Journal of science and medicine in sport · 2024
The impact of individualised versus standardised endurance and resistance training on the fitness-fatness index in inactive adults.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kuerschner Bridget, Kirton Michael, Dalleck Lance C, Beleigoli Alline, Gebremichael Lemlem, Weatherwax Ryan, Ramos Joyce S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to investigate the impact of individualised versus standardised combined endurance and resistance training on the fitness-fatness index in physically inactive adults.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
METHODS: Fifty-four participants aged 21-55 years were randomised into three groups; 1) non-exercise control (n = 18), 2) standardised moderate-intensity continuous training (n = 18), or 3) individualised moderate-intensity continuous training + high-intensity interval training (n = 18). The fitness-fatness index was calculated by dividing cardiorespiratory fitness (expressed as metabolic equivalents) by the waist-to-height ratio. Participants were classified as likely responders to the intervention if a change of ≥1 fitness-fatness index unit was achieved.
RESULTS: The individualised group showed the greatest fitness-fatness index improvement (between group difference p < 0.001), with 100 % of this group classified as likely responders, compared to the standardised (68 %) and non-exercise control (0 %) groups.
CONCLUSIONS: An individualised, threshold-based exercise programme may produce more favourable changes in the fitness-fatness index than a standardised exercise programme.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
METHODS: Fifty-four participants aged 21-55 years were randomised into three groups; 1) non-exercise control (n = 18), 2) standardised moderate-intensity continuous training (n = 18), or 3) individualised moderate-intensity continuous training + high-intensity interval training (n = 18). The fitness-fatness index was calculated by dividing cardiorespiratory fitness (expressed as metabolic equivalents) by the waist-to-height ratio. Participants were classified as likely responders to the intervention if a change of ≥1 fitness-fatness index unit was achieved.
RESULTS: The individualised group showed the greatest fitness-fatness index improvement (between group difference p < 0.001), with 100 % of this group classified as likely responders, compared to the standardised (68 %) and non-exercise control (0 %) groups.
CONCLUSIONS: An individualised, threshold-based exercise programme may produce more favourable changes in the fitness-fatness index than a standardised exercise programme.