Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

The effects of standardised versus individualised aerobic exercise prescription on fitness-fatness index in sedentary adults: a randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary]
Kirton MJ, Burnley MT, Ramos JS, Weatherwax R, Dalleck LC
Journal of Sports Science & Medicine 2022 Sep;21(3):347-355
clinical trial
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: No; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

A poor Fitness Fatness Index (FFI) is associated with type 2 diabetes incidence, other chronic conditions (Alzheimer's, cancer, and cardiovascular disease) and all-cause mortality. Recent investigations have proposed that an individualised exercise prescription based on ventilatory thresholds is more effective than a standardised prescription in improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), a key mediator of FFI. Thus, the aim of the current study was to determine the effectiveness of individualised versus standardised exercise prescription on FFI in sedentary adults. Thirty-eight sedentary individuals were randomised to 12-weeks of: (1) individualised exercise training using ventilatory thresholds (n = 19) or (2) standardised exercise training using a percentage of heart rate reserve (n = 19). A convenience sample was also recruited as a control group (n = 8). Participants completed CRF exercise training three days per week, for 12-weeks on a motorised treadmill. FFI was calculated as CRF in metabolic equivalents (METs), divided by fatness determined by waist to height ratio (WtHR). A graded exercise test was used to measure CRF, and anthropometric measures (height and waist circumference) were assessed to ascertain WtHR. There was a difference in FFI change between study groups, whilst controlling for baseline FFI, F[2, 42] = 19.382 p < 0.001, partial eta2 = 0.480. The magnitude of FFI increase from baseline was significantly higher in the individualised (+15%) compared to the standardised (+10%) (p = 0.028) and control group (+4%) (p = <.001). The main finding of the present study is that individualised exercise prescription had the greatest effect on improving FFI in sedentary adults compared to a standardised prescription. Therefore, an individualised based exercise prescription should be considered a viable and practical method of improving FFI in sedentary adults.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help