Changes in the Second Ventilatory Threshold Following Individualised versus Standardised Exercise Prescription among Physically Inactive Adults: A Randomised Trial.

The second ventilatory threshold (VT2) is established as an important indicator of exercise intensity tolerance. A higher VT2 allows for greater duration of higher intensity exercise participation and subsequently greater reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of standardised and individualised exercise prescription on VT2 among physically inactive adults. Forty-nine physically inactive male and female participants (48.6 ± 11.5 years) were recruited and randomised into a 12-week standardised (n = 25) or individualised (n = 24) exercise prescription intervention. The exercise intensity for the standardised and individualised groups was prescribed as a percentage of heart rate reserve (HRR) or relative to the first ventilatory threshold (VT1) and VT2, respectively. Participants were required to complete a maximal graded exercise test at pre-and post-intervention to determine VT1 and VT2. Participants were categorised as responders to the intervention if an absolute VT2 change of at least 1.9% was attained. Thirty-eight participants were included in the analysis. A significant difference in VT2 change was found between individualised (pre vs. post: 70.6% vs. 78.7% maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max)) and standardised (pre vs. post: 72.5% vs. 72.3% VO2max) exercise groups. Individualised exercise prescription was significantly more efficacious (p = 0.04) in eliciting a positive response in VT2 (15/19, 79%) when compared to the standardised exercise group (9/19, 47%). Individualised exercise prescription appears to be more efficacious than standardised exercise prescription in eliciting a positive VT2 change among physically inactive adults. Increasing VT2 allows for greater tolerance to higher exercise intensities and therefore greater cardiovascular health outcomes.

Exercise Training Intensity and the Fitness-Fatness Index in Adults with Metabolic Syndrome: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiorespiratory fitness and fatness (notably central obesity) are mediating factors of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and consequent cardiovascular disease (CVD)/mortality risk. The fitness-fatness index (FFI) combines these factors and has been reported to be a better indicator of CVD and all-cause mortality risk, beyond the capacity of either fitness or fatness alone. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate the effects of different exercise intensities on FFI in adults with MetS. METHODS: This was a sub-study of the 'Exercise in the prevention of Metabolic Syndrome' (EX-MET) multicentre trial. Ninety-nine adults diagnosed with MetS according to the International Diabetes Federation criteria were randomized to one of the following 16-week exercise interventions: i) moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) at 60-70% HRpeak for 30 min/session (n = 34, 150 min/week); ii) 4 × 4 min bouts of high-intensity interval training at 85-95% HRpeak, interspersed with 3-min active recovery at 50-70% HRpeak (n = 34, 38 min/session, 114 min/week); and iii) 1 × 4 min bout of HIIT at 85-95% HRpeak (n = 31, 17 min/session, 51 min/week). Cardiorespiratory fitness (peak oxygen uptake, V̇O2peak) was determined via indirect calorimetry during maximal exercise testing and fatness was the ratio of waist circumference-to-height (WtHR). FFI was calculated as V̇O2peak in metabolic equivalents (METs) divided by WtHR. A clinically meaningful response to the exercise intervention was taken as a 1 FFI unit increase. RESULTS: Seventy-seven participants completed pre and post testing to determine FFI. While there was no significant between group difference (p = 0.30), there was a small group x time interaction effect on FFI [F(2, 73) = 1.226; η2 = 0.01], with numerically greater improvements following HIIT (4HIIT, + 16%; 1HIIT, + 11%) relative to MICT (+ 7%). There was a greater proportion of participants who had a clinically meaningful change in FFI following high-volume HIIT (60%, 15/25) and low-volume HIIT (65%, 17/26) compared to MICT (38%, 10/26), but with no significant between-group difference (p = 0.12). A similar trend was found when a sub-analysis comparing the FFI between those with type 2 diabetes (MICT, 33%, 3/9; high-volume HIIT, 64%, 7/11; and low-volume HIIT, 58%, 7/12) and without type 2 diabetes (MICT, 41%, 7/17; high-volume HIIT, 57%, 8/14; low-volume HIIT, 71%, 10/14). CONCLUSION: Although there were no statistically significant differences detected between groups, this study suggests that the response to changes in FFI in adults with MetS may be affected by exercise intensity, when numerical differences between exercise groups are considered. Further research is warranted. Trial registration number and date of registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01676870; 31/08/2012.