Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose of ReviewThe purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on blood pressure of hypertensive individuals.Recent FindingsContinuous aerobic training programs are successful in health promotion and are effective in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) modulation. However, HIIT seems to be superior to MICT to improvement of cardiorespiratory fitness.SummaryPubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared chronic effects of HIIT and MICT on BP in hypertensive subjects. Pre- and post-intervention changes in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) between MICT and HIIT were analyzed. Both interventions presented significant differences in SBP (MICT: mean difference (MD), 3.7 mmHg [95% CI = 2.57, 4.82], p < 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 5.64 mmHg [95% CI = 1.69, 9.52], p = 0.005) and in DBP (MICT: MD, 2.41 mmHg [95% CI = 1.09, 3.72], p = 0.0003; and HIIT: MD, 4.8 mmHg [95% CI = 2.9, 6.7], p < 0.00001) compared with the control group. No differences were found in the SBP values (MD, 1.13 mmHg [95% CI = − 0.01, 2.27], p = 0.05); however, differences were found between groups in DBP (MD, 1.63 mmHg [95% CI = 0.83, 2.44], p = 0.0001). In the secondary outcome, both interventions increased VO2max in comparison with control groups (MICT: MD, 1.30 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 0.92, 1.68], p < 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 4.90 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 3.77, 6.04], p < 0.00001), and HIIT promoted greater improvement than MICT (MD, 2.52 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 1.90, 3.13], p < 0.0001). In conclusion, HIIT and MICT promote reduction in SBP in adults with hypertension, and HIIT showed a greater magnitude in DBP reduction. For hypertensive patients, HIIT may be associated with a greater improvement in VO2max than MICT might.

This study addresses the need for improved transparency and reproducibility in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) within the field of physical activity (PA) interventions. Despite efforts to promote these practices, there is limited evidence on the adherence to established reporting and methodological standards in published RCTs. The research, part of the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative) in 2020, assessed the methodological standards and reporting quality of RCTs focusing on PA interventions. RCTs of PA advice or exercise interventions published in 2020 were selected. Monthly searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE targeting six top-tier exercise science journals. Assessments were conducted by two independent authors, based on 44 items originally from CONSORT and TIDieR reporting guidelines. These items were divided into seven domains: transparency, completeness, participants, intervention, rigor methodology, outcomes and critical analysis. Descriptive analysis was performed using absolute and relative frequencies, and exploratory analysis was done by comparing proportions using the χ2 test (α = 0.05). Out of 1,766 RCTs evaluated for eligibility, 53 were included. The median adherence to recommended items across the studies was 30 (18-44) items in individual assessments. Notably, items demonstrating full adherence were related to intervention description, justification, outcome measurement, effect sizes, and statistical analysis. Conversely, the least reported item pertained to mentioning unplanned modifications during trials, appearing in only 11.3% of studies. Among the 53 RCTs, 67.9% reported having a registration, and these registered studies showed higher adherence to assessed items compared to non-registered ones. In summary, while critical analysis aspects were more comprehensively described, aspects associated with transparency, such as protocol registrations/modifications and intervention descriptions, were reported suboptimally. The findings underscore the importance of promoting resources related to reporting quality and transparent research practices for investigators and editors in the exercise sciences discipline.

The present study aims to estimate the minimum number of accelerometer measurement days needed to estimate habitual physical activity (PA) among 6- (2010), 18- (2011) and 30- (2012) year-old participants, belonging to three population-based Brazilian birth cohorts. PA was assessed by triaxial wrist-worn GENEActiv accelerometers and the present analysis is restricted to participants with at least 6 consecutive days of measurement. Accelerometer raw data were analyzed with R-package GGIR. Description of PA measures (overall PA, moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), light PA (LPA)) on weekdays and weekend days were conducted, and statistical differences were tested with chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Spearman Brown Formulae was applied to test reliability of different number of days of accelerometer use. Differences between week and weekend days regarding LPA, MVPA and overall PA, were only observed among 30-year-olds. Higher levels of MVPA (p = 0.006) and overall PA (p<0.001) were identified on weekdays. For overall PA, to achieve a reliability coefficient >0.70, two and three days of measurement were needed in adults and children, respectively. For LPA, a reliability coefficient >0.70 was achieved with five days in 6-year-old children, three days in 18-year-old young adults, and four days in 30-year-old adults. Considering MVPA, four days would be necessary to represent a week of measurement among all cohort groups. Our results show that four and five measurement days are needed to estimate all habitual PA constructs, for children and adults, respectively. Also, among 30-year-old adults, it is important to make efforts towards weekend days measurement.

Long COVID has been linked to a decline in physical activity and functional capacity. However, it remains unclear which physical symptoms are associated with specific aspects of movement behaviors and functional capacity. We aimed to investigate the associations of fatigue, dyspnea, post-exertional malaise, myalgia, and the co-occurrence of symptoms with movement behaviors and functional capacity in individuals with Long COVID. A cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted. Questionnaires were used to assess fatigue, dyspnea, post-exertional malaise, and myalgia. Accelerometry was employed to assess sedentary time, steps per day, light physical activity, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. The six-minute walk test, 30-s chair stand test, and timed up and go were used to assess functional capacity. One hundred and two community-dwelling individuals who had been living with Long COVID for 15 ± 10 months participated in the study. Fatigue, post-exertional malaise, and the co-occurrence of physical symptoms showed a negative association with step count, while post-exertional malaise was also negatively associated with moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Dyspnea showed a negative association with the functional score, including all tests. Our findings suggest that fatigue, post-exertional malaise, and the co-occurrence of physical symptoms are negatively associated with physical activity, while dyspnea is negatively associated with functional capacity in individuals with Long COVID.

Purpose: The present study aims to estimate the minimum number of accelerometer measurement days needed to estimate habitual physical activity (PA) among 6, 18 and 30 years old participants, belonging to three population-based Brazilian birth cohorts. Method: PA was assessed by triaxial wrist worn GENEActiv accelerometers for 4-7 consecutive days, including at least one weekend day. Accelerometer raw data were analyzed with R-package GGIR. Description of PA measures (overall PA, MVPA, LPA) between weekdays and weekend days were conducted, and statistical differences were tested with chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Intraclass Reliability Coefficient (IRC) was applied through the Spearman Brown Formulae to test reliability of different number of days of accelerometer use. Results: Differences between week and weekend days regarding LPA, MVPA and Overall PA, were only observed among 30-year-olds. More MVPA (p=0.006) and Overall PA (p<0.001) were performed on week days. The IRC coefficients ranged from 0.44 to 0.83 in children and from 0.54 to 0.88 in adults. Conclusion: In conclusion, our results show that between four and six measurement days are needed to achieve good reliability in the analyzed participants, depending on the PA construct evaluated (MVPA, LPA or overall PA).