Cardiopulmonary endurance-training responsiveness of metabolic syndrome patients to individualized and standardized exercise prescriptions: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
Frontiers in Physiology Pub Date : 2025-03-14 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fphys.2025.1427629
Ruojiang Liu, Jinmei Qin, Xiang Zhang, Feng Wang, Weizhen Xue
{"title":"Cardiopulmonary endurance-training responsiveness of metabolic syndrome patients to individualized and standardized exercise prescriptions: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Ruojiang Liu, Jinmei Qin, Xiang Zhang, Feng Wang, Weizhen Xue","doi":"10.3389/fphys.2025.1427629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This investigation compares the effects of two exercise prescriptions with equal energy consumption but different exercise intensity-determination methods on cardiopulmonary endurance in a population with metabolic syndrome (MetS). This investigation verified the effectiveness of individualized methods in patients with MetS undergoing moderate-intensity exercises.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The participants were randomized into a standardized group or individualized group. Exercise intensity was determined based on the heart rate reserve method in the standardized group and ventilatory threshold model in the individualized group. The two groups completed 12 weeks of an exercise prescription with equal exercise frequency and energy consumption. Using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), primary and secondary cardiovascular endurance indicators were measured. The percentage change of PeakVO<sub>2</sub> was used to classify participants as responders and non-responders. Other markers were used in auxiliary analysis of individual training responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 40 MetS participants (75% male; mean age: 43.58 ± 11.73; body mass index: 30.39 ± 4.26) completed all exercise interventions. The PeakVO<sub>2</sub> increased significantly (P < 0.05) in both the standardized and individualized groups. Significant improvements in peak heart rate and maximum voluntary ventilation were observed in the individualized group. Differences in training responsiveness were also observed between the standardized and individualized groups, with 70% and 90%, respectively, being classified as responders, and improvements in PeakVO<sub>2</sub> experienced by 14.6% and 22.1%, respectively. During the training period (weeks 4-12), a significant difference in responsiveness was observed between the groups. Similar adverse changes were present in the CPET markers of adverse responders.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ventilatory threshold model-based individualized method has advantages in the MetS population. However, the responsiveness to the individualized method did not reach 100% in patients with MetS.</p>","PeriodicalId":12477,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Physiology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1427629"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11949888/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2025.1427629","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This investigation compares the effects of two exercise prescriptions with equal energy consumption but different exercise intensity-determination methods on cardiopulmonary endurance in a population with metabolic syndrome (MetS). This investigation verified the effectiveness of individualized methods in patients with MetS undergoing moderate-intensity exercises.

Methods: The participants were randomized into a standardized group or individualized group. Exercise intensity was determined based on the heart rate reserve method in the standardized group and ventilatory threshold model in the individualized group. The two groups completed 12 weeks of an exercise prescription with equal exercise frequency and energy consumption. Using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), primary and secondary cardiovascular endurance indicators were measured. The percentage change of PeakVO2 was used to classify participants as responders and non-responders. Other markers were used in auxiliary analysis of individual training responses.

Results: A total of 40 MetS participants (75% male; mean age: 43.58 ± 11.73; body mass index: 30.39 ± 4.26) completed all exercise interventions. The PeakVO2 increased significantly (P < 0.05) in both the standardized and individualized groups. Significant improvements in peak heart rate and maximum voluntary ventilation were observed in the individualized group. Differences in training responsiveness were also observed between the standardized and individualized groups, with 70% and 90%, respectively, being classified as responders, and improvements in PeakVO2 experienced by 14.6% and 22.1%, respectively. During the training period (weeks 4-12), a significant difference in responsiveness was observed between the groups. Similar adverse changes were present in the CPET markers of adverse responders.

Conclusion: The ventilatory threshold model-based individualized method has advantages in the MetS population. However, the responsiveness to the individualized method did not reach 100% in patients with MetS.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
2608
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Physiology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research on the physiology of living systems, from the subcellular and molecular domains to the intact organism, and its interaction with the environment. Field Chief Editor George E. Billman at the Ohio State University Columbus is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信