Feasibility of High-Intensity Resistance Training Sessions in Cancer Survivors

Abstract

Schl üter, K, Schneider, J, Rosenberger, F, and Wiskemann, J. Feasibility of high-intensity resistance training sessions in cancer survivors. J Strength Cond Res 36(9): 2643-2652, 2022-Moderate-intensity resistance training (MIRT) is regarded as safe in cancer survivors (CS), but for high-intensity resistance training (HIRT), evidence is lacking. Hence, in the current exploratory analyses, single sessions of HIRT are compared with MIRT regarding safety and feasibility. Twenty-three of 24 included CS (14 breast and 10 prostate CS, 61.6 6 9.5 years, body mass index 27.0 6 4.3 kg•m 22 , 6-52 weeks after end of primary therapy) started a 12-week resistance training (RT) with a daily undulating periodization model including HIRT (90% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and MIRT (67% 1RM) sessions. Parameters of safety (adverse events [AEs] and training-related pain), feasibility (physical and mental exhaustion, sensation of effort, enjoyment, and dropout rate), and adherence were assessed. An alpha level of 0.05 was applied for analyses. Nineteen of 23 training starters (83%) completed all sessions. Fourteen minor AEs occurred. A significantly higher increase for physical exhaustion appeared in HIRT (p , 0.001). For 18% (HIRT) and 19% (MIRT) of the sessions, training-related pain was reported with no significant difference between intensities. In total, 34% of HIRT and 35% of MIRT sessions were perceived as overstraining or partly overstraining with no significant difference between intensities, but enjoyment (median and quartiles on a 1-7 scale) was high for both (HIRT 5 5 [5;6] and MIRT 5 5 [4,6]). Our analysis indicates that HIRT sessions do not differ from MIRT sessions concerning safety or feasibility, but training-related pain should be monitored. RT protocols incorporating high-intensity training loads can be applied safely in breast and prostate CS.

Are percentages of the one-repetition maximum (1-RM) suitable for prescribing resistance exercise in cancer survivors? - Comparability and prediction accuracy of frequently used 1-RM testing procedures

“…All approaches mentioned, move the eld forward by suggesting relevant reporting parameters like objective volume load or velocity documentation or subjectively perceived intensity reporting. In addition, the cancer speci c recommendations should incorporate reporting variables which are similar to medical/drug research outcomes in oncology, like relative exercise dose intensity, total cumulative planned and completed dose or dose modi cation, comparable to Schluter et al [31]. Two implications can be drawn from the mentioned paper: (I) To be able to draw solid conclusions from RT trials concerning the effectivity and e cacy, a comprehensive approach for reporting RT regimens is mandatory; (II) No matter which additional method or recommendation will be used, it is of great importance to nd a consensus regarding how these different reporting strategies can be best implemented and integrated to complement each other.…”

“…Wednesdays and again high intensity on Fridays) shown to be feasible and effective with regard to various clinically relevant endpoints [30,31].…”

Patterns and influencing factors of exercise attendance of breast cancer patients during neoadjuvant chemotherapy

“…Yet, it is very complex to assess all these criteria over all sessions, especially during chemotherapy when exercise prescriptions frequently are adjusted to the impaired health status of the patients. Even though there are some approaches to measure adherence through the performed training volume, required dose modifications, and missed progression steps [ 26 ], there is no gold standard of measuring the adherence to an exercise intervention. Thus, as a feasible surrogate measure, often attendance to the exercise sessions is assessed [ 15 ].…”