4.4 Article

Implementing intelligent physical exercise training at the workplace: health effects among office workers-a randomized controlled trial

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 116, 期 7, 页码 1433-1442

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-016-3397-8

关键词

Cardiorespiratory fitness; Systolic blood pressure; Maximal oxygen uptake

资金

  1. Implement Consulting Group
  2. PreviaSundhed
  3. Simon Fougner Hartmanns Familiy Foundation, Denmark

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim was to assess 1-year cardiovascular health effects of Intelligent Physical Exercise Training, IPET. Office workers from six companies were randomized 1:1 to a training group, TG (N = 194) or a control group, CG (N = 195). TG received 1-h supervised high intensity IPET every week within working hours for 1 year, and was recommended to perform 30-min of moderate intensity physical activity 6 days a week during leisure. The training program was based on baseline health check measures of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), body composition, blood pressure, blood profile, and musculoskeletal health. There were no baseline differences between groups. CRF assessed as VO2max in absolute values and relative to body weight was (mean +/- SD): 3.0 +/- 0.8 l/min and 35.4 +/- 10.9 ml/min/kg for females, 3.9 +/- 1.0 l/min and 37.9 +/- 11.79 ml/min/kg for males. Intention to treat analysis demonstrated a significant almost 5 % increase in VO2max in TG compared with CG. A per protocol analysis of those with an adherence of a parts per thousand yen70 % demonstrated a significant increase in CRF of more than 10 % compared with CG, and a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (-5.3 +/- 13.7 mm Hg) compared with CG. High intensity IPET combined with the recommendations of moderate intensity physical activity demonstrated significant clinical relevant improvements in CRF and systolic blood pressure. This underlines the effectiveness of health promotion by implementing physical exercise training at the workplace.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据