Physiological profile comparison between high intensity functional training, endurance and power athletes.

INTRODUCTION: High intensity functional trainings (HIFT), a recent development of high intensity trainings, includes in the same training session components of endurance exercises, elements of Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting, gymnastics, plyometrics and calisthenics exercises. Therefore, subjects practicing this type of activity are supposed to show physiological features that represent a combination of both endurance and power athletes. The aim of this study was to compare the physiological profile of three groups of age-matched endurance, HIFT and power athletes. METHODS: A total of 30 participants, 18 to 38-year-old men were enrolled in the study. Participants were divided in three groups: HIFT (n = 10), endurance (END, n = 10), and power (POW, weightlifters, n = 10) athletes. All were evaluated for anthropometric characteristics, VO2peak, handgrip, lower limb maximal isometric and isokinetic strength, countermovement vertical jump and anaerobic power through a shuttle run test on the field. RESULTS: VO2peak/kg was higher in END and HIFT than POW athletes (p = 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively), but there were no significant differences between the first two. POW and HIFT athletes showed significant greater strength at the handgrip, countermovement jump and leg extension/flexion tests than END athletes. HIFT athletes showed highest results at the dynamic isokinetic test, while there were no significant differences at the shuttle run test among groups. CONCLUSIONS: As HIFT reach aerobic levels similar to END athletes and power and strength output similar to POW athletes, it appears that HIFT programs are effective to improve both endurance-related and power-related physical fitness components.

The role of physical activity in the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases.

The aim of this review is to assess the current evidence in scientific literature that supports the use of physical activity as a fundamental tool for primary and secondary prevention and to encourage its use conscientiously. Observational studies and international guidelines have been examined to evaluate the positive effects of physical activity as primary prevention on some of the most common diseases. We have also evaluated those studies which demonstrate that the association of physical activity with drug therapy in chronic diseases results in a better prognosis. We researched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, PubMed up to January 2009. Furthermore, we screened references in relevant reviews and clinical trials. Sixty four studies were included in the review and cited as giving consistent evidence for the utilization of physical activity to improve health. There is strong evidence that, according to international guidelines, physical activity should be adopted as a tool in the prevention and treatment of many chronic diseases.