Cargando…
Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors?
AIM: To determine the impact of low volume high-intensity interval training (LVHIIT) and continuous low to moderate-intensity exercise training (CLMIT) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and health outcomes in cancer survivors. METHODS: Sedentary cancer survivors (n = 75, aged 51 ± 12 year) within...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5807887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29468132 http://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v9.i1.1 |
_version_ | 1783299363654598656 |
---|---|
author | Toohey, Kellie Pumpa, Kate McKune, Andrew Cooke, Julie DuBose, Katrina D Yip, Desmond Craft, Paul Semple, Stuart |
author_facet | Toohey, Kellie Pumpa, Kate McKune, Andrew Cooke, Julie DuBose, Katrina D Yip, Desmond Craft, Paul Semple, Stuart |
author_sort | Toohey, Kellie |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: To determine the impact of low volume high-intensity interval training (LVHIIT) and continuous low to moderate-intensity exercise training (CLMIT) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and health outcomes in cancer survivors. METHODS: Sedentary cancer survivors (n = 75, aged 51 ± 12 year) within 24 months of diagnosis, were randomised into three groups for 12 wk of LVHIIT (n = 25), CLMIT (n = 25) or control group (n = 25). The exercise intervention involved 36 sessions (three sessions per week). The LVHIIT group performed 7 x 30 s intervals (≥ 85% predicted maximal heart rate) with a 60 s rest between intervals, and the CLMIT group performed continuous aerobic training for 20 min (≤ 55% predicted maximal heart rate) on a stationary bike. Outcome variables were measured at baseline and at 12 weeks and analysed using a 3 x 2 (group x time) repeated measures ANCOVA to evaluate main and interaction effects. RESULTS: Significant improvements (time) were observed for seven of the 22 variables (ES 0.35-0.97, P ≤ 0.05). There was an interaction effect (P < 0.01) after 12 wk in the LVHIIT group for six-minute walk test (P < 0.01; d = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.36, 1.56; large), sit to stand test (P < 0.01; d = -0.83; 95%CI: -1.40, -0.22; large ) and waist circumference reduction (P = 0.01; d = -0.48; 95%CI: -1.10, 0.10; medium). An interaction effect (P < 0.01) was also observed for quality of life in both the LVHIIT (d = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.50, 1.72; large) and CLMIT (d = 0.57; 95%CI: -0.00, 1.20; moderate) compared with the control group (d = -0.15; 95%CI: -0.95, 0.65; trivial). CONCLUSION: Low-volume high-intensity training shows promise as an effective exercise prescription within the cancer population, showing greater improvements in cardio-respiratory fitness, lower body strength and waist circumference compared with traditional CLMIT and control groups. Both LVHIIT and CLMIT improved quality of life. A proposed benefit of LVHIIT is the short duration (3 min) of exercise required, which may entice more cancer survivors to participate in exercise, improving health outcomes and lowing the risk of CVD. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5807887 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Baishideng Publishing Group Inc |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58078872018-02-21 Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors? Toohey, Kellie Pumpa, Kate McKune, Andrew Cooke, Julie DuBose, Katrina D Yip, Desmond Craft, Paul Semple, Stuart World J Clin Oncol Case Control Study AIM: To determine the impact of low volume high-intensity interval training (LVHIIT) and continuous low to moderate-intensity exercise training (CLMIT) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and health outcomes in cancer survivors. METHODS: Sedentary cancer survivors (n = 75, aged 51 ± 12 year) within 24 months of diagnosis, were randomised into three groups for 12 wk of LVHIIT (n = 25), CLMIT (n = 25) or control group (n = 25). The exercise intervention involved 36 sessions (three sessions per week). The LVHIIT group performed 7 x 30 s intervals (≥ 85% predicted maximal heart rate) with a 60 s rest between intervals, and the CLMIT group performed continuous aerobic training for 20 min (≤ 55% predicted maximal heart rate) on a stationary bike. Outcome variables were measured at baseline and at 12 weeks and analysed using a 3 x 2 (group x time) repeated measures ANCOVA to evaluate main and interaction effects. RESULTS: Significant improvements (time) were observed for seven of the 22 variables (ES 0.35-0.97, P ≤ 0.05). There was an interaction effect (P < 0.01) after 12 wk in the LVHIIT group for six-minute walk test (P < 0.01; d = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.36, 1.56; large), sit to stand test (P < 0.01; d = -0.83; 95%CI: -1.40, -0.22; large ) and waist circumference reduction (P = 0.01; d = -0.48; 95%CI: -1.10, 0.10; medium). An interaction effect (P < 0.01) was also observed for quality of life in both the LVHIIT (d = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.50, 1.72; large) and CLMIT (d = 0.57; 95%CI: -0.00, 1.20; moderate) compared with the control group (d = -0.15; 95%CI: -0.95, 0.65; trivial). CONCLUSION: Low-volume high-intensity training shows promise as an effective exercise prescription within the cancer population, showing greater improvements in cardio-respiratory fitness, lower body strength and waist circumference compared with traditional CLMIT and control groups. Both LVHIIT and CLMIT improved quality of life. A proposed benefit of LVHIIT is the short duration (3 min) of exercise required, which may entice more cancer survivors to participate in exercise, improving health outcomes and lowing the risk of CVD. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2018-02-10 2018-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5807887/ /pubmed/29468132 http://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v9.i1.1 Text en ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. |
spellingShingle | Case Control Study Toohey, Kellie Pumpa, Kate McKune, Andrew Cooke, Julie DuBose, Katrina D Yip, Desmond Craft, Paul Semple, Stuart Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors? |
title | Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors? |
title_full | Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors? |
title_fullStr | Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors? |
title_full_unstemmed | Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors? |
title_short | Does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors? |
title_sort | does low volume high-intensity interval training elicit superior benefits to continuous low to moderate-intensity training in cancer survivors? |
topic | Case Control Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5807887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29468132 http://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v9.i1.1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tooheykellie doeslowvolumehighintensityintervaltrainingelicitsuperiorbenefitstocontinuouslowtomoderateintensitytrainingincancersurvivors AT pumpakate doeslowvolumehighintensityintervaltrainingelicitsuperiorbenefitstocontinuouslowtomoderateintensitytrainingincancersurvivors AT mckuneandrew doeslowvolumehighintensityintervaltrainingelicitsuperiorbenefitstocontinuouslowtomoderateintensitytrainingincancersurvivors AT cookejulie doeslowvolumehighintensityintervaltrainingelicitsuperiorbenefitstocontinuouslowtomoderateintensitytrainingincancersurvivors AT dubosekatrinad doeslowvolumehighintensityintervaltrainingelicitsuperiorbenefitstocontinuouslowtomoderateintensitytrainingincancersurvivors AT yipdesmond doeslowvolumehighintensityintervaltrainingelicitsuperiorbenefitstocontinuouslowtomoderateintensitytrainingincancersurvivors AT craftpaul doeslowvolumehighintensityintervaltrainingelicitsuperiorbenefitstocontinuouslowtomoderateintensitytrainingincancersurvivors AT semplestuart doeslowvolumehighintensityintervaltrainingelicitsuperiorbenefitstocontinuouslowtomoderateintensitytrainingincancersurvivors |