Strength training has antidepressant effects in people with depression or depressive symptoms but no other severe diseases: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Depression and subthreshold depressive symptoms reduce quality of life and function and treatment does not work effectively in one-third of patients. Exercise can reduce depressive symptoms, but more information is required regarding strength training (ST). The objective of the present meta-analysis was to summarize and estimate the efficacy of ST in people with a diagnosis of depression or subthreshold depressive symptoms and no other severe disease. We also aimed to explore the variables that could influence the antidepressant effects. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsyINFO, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to August 2022. The overall effect antidepressant of training was moderate (SMD = -0.51, 95 % CI -0.72 to -0.30, p < 0.001). The meta-regression demonstrated preliminary evidence that the variables: duration of the intervention in weeks, weekly frequency of the intervention, number of sets, and number of repetitions can influence the antidepressant effects. However, these variables had a small role in the variation of the effect.

Acute Low-Dose Capsiate Supplementation Improves Upper Body Resistance Exercise Performance in Trained Men: A Randomized, Crossover and Double-Blind Study.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two acute doses of Capsiate (CAP; 6 vs. 12 mg) on upper body resistance exercise performance in trained men. Methods: Using a randomized, crossover and double-blind design, 20 resistance-trained males were supplemented with low-dose CAP (6 mg), high-dose CAP (12 mg) or placebo 45 minutes before exercise. Subjects performed 4 sets of bench press with repetitions to failure at 70% 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and 2 minutes of rest between each set. The ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and blood lactate were analyzed at baseline and after exercise. Results: Total weight lifted was greater in the low CAP (2,454.6 ± 448.6 kg) compared to placebo (2,354.7 ± 458.6 kg, p = 0.039) and high CAP (2,309.3 ± 428.1 kg, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between conditions for RPE (p = 0.155) and blood lactate (p = 0.434). Conclusion: In summary, 6 mg CAP increased total weight lifted and repetitions to failure on bench press exercise in trained men, while 12 mg did not present any effect.

Detraining and retraining in badminton athletes following 1-year COVID-19 pandemic on psychological and physiological response.

Purpose: Badminton is a racket sport, with fast and explosive movements and mental skills employed to anticipate the opponent's movements. The COVID-19 pandemic, led to social restriction in Brazil and sport event cancellations, subsequently, sports training was banned. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the impact of long-period detraining due to COVID-19 social restriction (8 months and 1-year) on cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, nutritional behavior, and profile of mood states in badminton athletes and to verify if the athletes who returned to their regular training 4 months earlier than athletes who stopped their daily training routine during 1-year would improve these variables. Methods: Twenty-three young badminton athletes were analyzed: retrained group (14 athletes who stopped their daily training routine for 8 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic plus 4 months of retraining), and detrained group (9 athletes who stopped their daily training routine during 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic but performed home-based training). We evaluated body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, nutritional behavior, and mood states profiles. Results: Retrained athletes showed lower body fat (- 24.1% vs. + 20.8%, p < 0.001) and higher fat-free mass (+ 6.0% vs. - 0.2%, p = 0.007) after 1 year compared with the detrained group. For cardiorespiratory fitness [retrained: baseline = 55.5 ± 5.3 (47.1, 63.9) and after 1 year = 58.1 ± 2.4 (54.2, 61.9), ES = 0.65 vs. detrained: baseline = 53.4 ± 6.7 (47.2, 59.5) and after 1 year = 53.1 ± 5.6 (48.0, 58.3), ES = - 0.03] and nutritional behavior, including sauces and spices [retrained: baseline = 8.9 ± 7.0 (4.5, 13.4), and after 1 year = 3.4 ± 2.9 (1.8, 5.5), ES = - 1.11 vs. detrained: baseline = 6.8 ± 6.7 (1.6, 11.9) and after 1 year = 6.3 ± 5.5 (2.1, 10.6), ES = - 0.08], the ESs were medium and large, respectively, for Retrained but trivial for detrained group. For depression, ES was trivial in the retrained [baseline = 2.7 ± 3.3 (0.7, 4.7) and after 1 year = 2.6 ± 2.9 (0.8, 4.4), ES = 0.03] and moderate for detrained [baseline = 1.0 ± 1.5 (- 0.1, 2.1) and after 1 year = 1.8 ± 2.7 (- 0.3, 3.8), ES = 0.50]. Conclusions: Young badminton athletes who returned to their regular daily training 4 months earlier than athletes who stopped their daily training routine during 1-year due to COVID-19 social restriction decreased fat mass and increased fat-free mass. There were no significant differences between groups for cardiorespiratory fitness, nutritional behavior, and profile of mood state response.

Post-exercise energy intake: do the intensity and mode of exercise matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing high-intensity interval with moderate-intensity continuous protocols.

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of exercise intensity and mode (high-intensity interval exercise-HIIE or sprint interval exercise-SIE versus moderate-intensity continuous exercise-MICE) on post-exercise ad libitum energy intake. The studies were required to have at least two exercise conditions (HIIE or SIE vs MICE). Overall, 642 manuscripts were initially identified and 17 met the eligibility criteria. The random effect meta-analysis did not reveal differences for absolute energy intake (28 pairwise comparisons) between HIIE (p = 0.54; 95% Confidence Interval - CI: -0.14 to 0.26; 22 pairwise comparisons) or SIE (p = 0.08; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.03; 6 pairwise comparisons) versus MICE, neither for relative energy intake (p = 0.97; 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.10 for HIIE; p = 0.28; 95% CI: -1.03 to 0.06 for SIE) with five and one pairwise comparisons, respectively. Subgroup analyses for methods to evaluate ad libitum energy intake, body mass, sex, volume, and timing of exercise were non-significant. Inspecting each study, two pairwise comparisons reported lower post-exercise absolute energy intake in HIIE compared to control (CRTL), and three pairwise comparisons reported lower absolute energy intake after SIE compared to MICE. None pairwise comparison reported differences between protocols (HIIE or SIE versus MICE) for relative energy intake. In conclusion, the meta-analysis did not show differences between protocols for absolute and relative energy intake; five pairwise comparisons from 28 demonstrated lower absolute energy intake in HIIE or SIE compared to CRTL or MICE. Further studies are needed to address the key relevant variables in which exercise intensity and mode may impact energy intake.