…”