Purpose
The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of patients with post‐COVID‐19 condition undergoing supervised therapeutic exercise intervention or following the self‐management WHO (World ...Health Organization) rehabilitation leaflet.
Methods
A randomized controlled trial was carried out that included 39 participants with post‐COVID‐19 condition who had a chronic symptomatic phase lasting >12 weeks. Comprehensive medical screening, patient‐reported symptoms, and cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength were assessed. Patients were randomly assigned to a tailored multicomponent exercise program based on concurrent training for 8 weeks (two supervised sessions per week comprised resistance training combined with aerobic training moderate intensity variable training, plus a third day of monitored light intensity continuous training), or to a control group which followed the WHO guidelines for rehabilitation after COVID‐19.
Results
After follow‐up, there were changes in physical outcomes in both groups, however, the magnitude of the change pre–post intervention favored the exercise group in cardiovascular and strength markers: VO2max +5.7%, sit‐to‐stand −22.7% and load‐velocity profiles in bench press +6.3%, and half squat +16.9%, (p < 0.05). In addition, exercise intervention resulted in a significantly better quality of life, less fatigue, less depression, and improved functional status, as well as in superior cardiovascular fitness and muscle strength compared to controls (p < 0.05). No adverse events were observed during the training sessions.
Conclusion
Compared to current WHO recommendations, a supervised, tailored concurrent training at low and moderate intensity for both resistance and endurance training is a more effective, safe, and well‐tolerated intervention in post‐COVID‐19 conditions.
Post-COVID-19 Syndrome and the Potential Benefits of Exercise Jimeno-Almazán, Amaya; Pallarés, Jesús G.; Buendía-Romero, Ángel ...
International journal of environmental research and public health,
05/2021, Letnik:
18, Številka:
10
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, is leading to unknown and unusual health conditions that are challenging to ...manage. Post-COVID-19 syndrome is one of those challenges, having become increasingly common as the pandemic evolves. The latest estimates suggest that 10 to 20% of the SARS-CoV-2 patients who undergo an acute symptomatic phase are experiencing effects of the disease beyond 12 weeks after diagnosis. Although research is beginning to examine this new condition, there are still serious concerns about the diagnostic identification, which limits the best therapeutic approach. Exercise programs and physical activity levels are well-known modulators of the clinical manifestations and prognosis in many chronic diseases. This narrative review summarizes the up-to-date evidence on post-COVID-19 syndrome to contribute to a better knowledge of the disease and explains how regular exercise may improve many of these symptoms and could reduce the long-term effects of COVID-19.
Background
Nowadays, there is a lack of consensus and high controversy about the most effective range of motion (ROM) to minimize the risk of injury and maximize the resistance training adaptations.
...Objective
To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the scientific evidence examining the effects of full and partial ROM resistance training interventions on neuromuscular, functional, and structural adaptations.
Methods
The original protocol (CRD42020160976) was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database. Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant articles from the earliest record up to and including March 2021. The RoB 2 and GRADE tools were used to judge the level of bias and quality of evidence. Meta‐analyses were performed using robust variance estimation with small‐sample corrections.
Results
Sixteen studies were finally included in the systematic review and meta‐analyses. Full ROM training produced significantly greater adaptations than partial ROM on muscle strength (ES = 0.56, p = 0.004) and lower‐limb hypertrophy (ES = 0.88, p = 0.027). Furthermore, although not statistically significant, changes in functional performance were maximized by the full ROM training (ES = 0.44, p = 0.186). Finally, no significant superiority of either ROM was found to produce changes in muscle thickness, pennation angle, and fascicle length (ES = 0.28, p = 0.226).
Conclusion
Full ROM resistance training is more effective than partial ROM to maximize muscle strength and lower‐limb muscle hypertrophy. Likewise, functional performance appears to be favored by the use of full ROM exercises. On the contrary, there are no large differences between the full and partial ROM interventions to generate changes in muscle architecture.
Although the superior effectiveness of free-weight over machine-based training has been a traditionally widespread assumption, longitudinal studies comparing these training modalities were scarce and ...heterogeneous.
This research used the velocity-based method to compare the effects of free-weight and machine-based resistance training on athletic performance and muscle architecture.
Thirty-four resistance-trained men participated in an 8-week resistance training program allocated into free-weight (n = 17) or machine-based (n = 17) groups. Training variables (intensity, intraset fatigue, and recovery) were identical for both groups, so they only differed in the use of a barbell or specific machines to execute the full squat, bench press, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The velocity-based method was implemented to accurately adjust the planned intensity. Analysis of covariance and effect size (ES) statistics were used to compare both training modalities on a comprehensive set of athletic and muscle architecture parameters.
No between-group differences were found for any athletic (p ≥ 0.146) and muscle architecture (p ≥ 0.184) variable. Both training modalities significantly and similarly improved vertical jump (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.45, p ≤ 0.001; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.41, p ≤ 0.001) and lower limb anaerobic capacity (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.39, p ≤ 0.007; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.31, p ≤ 0.003). Additionally, the machine-based group meaningfully enhanced upper limb anaerobic power (ES = 0.41, p = 0.021), whereas the free-weight group significantly improved the change of direction (ES = -0.54, p = 0.003) and 2/6 balance conditions analyzed (p ≤ 0.012). Changes in sprint capacity (ES ≥ -0.13, p ≥ 0.274), fascicle length, and pennation angle (ES ≤ 0.19, p ≥ 0.129) were not significant for either training modality.
Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture would not be meaningfully influenced by the resistance modality trained.
This study investigated the inter- and intra-device agreement of four new devices marketed for barbell velocity measurement. Mean, mean propulsive and peak velocity outcomes were obtained for bench ...press and full squat exercises along the whole load-velocity spectrum (from light to heavy loads). Measurements were simultaneously registered by two linear velocity transducers T-Force, two linear position transducers Speed4Lifts, two smartphone video-based systems My Lift, and one 3D motion analysis system STT. Calculations included infraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LoA), standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and maximum errors (MaxError). Results were reported in absolute (m/s) and relative terms (%1RM). Three velocity segments were differentiated according to the velocity-load relationships for each exercise: heavy (≥ 80% 1RM), medium (50% < 1RM < 80%) and light loads (≤ 50% 1RM). Criteria for acceptable reliability were ICC > 0.990 and SDC < 0.07 m/s (~5% 1RM). The T-Force device shown the best intra-device agreement (SDC = 0.01-0.02 m/s, LoA <0.01m/s, MaxError = 1.3-2.2%1RM). The Speed4Lifts and STT were found as highly reliable, especially against lifting velocities ≤1.0 m/s (Speed4Lifts, SDC = 0.01-0.05 m/s; STT, SDC = 0.02-0.04 m/s), whereas the My Lift app showed the worst results with errors well above the acceptable levels (SDC = 0.26-0.34 m/s, MaxError = 18.9-24.8%1RM). T-Force stands as the preferable option to assess barbell velocity and to identify technical errors of measurement for emerging monitoring technologies. Both the Speed4Lifts and STT are fine alternatives to T-Force for measuring velocity against high-medium loads (velocities ≤ 1.0 m/s), while the excessive errors of the newly updated My Lift app advise against the use of this tool for velocity-based resistance training.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Abstract
Hernández-Belmonte, A, Courel-Ibáñez, J, Conesa-Ros, E, Martínez-Cava, A, and Pallarés, JG. Level of effort: A reliable and practical alternative to the velocity-based approach for ...monitoring resistance training.
J Strength Cond Res
36(11): 2992–2999, 2022—This study analyzed the potential of the level of effort methodology as an accurate indicator of the programmed relative load (percentage of one-repetition maximum %1RM) and intraset volume of the set during resistance training in the bench press, full squat, shoulder press, and prone bench pull exercises, through 3 specific objectives: (a) to examine the intersubject and intrasubject variability in the number of repetitions to failure (
n
RM) against the actual %1RM lifted (adjusted by the individual velocity), (b) to investigate the relationship between the number of repetitions completed and velocity loss reached, and (c) to study the influence of the subject's strength level on the aforementioned parameters. After determining their individual load-velocity relationships, 30 subjects with low (
n
= 10), medium (
n
= 10), and high (
n
= 10) relative strength levels completed 2 rounds of
n
RM tests against their 65, 75, 85, and 95% 1RM in the 4 exercises. The velocity of all repetitions was monitored using a linear transducer. Intersubject and intrasubject variability analyses included the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the the standard error of measurement (
SEM
), respectively. Coefficient of determination (R
2
) was used as the indicator of relationship.
n
RM showed a limited intersubject (CI ≤ 4 repetitions) and a very low intrasubject (
SEM
≤1.9 repetitions) variability for all the strength levels, %1RM, and exercises analyzed. A very close relationship (
R
2
≥ 0.97) between the number of repetitions completed and the percentage of velocity loss reached (from 10 to 60%) was found. These findings strengthen the level of effort as a reliable, precise, and practical strategy for programming resistance training.
This study aimed to compare the load-velocity and load-power relationships of three common variations of the squat exercise. 52 strength-trained males performed a progressive loading test up to the ...one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the full (F-SQ), parallel (P-SQ) and half (H-SQ) squat, conducted in random order on separate days. Bar velocity and vertical force were measured by means of a linear velocity transducer time-synchronized with a force platform. The relative load that maximized power output (Pmax) was analyzed using three outcome measures: mean concentric (MP), mean propulsive (MPP) and peak power (PP), while also including or excluding body mass in force calculations. 1RM was significantly different between exercises. Load-velocity and load-power relationships were significantly different between the F-SQ, P-SQ and H-SQ variations. Close relationships (R
2
= 0.92-0.96) between load (%1RM) and bar velocity were found and they were specific for each squat variation, with faster velocities the greater the squat depth. Unlike the F-SQ and P-SQ, no sticking region was observed for the H-SQ when lifting high loads. The Pmax corresponded to a broad load range and was greatly influenced by how force output is calculated (including or excluding body mass) as well as the exact outcome variable used (MP, MPP, PP).
This study aimed to analyze the agreement between five bar velocity monitoring devices, currently used in resistance training, to determine the most reliable device based on reproducibility ...(between-device agreement for a given trial) and repeatability (between-trial variation for each device). Seventeen resistance-trained men performed duplicate trials against seven increasing loads (20-30-40-50-60-70-80 kg) while obtaining mean, mean propulsive and peak velocity outcomes in the bench press, full squat and prone bench pull exercises. Measurements were simultaneously registered by two linear velocity transducers (LVT), two linear position transducers (LPT), two optoelectronic camera-based systems (OEC), two smartphone video-based systems (VBS) and one accelerometer (ACC). A comprehensive set of statistics for assessing reliability was used. Magnitude of errors was reported both in absolute (m s
−1
) and relative terms (%1RM), and included the smallest detectable change (SDC) and maximum errors (MaxError). LVT was the most reliable and sensitive device (SDC 0.02–0.06 m s
−1
, MaxError 3.4–7.1% 1RM) and the preferred reference to compare with other technologies. OEC and LPT were the second-best alternatives (SDC 0.06–0.11 m s
−1
), always considering the particular margins of error for each exercise and velocity outcome. ACC and VBS are not recommended given their substantial errors and uncertainty of the measurements (SDC > 0.13 m s
−1
).
The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of physical exercise, respiratory muscle training, and the self-management World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations leaflet on the ...recovery of physical fitness, quality of life, and symptom status in people with post-COVID-19 conditions. Eighty nonhospitalized adults with a post-COVID-19 condition were randomly assigned to one of four 8-wk parallel intervention groups:
) multicomponent exercise program based on concurrent training (CT, number of subjects (
) = 20; 3 resistance and endurance supervised sessions per week at low-moderate intensity);
) inspiratory muscle training (RM,
= 17; 2 standardized daily sessions);
) a combination of both of the above (CTRM,
= 23); and
) control group (CON,
= 20; following the WHO guidelines for post-COVID-19-related illness rehabilitation). No significant differences between groups were detected at baseline. Although no significant differences between interventions were detected in the V̇o
, significant individual improvements were identified in the CT (7.5%; effect size, ES = 0.28) and CTRM (7.8%; ES = 0.36) groups. Lower body muscle strength significantly improved in the CT and CTRM (14.5%-32.6%; ES = 0.27-1.13) groups compared with RM and CON (-0.3% to 11.3%; ES = 0.10-0.19). The CT and CTRM groups improved significantly for dyspnea and fatigue, as did the health status. In addition, significant differences between interventions were described in fatigue and depression scales favoring CT and CTRM interventions. An individualized and supervised concurrent training with or without inspiratory muscle training was safe and more effective than self-care recommendations and inspiratory muscle training alone, to regain cardiovascular and muscular fitness, improve symptom severity, and health status in outpatients with post-COVID-19 conditions.
Eight weeks of concurrent training, with or without inspiratory muscle exercise, was better than WHO "Support for Rehabilitation: Self-Management after COVID-19-Related Illness" recommendations or inspiratory muscle training alone to improve cardiopulmonary fitness, strength, and symptom severity, in a safe and effective manner. The RECOVE trial proved the benefits and utility of a supervised exercise program in people with post-COVID-19 conditions after mild COVID-19 in an ambulatory setting.
PDF
