Aerobic, resistance and combined training and detraining on body composition, muscle strength, lipid profile and inflammation in coronary artery disease patients

Abstract

Fifty-six elderly individuals diagnosed with coronary artery disease participated in the study and were divided into four groups: an aerobic exercise group, a resistance exercise group, a combined (aerobic + resistance) exercise group and a control group. The three exercise groups participated in 8 months of exercise training. Before, at 4 and at 8 months of the training period as well as at 1, 2 and 3 months after training cessation, muscle strength was measured and blood samples were collected. The resistance exercise caused significant increases mainly in muscle strength whereas aerobic exercise caused favourable effects mostly on lipid and apolipoprotein profiles. On the other hand, combined exercise caused significant favourable effects on both physiological (i.e. muscle strength) and biochemical (i.e. lipid and apolipoprotein profile and inflammation status) parameters, while the return to baseline values during the detraining period was slower compared to the other exercise modalities.

Comparison of time‐matched aerobic, resistance, or concurrent exercise training in older adults

“…The aerobic exercise stimulus in CEX comprised of 4-min intervals alternately on a cross trainer and cycle ergometer and, therefore, was primarily lower limb aerobic exercise, which itself is a stimulus to improve leg strength. 11,22 In contrast to the effect on lower limb strength in the present study, RES produced greater improvements than CEX in upper limb strength after 12 weeks. This is similar to previous research in healthy older men wherein the training volume of the resistance exercise training group was double that of the concurrent exercise training group.…”

“…However, the contribution of the aerobic exercise component to improvements in lower limb strength in the CEX group should not be discounted. The aerobic exercise stimulus in CEX comprised of 4‐min intervals alternately on a cross trainer and cycle ergometer and, therefore, was primarily lower limb aerobic exercise, which itself is a stimulus to improve leg strength …”

“…Previous studies in older adults have investigated various parameters that influence training prescription including effects of concurrent training per se, training frequency, and exercise order . However, in many studies to date, the concurrent exercise training groups have typically performed a larger total training volume than either mode alone, with only a handful examining outcomes when the training volume of concurrent training is matched or similar to either training mode alone . Hence, whether the observed differences between single mode and concurrent training interventions are due to the volume of exercise, or the concurrent stimulus is unresolved, particularly in older adults.…”

“…17,18 However, in many studies to date, the concurrent exercise training groups have typically performed a larger total training volume than either mode alone, with only a handful examining outcomes when the training volume of concurrent training is matched or similar to either training mode alone. 11,[19][20][21][22] Hence, whether the observed differences between single mode and concurrent training interventions are due to the volume of exercise, or the concurrent stimulus is unresolved, particularly in older adults. In addition, the time course of change is poorly described, yet this is a key practical question when considering exercise interventions for therapeutic aims.…”

The dose-response effects of aerobic exercise on musculoskeletal injury: a post hoc analysis of a randomized trial

“…Providers who consider prescribing exercise should know that the risk of experiencing an acute or recurrent MSI will increase with exercise dose, but the risk of experiencing a MSI severe enough to impair daily activities does not increase in dose-response fashion. Muscle strengthening activities may lower the risk of experiencing an MSI during aerobic exercise (Naclerio et al, 2015; Theodorou et al, 2016), perhaps by mediating the inflammatory (C-reactive protein) and muscle damage (creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase) responses that occur during and immediately after aerobic exercise (Souglis et al, 2015). Both the ACSM/AHA guidelines (Haskell et al, 2007), and the 2008 Physical Activity Guideline Advisory Committee Report to the Surgeon General (Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2008), concluded that the risks of MSI from exercise are outweighed by the potential health-benefits.…”