4.5 Article

Effects of Interval Aerobic Training Program with Recovery bouts on cardiorespiratory and endurance fitness in seniors

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/sms.13257

关键词

aerobic capacity; cardiorespiratory fitness; endurance performance; interval training; older adults; sedentary; seniors

资金

  1. Department of Clinical Research and Innovation of the University Hospitals of Strasbourg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interval aerobic training programs (IATP) improve cardiorespiratory and endurance parameters. They are, however, unsuitable to seniors as frequently associated with occurrence of exhaustion and muscle pain. The purpose of this study was to measure the benefits of an IATP designed with recovery bouts (IATP-R) in terms of cardiorespiratory and endurance parameters and its acceptability among seniors (>= 70 years). Sedentary healthy volunteers were randomly assigned either to IATP-R or sedentary lifestyle. All participants performed an incremental cycle exercise and 6-minute walk test (6-MWT) at baseline and 9.5 weeks later. The first ventilatory threshold (VT1); maximal tolerated power (MTP); peak of oxygen uptake (VO2peak); maximal heart rate (HRmax); and distance walked at 6-MWT were thus measured. IATP-R consisted of 19 sessions of 30-minute (6 x 4-min at VT1+1-minute at 40% of VT1) cycling exercise over 9.5 weeks. With an adherence rate of 94.7% without any significant adverse events, 9.5weeks of IATP-R, compared to controls, enhanced endurance (VT1: +18.3 vs -4.6%; HR at baseline VT1: -5.9 vs +0.2%) and cardiorespiratory parameters (VO2peak: +14.1 vs -2.7%; HRmax: +1.6 vs -1.7%; MTP: +19.2 vs -2.3%). The walk distance at the 6-MWT was also significantly lengthened (+11.6 vs. -3.1%). While these findings resulted from an interim analysis planned when 30 volunteers were enrolled in both groups, IATP-R appeared as effective, safe, and applicable among sedentary healthy seniors. These characteristics are decisive for exercise training prescription and adherence.

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

4.5
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