个性化心肺和肌肉训练与标准化心肺和肌肉训练对健康相关结果和应答率的影响。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Ryan M Weatherwax, Megan C Nelson, Lance C Dalleck
{"title":"个性化心肺和肌肉训练与标准化心肺和肌肉训练对健康相关结果和应答率的影响。","authors":"Ryan M Weatherwax, Megan C Nelson, Lance C Dalleck","doi":"10.52082/jssm.2024.209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent research has shown more favorable training adaptations for inactive adults when cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) exercise is prescribed with the use of ventilatory thresholds compared to percentages of heart rate reserve (HRR). However, there is limited research on changes in health-related outcomes with the use of these CRF methods in combination with muscular fitness exercises. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two training programs for improving CRF, muscular fitness, and cardiometabolic risk factors. Inactive men and women (n=109, aged 49.3±15.5 years) were randomized to a non-exercise control group or one of two exercise training groups. The exercise training groups consisted of 13 weeks of structured exercise with progression using either CRF exercise prescribed with the use of ventilatory thresholds and functional training for muscular fitness (THRESH group) or HRR and traditional muscular fitness training (STND group). After the 13-week protocol, there were significant differences in body weight, body composition, systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), VO<sub>2</sub>max, 5-repetition maximum (RM) bench press, and 5-RM leg press for both treatment groups compared to the control group after controlling for baseline values. However, the THRESH group had significantly more desirable outcomes for VO<sub>2</sub>max, 5-RM bench press, 5-RM leg press, body composition, and HDL-c when compared to both the STND and control group. Additionally, the proportion of individuals estimated as likely to respond above 3.5 mL·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup> in VO<sub>2</sub>max (i.e., the minimal clinically important difference) was 76.4%, 20.8%, and 0.13% for the THRESH, STND, and control groups, respectively. While both exercise programs elicited favorable health-related adaptations after 13 weeks, these results suggest that a personalized program with exercise prescribed based on ventilatory threshold and with the use of functional muscular fitness training may yield greater training adaptations.</p>","PeriodicalId":54765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":"209-218"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10915607/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Personalized versus Standardized Cardiorespiratory and Muscular Training on Health-Related Outcomes and Rate of Responders.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan M Weatherwax, Megan C Nelson, Lance C Dalleck\",\"doi\":\"10.52082/jssm.2024.209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent research has shown more favorable training adaptations for inactive adults when cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) exercise is prescribed with the use of ventilatory thresholds compared to percentages of heart rate reserve (HRR). However, there is limited research on changes in health-related outcomes with the use of these CRF methods in combination with muscular fitness exercises. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two training programs for improving CRF, muscular fitness, and cardiometabolic risk factors. Inactive men and women (n=109, aged 49.3±15.5 years) were randomized to a non-exercise control group or one of two exercise training groups. The exercise training groups consisted of 13 weeks of structured exercise with progression using either CRF exercise prescribed with the use of ventilatory thresholds and functional training for muscular fitness (THRESH group) or HRR and traditional muscular fitness training (STND group). After the 13-week protocol, there were significant differences in body weight, body composition, systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), VO<sub>2</sub>max, 5-repetition maximum (RM) bench press, and 5-RM leg press for both treatment groups compared to the control group after controlling for baseline values. However, the THRESH group had significantly more desirable outcomes for VO<sub>2</sub>max, 5-RM bench press, 5-RM leg press, body composition, and HDL-c when compared to both the STND and control group. Additionally, the proportion of individuals estimated as likely to respond above 3.5 mL·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup> in VO<sub>2</sub>max (i.e., the minimal clinically important difference) was 76.4%, 20.8%, and 0.13% for the THRESH, STND, and control groups, respectively. While both exercise programs elicited favorable health-related adaptations after 13 weeks, these results suggest that a personalized program with exercise prescribed based on ventilatory threshold and with the use of functional muscular fitness training may yield greater training adaptations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"209-218\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10915607/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2024.209\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2024.209","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的研究表明,与心率储备百分比(HRR)相比,使用通气阈值进行心肺功能(CRF)锻炼对非活动成年人的训练适应性更有利。然而,关于将这些心肺功能锻炼方法与肌肉健身锻炼结合使用所产生的健康相关结果变化的研究却很有限。本研究的目的是比较两种训练计划在改善心率负荷、肌肉健身和心脏代谢风险因素方面的效果。不运动的男性和女性(人数=109,年龄为 49.3±15.5 岁)被随机分配到非运动对照组或两个运动训练组中的一个。运动训练组包括为期 13 周的结构化运动,采用通气阈值和肌肉体能功能训练(THRESH 组)或 HRR 和传统肌肉体能训练(STND 组)规定的 CRF 运动,循序渐进。13 周方案结束后,在控制基线值后,两个治疗组的体重、身体成分、收缩压、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇 (HDL-c)、最大氧饱和度 (VO2max)、5 次最大卧推 (RM) 和 5 次最大腿部卧推与对照组相比均有显著差异。然而,与 STND 组和对照组相比,THRESH 组在 VO2max、5-RM 仰卧推举、5-RM 压腿、身体成分和 HDL-c 方面的结果明显更理想。此外,在 THRESH 组、STND 组和对照组中,估计 VO2max 有可能超过 3.5 mL-kg-1-min-1 的人数比例(即最小临床意义差异)分别为 76.4%、20.8% 和 0.13%。虽然两种锻炼计划在 13 周后都产生了与健康相关的良好适应性,但这些结果表明,根据通气阈值规定锻炼计划并使用功能性肌肉健身训练的个性化计划可能会产生更大的训练适应性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Impact of Personalized versus Standardized Cardiorespiratory and Muscular Training on Health-Related Outcomes and Rate of Responders.

Recent research has shown more favorable training adaptations for inactive adults when cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) exercise is prescribed with the use of ventilatory thresholds compared to percentages of heart rate reserve (HRR). However, there is limited research on changes in health-related outcomes with the use of these CRF methods in combination with muscular fitness exercises. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two training programs for improving CRF, muscular fitness, and cardiometabolic risk factors. Inactive men and women (n=109, aged 49.3±15.5 years) were randomized to a non-exercise control group or one of two exercise training groups. The exercise training groups consisted of 13 weeks of structured exercise with progression using either CRF exercise prescribed with the use of ventilatory thresholds and functional training for muscular fitness (THRESH group) or HRR and traditional muscular fitness training (STND group). After the 13-week protocol, there were significant differences in body weight, body composition, systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), VO2max, 5-repetition maximum (RM) bench press, and 5-RM leg press for both treatment groups compared to the control group after controlling for baseline values. However, the THRESH group had significantly more desirable outcomes for VO2max, 5-RM bench press, 5-RM leg press, body composition, and HDL-c when compared to both the STND and control group. Additionally, the proportion of individuals estimated as likely to respond above 3.5 mL·kg-1·min-1 in VO2max (i.e., the minimal clinically important difference) was 76.4%, 20.8%, and 0.13% for the THRESH, STND, and control groups, respectively. While both exercise programs elicited favorable health-related adaptations after 13 weeks, these results suggest that a personalized program with exercise prescribed based on ventilatory threshold and with the use of functional muscular fitness training may yield greater training adaptations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
56
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (JSSM) is a non-profit making scientific electronic journal, publishing research and review articles, together with case studies, in the fields of sports medicine and the exercise sciences. JSSM is published quarterly in March, June, September and December. JSSM also publishes editorials, a "letter to the editor" section, abstracts from international and national congresses, panel meetings, conferences and symposia, and can function as an open discussion forum on significant issues of current interest.
×
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