3.8 Article

The respiratory effects of a Pilates method protocol: Randomized clinical trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES
Volume 32, Issue -, Pages 149-155

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2022.04.014

Keywords

Exercise and movement techniques; Respiratory function tests; Rehabilitation

Categories

Funding

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel-Brazil (CAPES) [001]
  2. Federal University of Alfenas

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the respiratory effects of a Pilates method (PM) in adult women and found that it can improve respiratory muscle strength.
Objectives: To evaluate the respiratory effects of a Pilates method (PM) protocol in adult women.Design: Single-blind randomized controlled trial.Settings: Healthy women were randomized into two groups using the Random.org online tool: a Pilates group (PG) (n = 33) and a control group (CG) (n = 29).Participants: Sixty-two healthy women, aged 18-44 years, sedentary or irregularly active B (as defined by the international physical activity questionnaire [IPAQ]). The intervention consisted of 16 sessions of PM. protocol twice a week for the PG. The CG without intervention.Main outcomes measures: The variables evaluated were maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximal expiratory pressure (MEP), peak expiratory flow (PEF), tidal volume (TV), respiratory frequency (RF), minute volume (MV), and slow vital capacity (SVC).Results: The results showed significant evidence of the beneficial respiratory effects of the PM protocol when the PG was compared with the CG: increased MIP (p = 0.001), and a significant increase in TV (p = 0,047).Conclusion: The PM protocol used in this study may be effective for respiratory muscle strength because it improved MIP and TV. Clinical trial registration: https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-5b6wc3.(c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available