Exercise for affect and enjoyment in overweight or obese males: a comparison of high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training.

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is effective for generating positive cardiovascular health and fitness benefits. This study compared HIIT and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for affective state and enjoyment in sedentary males with overweight or obesity.Twenty-eight participants performed stationary cycling for 6 weeks × 3 sessions/week. Participants were randomly allocated to HIIT (N=16) (10 × 1-minute intervals at ~90% peak heart rate) or MICT (N=12) (30 minutes at 65-75% peak heart rate). Affective state changes were assessed after 6-weeks training. Enjoyment and acute change in affect were assessed after individual training sessions.HIIT participants reported improved positive affect following 6 weeks training (∆ 3.6 ± 4.6, p = 0.007, effect size d = 0.70), without corresponding improvement in negative affect (p = 0.48, d = -0.19). MICT did not induce any improvement in positive affect (p = 0.56, d = 0.16) or negative affect (p = 0.23, d = -0.41). Enjoyment ratings were comparable for both exercise formats (HIIT: 4.4 ± 0.4 on a 7-point scale; MICT: 4.3 ± 0.3; p = 0.70, d = 0.15).Six weeks of HIIT induced improvement in positive affect in sedentary participants with overweight or obesity. Enjoyment of training was only slightly above neutral levels for both training formats.What's already known about this topic? Exercise training can improve general affect however the optimal exercise characteristics for improving affect are unclear.Studies assessing the relative enjoyment of HIIT in comparison to MICT have largely been equivocal to date.What does this study add? HIIT can improve affective state in males with overweight or obesity.Six weeks of stationary cycling HIIT were rated as only mildly enjoyable, comparable to ratings for MICT.

Are Improvements in Pain Neurophysiology Knowledge Following Pain Science Education Associated With Improved Outcomes in People With Chronic Pain?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the association between changes in patients' pain knowledge after pain science education (PSE) with treatment outcomes in people with chronic pain. METHODS: Six electronic databases and 2 clinical trial registries were searched from inception to September 15, 2021 for studies where participants received PSE and had their pain knowledge and clinical outcomes assessed before and after PSE. Meta-analyses were performed for pain intensity, kinesiophobia, and pain catastrophizing. Physical function and quality of life outcomes were synthesized narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for nonrandomized studies and the quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (n=1500 participants) were included. Meta-analyses revealed no significant associations between short-term (<12 wk) changes in pain neurophysiology knowledge with changes in pain intensity (n=1075, r=-0.01, 95% CI =-0.14 to 0.13, very low certainty), kinesiophobia (n=152, r=0.02, 95% CI =-0.27 to 0.24, very low certainty) and pain catastrophizing (n=976, r=-0.03, 95% CI=-0.18 to 0.11, low certainty). No significant associations were found between short-term changes in pain neurophysiology knowledge and physical function or quality of life either. DISCUSSION: These findings do not support a short-term association between improvements in pain neurophysiology knowledge and better treatment outcomes in people with chronic pain. Increased understanding of how PSE works, as well as better ways to measure it, may help clinicians deliver more targeted education to help patients reconceptualize pain and promote engagement in active treatment strategies (eg, exercise).

Higher intensity exercise reduces disability more than lower intensity exercise in adults with chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intensity is an important determinant of physiological adaptations and health benefits of exercise, but the role of exercise intensity on improving outcomes in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) is unclear. This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of higher versus lower intensity exercise intensity on pain, disability, quality of life and adverse events in people with CLBP. METHODS: Six databases and four clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 December 2022, for randomised controlled trials that compared two or more exercise intensities in adults with CLBP. Data were analysed using random-effects meta-analysis for disability and synthesised narratively for pain, quality of life and adverse events due to limited studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. RESULTS: Four trials (n = 214 participants, 84% male) reported across five studies were included. Higher intensity exercise reduced disability more than lower intensity exercise at end-treatment (SMD [95% CI] = -0.39 [-0.56 to -0.22]; very low certainty) but not at 6-month follow-up (SMD [95% CI] = -0.20 [-0.53 to 0.13]; very low certainty). Higher intensity exercise did not reliably improve pain and quality of life more than lower intensity exercise. Adverse events did not differ between exercise intensities. All studies were at high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Based on very low certainty evidence from a limited number of studies, exercise intensity does not appear to meaningfully influence clinical outcomes in people with CLBP.

Exercise physiologists use of pain neuroscience education for treating knee osteoarthritis: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how Australian exercise physiologists (EPs) utilise pain neuroscience education (PNE) in their management of patients with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A semi-structured interview concerning a knee osteoarthritis vignette was designed to understand each participant's beliefs about physical activity, pain, injury and coping strategies and quantify their use of pain neuroscience concepts. Themes were derived from pre-determined pain target concepts as well as others that emerged from thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty EPs (57% male, mean clinical experience 7 years (SD 7.1) participated in the semi-structured interviews. 13 themes emerged. EPs primarily focussed on: (1) active treatment strategies are better than passive, (2) pain and tissue damage rarely relate, and (3) learning about pain can help individuals and society. Other themes included the use of biomedical-based education, pain during exercise and delivery of PNE. Underutilised themes included the role of the brain in pain, validation that pain is real and personal, the concept of danger sensors as opposed to pain sensors, and pain depends on the balance between safety and danger. CONCLUSION: EPs primarily advised on active treatment approaches (e.g. exercise and self-management). Quality of care is likely to improve through increasing focus on the systemic benefits of exercise in overcoming psychological barriers (e.g. fear avoidance and pain catastrophising) that may prevent exercise treatment engagement. Broadening PNE to reconceptualise knee osteoarthritis pain as a sign of an overprotective nervous system, rather than structural damage, may facilitate greater patient engagement in exercise therapies, thus improving patient outcomes.

Short-term impact of combining pain neuroscience education with exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Exercise and pain neuroscience education (PNE) have both been used as standalone treatments for chronic musculoskeletal pain. The evidence supporting PNE as an adjunct to exercise therapy is growing but remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of combining PNE and exercise for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, when compared with exercise alone. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted from inception to November 6, 2020. A quality effects model was used to meta-analyze outcomes where possible. Five high-quality randomized controlled studies (n = 460) were included in this review. The PEDro scale was used to assess the quality of individual studies, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation analysis was conducted to determine the quality of evidence for each outcome. Meta-analyses were performed for pain intensity, disability, kinesiophobia, and pain catastrophizing using data reported between 0 and 12 weeks postintervention. Long-term outcomes (>12 weeks) were only available for 2 studies and therefore were not suitable for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in pain (weighted mean differences, -2.09/10; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.38 to -0.80; low certainty), disability (standardized mean difference, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.17 to -0.20; low certainty), kinesiophobia (standardized mean difference, -1.20; CI, -1.84 to -0.57; moderate certainty), and pain catastrophizing (weighted mean differences, -7.72; 95% CI, -12.26 to -3.18; very low certainty) that favoured the combination of PNE and exercise. These findings suggest that combining PNE and exercise in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain results in greater short-term improvements in pain, disability, kinesiophobia, and pain catastrophizing relative to exercise alone.

Exercise and education for knee osteoarthritis-What are accredited exercise physiologists providing?

OBJECTIVES: Clinical guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommend exercise and education. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which accredited exercise physiologists (AEPs) deliver exercise and education for knee OA and how it aligns with clinical practice guidelines. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHOD: An online survey targeted to AEPs across Australia to understand the exercise and education content of their interventions for knee OA. Likert scale and multiple-choice questions were used to measure responses relating to exercise prescription. Thematic analysis was used to evaluate the nature of education being delivered by AEPs. The revised neurophysiology of pain questionnaire (r-NPQ) was used to quantify pain neuroscience knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 161 AEPs completed the survey (63 men, 98 women; mean experience 5.8 ± 4.7 years). Exercises commonly prescribed included: strength (99% of respondents), weight bearing (90%) and aerobic (83%), with 98% of AEPs prescribing exercise for the affected and unaffected limb. Only 32% of respondents frequently considered prescribing 'exercise into pain'. The four main education themes were exercise (86%), self-management (61%), weight loss (56%) and pain management (51%). Specific pain neuroscience education (PNE) was provided by only 21% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise prescription mostly aligned with evidence-based recommendations. The education component of AEP interventions for knee OA focused on the benefits of exercise. However, other education guideline recommendations about the disease, appropriate treatments and self-management were underutilised. The PNE knowledge of AEPs was comparable with other secondary care providers, although only a minority of AEPs provide PNE.

High-intensity interval training for reducing blood pressure: a randomized trial vs. moderate-intensity continuous training in males with overweight or obesity.

The optimal exercise-training characteristics for reducing blood pressure (BP) are unclear. We investigated the effects of 6-weeks of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) or moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on BP and aortic stiffness in males with overweight or obesity. Twenty-eight participants (18-45 years; BMI: 25-35 kg/m2) performed stationary cycling three times per week for 6 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated (unblinded) to work-matched HIIT (N = 16; 10 × 1-min intervals at 90-100% peak workload) or MICT (N = 12; 30 min at 65-75% peak heart rate). Central (aortic) and peripheral (brachial) BP and aortic stiffness was assessed before and after training. There were no significant group × time interactions for any BP measure (all p > 0.21). HIIT induced moderate reductions in central (systolic/diastolic ∆: -4.6/-3.5 mmHg, effect size d = -0.51/-0.40) and peripheral BP (-5.2/-4 mmHg, d = -0.45/-0.47). MICT induced moderate reductions in diastolic BP only (peripheral: -3.4 mmHg, d = -0.57; central: -3 mmHg, d = -0.50). The magnitude of improvement in BP was strongly negatively correlated with baseline BP (r = -0.66 to -0.78), with stronger correlations observed for HIIT (r = -0.73 to -0.88) compared with MICT (r = -0.43 to -0.61). HIIT was effective for reducing BP (~3-5 mmHg) in the overweight to obese cohort. Exercise training induced positive changes in central (aortic) BP. The BP-lowering effects of exercise training are more prominent in those with higher baseline BP, with stronger correlation in HIIT than MICT.