The Impact of Personalized versus Standardized Cardiorespiratory and Muscular Training on Health-Related Outcomes and Rate of Responders.

Recent research has shown more favorable training adaptations for inactive adults when cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) exercise is prescribed with the use of ventilatory thresholds compared to percentages of heart rate reserve (HRR). However, there is limited research on changes in health-related outcomes with the use of these CRF methods in combination with muscular fitness exercises. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two training programs for improving CRF, muscular fitness, and cardiometabolic risk factors. Inactive men and women (n=109, aged 49.3±15.5 years) were randomized to a non-exercise control group or one of two exercise training groups. The exercise training groups consisted of 13 weeks of structured exercise with progression using either CRF exercise prescribed with the use of ventilatory thresholds and functional training for muscular fitness (THRESH group) or HRR and traditional muscular fitness training (STND group). After the 13-week protocol, there were significant differences in body weight, body composition, systolic blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), VO2max, 5-repetition maximum (RM) bench press, and 5-RM leg press for both treatment groups compared to the control group after controlling for baseline values. However, the THRESH group had significantly more desirable outcomes for VO2max, 5-RM bench press, 5-RM leg press, body composition, and HDL-c when compared to both the STND and control group. Additionally, the proportion of individuals estimated as likely to respond above 3.5 mL·kg-1·min-1 in VO2max (i.e., the minimal clinically important difference) was 76.4%, 20.8%, and 0.13% for the THRESH, STND, and control groups, respectively. While both exercise programs elicited favorable health-related adaptations after 13 weeks, these results suggest that a personalized program with exercise prescribed based on ventilatory threshold and with the use of functional muscular fitness training may yield greater training adaptations.

Is moderate intensity exercise training combined with high intensity interval training more effective at improving cardiorespiratory fitness than moderate intensity exercise training alone?

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of either continuous moderate intensity exercise training (CMIET) alone vs. CMIET combined with a single weekly bout of high intensity interval training (HIIT) on cardiorespiratory fitness. Twenty nine sedentary participants (36.3 ± 6.9 yrs) at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease were recruited for 12 weeks of exercise training on a treadmill and cycle ergometer. Participants were randomised into three groups: CMIET + HIIT (n = 7; 8-12 x 60 sec at 100% VO2max, 150 sec active recovery), CMIET (n = 6; 30 min at 45-60% oxygen consumption reserve (VO2R)) and a sedentary control group (n = 7). Participants in the CMIET + HIIT group performed a single weekly bout of HIIT and four weekly sessions of CMIET, whilst the CMIET group performed five weekly CMIET sessions. Probabilistic magnitude-based inferences were determined to assess the likelihood that the true value of the effect represents substantial change. Relative VO2max increased by 10.1% (benefit possible relative to control) in in the CMIET + HIIT group (32.7 ± 9.2 to 36.0 ± 11.5 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)) and 3.9% (benefit possible relative to control) in the CMIET group (33.2 ± 4.0 to 34.5 ± 6.1 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)), whilst there was a 5.7% decrease in the control group (30.0 ± 4.6 to 28.3 ± 6.5 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)). It was 'unclear' if a clinically significant difference existed between the effect of CMIET + HIIT and CMIET on the change in VO2max. Both exercising groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in VO2max. Nevertheless, it remains 'unclear' whether one type of exercise training regimen elicits a superior improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness relative to its counterpart. Key PointsBoth continuous moderate intensity exercise training (CMIET) alone and CMIET combined with a single weekly bout of high intensity interval training (CMIET + HIIT) elicit 'possibly beneficial' clinically meaningful improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness.Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by ~1.0 MET in the CMIET + HIIT exercise intervention group, which likely leads to important long-term prevention implications as a 1 MET increase in cardiorespiratory fitness has been linked with an 18% reduction in deaths due to CVD.There was 100% adherence to interval sessions in the CMIET + HIIT group, suggesting this combination of training can be well-tolerated in previously inactive overweight/obese individuals.

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.

Changes in Fitness-Fatness Index following a Personalized, Community-Based Exercise Program in Physically Inactive Adults: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

Fitness-fatness index (FFI) is used to identify those at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events. It is measured as the ratio between an individual's cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and waist-to-height ratio. Studies suggest that CRF and waist-to-height ratio are modifiable and can be improved by exercise. However, there is limited evidence surrounding a personalized approach to exercise prescription. This study investigated the impact of a 12-week personalized exercise program on FFI among sedentary individuals. It was hypothesized that the intervention would be effective in improving FFI in this cohort. One hundred and forty-two participants were randomized into two groups: i) personalised community-based intervention (n = 70); or ii) control (n = 72). Both groups underwent baseline anthropometric testing and a submaximal 'talk-test' to determine individual exercise intensities and baseline FFI. During the intervention, the control group underwent normal activities, whilst the treatment group received a 12-week personalised exercise program based on the American Council on Exercise (ACE) Integrated Fitness Training (IFT) guidelines. After 12-weeks, the treatment group demonstrated a significant increase in FFI (+13%), whilst the control group (-2%) showed a slight decrease (between-group difference, p = < 0.001). Both CRF (+12%) and waist-to-height (-2%) also showed significant favourable changes in the treatment group, with no change in the control group (between group difference, p = 0.01). These findings indicate that a personalised approach to exercise prescription using the ACE IFT guidelines are beneficial in reducing FFI. Consequently, FFI could be implemented within standardized approaches to exercise to help reduce the risk of developing chronic conditions.

Incidence of V˙O2max Responders to Personalized versus Standardized Exercise Prescription.

INTRODUCTION: Despite knowledge of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) training responders and nonresponders, it is not well understood how the exercise intensity prescription affects the incidence of response. The purpose of this study was to determine CRF training responsiveness based on cohort-specific technical error after 12 wk of standardized or individually prescribed exercise and the use of a verification protocol to confirm maximal oxygen uptake (V˙O2max). METHODS: Sedentary adult participants (9 men, 30 women; 48.2 ± 12.2 yr) completed exercise training on 3 d·wk for 12 wk, with exercise intensity prescribed based on standardized methods using heart rate reserve or an individualized approach using ventilatory thresholds. A verification protocol was used at baseline and 12 wk to confirm the identification of a true V˙O2max and subsequent relative percent changes to quantify CRF training responsiveness. A cohort-specific technical error (4.7%) was used as a threshold to identify incidence of response. RESULTS: Relative V˙O2max significantly increased (P < 0.05) from 24.3 ± 4.6 to 26.0 ± 4.2 and 29.2 ± 7.5 to 32.8 ± 8.6 mL·kg·min for the standardized and individualized groups, respectively. Absolute V˙O2max significantly increased (P < 0.05) from 2.0 ± 0.6 to 2.2 ± 0.6 and 2.4 ± 0.8 to 2.6 ± 0.9 L·min for the standardized and individualized groups, respectively. A significant difference in responsiveness was found between the individualized and standardized groups with 100% and 60% of participants categorized as responders, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A threshold model for exercise intensity prescription had a greater effect on the incidence of CRF training response compared with a standardized approach using heart rate reserve. The use of thresholds for intensity markers accounts for individual metabolic characteristics and should be considered as a viable and practical method to prescribe exercise intensity.

Personalized Moderate-Intensity Exercise Training Combined with High-Intensity Interval Training Enhances Training Responsiveness.

This study sought to determine if personalized moderate-intensity continuous exercise training (MICT) combined with high-intensity interval training (HIIT) was more effective at improving comprehensive training responsiveness than MICT alone. Apparently healthy, but physically inactive men and women (n = 54) were randomized to a non-exercise control group or one of two 13-week exercise training groups: (1) a personalized MICT + HIIT aerobic and resistance training program based on the American Council on Exercise guidelines, or (2) a standardized MICT aerobic and resistance training program designed according to current American College of Sports Medicine guidelines. Mean changes in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) and Metabolic (MetS) z-score in the personalized MICT + HIIT group were more favorable (p < 0.05) when compared to both the standardized MICT and control groups. Additionally, on the individual level, there were positive improvements in VO2max (Δ > 4.9%) and MetS z-score (Δ ≤ -0.48) in 100% (16/16) of participants in the personalized MICT + HIIT group. In the present study, a personalized exercise prescription combining MICT + HIIT in conjunction with resistance training elicited greater improvements in VO2max, MetS z-score reductions, and diminished inter-individual variation in VO2max and cardiometabolic training responses when compared to standardized MICT.

Using a site-specific technical error to establish training responsiveness: a preliminary explorative study.

BACKGROUND: Even though cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) training elicits numerous health benefits, not all individuals have positive training responses following a structured CRF intervention. It has been suggested that the technical error (TE), a combination of biological variability and measurement error, should be used to establish specific training responsiveness criteria to gain further insight on the effectiveness of the training program. To date, most training interventions use an absolute change or a TE from previous findings, which do not take into consideration the training site and equipment used to establish training outcomes or the specific cohort being evaluated. The purpose of this investigation was to retrospectively analyze training responsiveness of two CRF training interventions using two common criteria and a site-specific TE. METHODS: Sixteen men and women completed two maximal graded exercise tests and verification bouts to identify maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and establish a site-specific TE. The TE was then used to retrospectively analyze training responsiveness in comparison to commonly used criteria: percent change of >0% and >+5.6% in VO2max. RESULTS: The TE was found to be 7.7% for relative VO2 max. χ2 testing showed significant differences in all training criteria for each intervention and pooled data from both interventions, except between %Δ >0 and %Δ >+7.7% in one of the investigations. Training nonresponsiveness ranged from 11.5% to 34.6%. CONCLUSION: Findings from the present study support the utility of site-specific TE criterion to quantify training responsiveness. A similar methodology of establishing a site-specific and even cohort specific TE should be considered to establish when true cardiorespiratory training adaptations occur.

Changes in Metabolic Syndrome Severity Following Individualized Versus Standardized Exercise Prescription: A Feasibility Study.

This study sought to investigate the efficacy of standardized versus individualized exercise intensity prescription on metabolic syndrome (MetS) severity following a 12-week exercise intervention. A total of 38 experimental participants (47.8 ± 12.2 yr, 170.7 ± 8.0 cm, 82.6 ± 18.7 kg, 26.9 ± 6.7 mL·k-1·min-1) were randomized to one of two exercise interventions (exercise intensity prescribed using heart rate reserve or ventilatory threshold). Following the 12-week intervention, MetS z-score was significantly improved for the standardized (-2.0 ± 3.1 to -2.8 ± 2.8 [p = 0.01]) and individualized (-3.3 ± 2.3 to -3.9 ± 2.2 [p = 0.04]) groups. When separating participants based on prevalence of MetS at baseline and MetS z-score responsiveness, there were six and three participants in the standardized and individualized groups, respectively, with three or more MetS risk factors. Of the six participants in the standardized group, 83% (5/6) of the participants were considered responders, whereas 100% (3/3) of the individualized participants were responders. Furthermore, only 17% (1/6) of the participants with MetS at baseline in the standardized group no longer had symptoms of MetS following the intervention. In the individualized group, 67% (2/3) of participants with baseline MetS were not considered to have MetS at week 12. These findings suggest that an individualized approach to the exercise intensity prescription may ameliorate the severity of MetS.

The incidence of training responsiveness to cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiometabolic measurements following individualized and standardized exercise prescription: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is individual variability to cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) training, but the underlying cause is not well understood. Traditionally, a standardized approach to exercise prescription has utilized relative percentages of maximal heart rate, heart rate reserve (HRR), maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), or VO2 reserve to establish exercise intensity. However, this model fails to take into consideration individual metabolic responses to exercise and may attribute to the variability in training responses. It has been proposed that an individualized approach would take into consideration metabolic responses to exercises to increase responsiveness to training. METHODS: In this randomized control trial, participants will undergo a 12-week exercise intervention using individualized (ventilatory thresholds) and standardized (HRR) methods to prescribe CRF training intensity. Following the intervention, participants will be categorized as responders or non-responders based on changes in maximal aerobic abilities. Participants who are non-responders will complete a second 12-week intervention in a crossover design to determine whether they can become responders with a differing exercise prescription. There are four main research outcomes: (1) determine the cohort-specific technical error to use in the categorization of response rate; (2) determine if an individualized intensity prescription is superior to a standard approach in regards to VO2max and cardiometabolic risk factors; (3) investigate the time course changes throughout 12 weeks of CRF training between the two intervention groups; and (4) determine if non-responders can become responders if the exercise prescription is modified. DISCUSSION: The findings from this research will provide evidence on the effectiveness of individualized exercise prescription related to training responsiveness of VO2max and cardiometabolic risk factors compared to a standardized approach and further our understanding of individual exercise responses. If the individualized approach proposed is deemed effective, it may change the way exercise specialists prescribe exercise intensity to enhance training responsiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02868710 . Registered on 15 August 2016.