Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile Health Exercise Intervention for Inactive Adults: 3-Arm Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Objective monitoring of self-directed physical activity (PA) is a common approach used in both fitness and health settings to promote exercise behavior, but adherence has been poor. Newer mobile health (mHealth) technologies could be a cost-effective approach to broadening accessibility and providing support for PA behavior change; yet, the optimal method of delivery of such interventions is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of an mHealth exercise intervention delivered in combination with objective monitoring in 3 ways: health education emails, asynchronous exercise videos, or synchronous videoconference exercise classes. METHODS: Physically inactive (<30 min/wk) adults (cisgender women aged 31.5, SD 11.3 years, cisgender men aged 34.1, SD 28.9 years, and nonbinary individuals aged 22.0, SD 0 years) were randomized (1:1:1) to 8 weeks of increasing PA behavioral support: level 1 (health education+objective monitoring, n=26), level 2 (asynchronous contact, level 1+prerecorded exercise videos, n=30), or level 3 (synchronous contact, level 1+videoconference group exercise, n=28). Participants used a heart rate monitor during exercise and a mobile app for interaction. Primary outcomes were feasibility (accrual, retention, and adherence) and acceptability (user experience survey). Secondary outcomes assessed at baseline and 8 weeks included resting heart rate, self-reported PA, and quality of life. The exercise dose was evaluated throughout the intervention. RESULTS: Between August 2020 and August 2021, 204 adults were screened for eligibility. Out of 135 eligible participants, 84 (62%) enrolled in the study. Retention was 50% (13/26) in level 1, 60% (18/30) in level 2 and 82% (23/28) in level 3, while adherence was 31% (8/26) in level 1, 40% (12/30) in level 2 and 75% (21/28) in level 3. A total of 83% (70/84) of the study sample completed the intervention, but low response rates (64%, 54/84) were observed postintervention at week-8 assessments. Program satisfaction was highest in participants receiving exercise videos (level 2, 80%, 8/10) or exercise classes (level 3, 80%, 12/15), while only 63% (5/8) of level 1 reported the program as enjoyable. Level 3 was most likely to recommend the program (87%, 13/15), compared to 80% (8/10) in level 2 and 46% (5/8) in level 1. Self-reported PA significantly increased from baseline to intervention in level 3 (P<.001) and level 2 (P=.003), with no change in level 1. Level 3 appeared to exercise at higher doses throughout the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Only the videoconference exercise class intervention met feasibility criteria, although postintervention response rates were low across all groups. Both videoconference and prerecorded videos had good acceptability, while objective monitoring and health education alone were not feasible or acceptable. Future studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of videoconference exercise interventions on health-related outcomes during nonpandemic times and how asynchronous interventions might maximize adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05192421; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05192421.

Effects of a 6-Week Upper Extremity Low-Volume, High-Intensity Interval Training Program on Oxygen Uptake, Peak Power Output, and Total Exercise Time.

Pinto, N, Salassi III, JW, Donlin, A, Schroeder, J, and Rozenek, R. Effects of a 6-week upper extremity low-volume, high-intensity interval training program on oxygen uptake, peak power output, and total exercise time. J Strength Cond Res 33(5): 1295-1304, 2019-The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of upper extremity (UE) high-intensity interval training (HIIT) to UE continuous training (CT) when training at a similar intensity. Twenty participants (mean age = 23 ± 3 years) were randomly assigned to either a HIIT (n = 10) or CT (n = 10) group. Participants completed a graded exercise test (GXT) utilizing arm cranking before and after 6 weeks (2 sessions per week) of UE training. During sessions, HIIT performed 10 repetitions of 60 seconds of work at 92.3 ± 1.0% of the arm HRpeak (%aHRpeak) and 60 seconds of passive recovery (%aHRpeak = 73.0 ± 4.0%) yielding an average training intensity of 82.6 ± 1.5 %aHRpeak. CT exercised for 20 minutes at an average intensity of 81.9 ± 2.2 %aHRpeak. After training, HIIT showed greater improvement in V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak compared with CT (Δ = 4.1 ml·min·kg, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-6.9 m·min·kg, p = 0.007). Total exercise time during the posttest GXT was also improved as a result of HIIT (Δ = 1.4 minutes, 95% CI: 0.4-2.3 minutes, p = 0.008). Both groups improved peak power output, but no difference was observed between them (Δ = 3.3 W, 95% CI: -3.3 to 9.9 W, p = 0.305). For a similar time investment, HIIT seemed to improve measures of cardiopulmonary capacity and exercise time to a greater extent than CT and may be a time-efficient alternative for those who incorporate UE aerobic activity into a training program.

The Relationship Between Pedometer-Determined Ambulatory Activity and Balance Variables Within an Older Adult Population.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the differences between gender, physical activity level, and balance in an older adult population. A secondary purpose was to examine the relationship between pedometer-determined ambulatory activity and balance. Forty-six older adults aged 73.7 ± 6.2 years participated in the study. Participants completed the Fullerton Advanced Balance (FAB) Scale and completed a 2-week daily step recording to determine average steps taken per day. Low-level activity participants (<5,000 steps/day) were significantly different from the high-level activity participants (>7,500 steps/day) in weight, age, and the number of medications reported. Males performed better than females on the two-footed jump test and reactive postural test FAB assessments. High-level activity participants performed significantly better than low-level activity participants on all FAB assessments except stand with feet together and eyes closed, reach forward to object, and walk with head turns.