1
|
Cvetković N, Stojanović E, Stojiljković N, Nikolić D, Scanlan AT, Milanović Z. Exercise training in overweight and obese children: Recreational football and high-intensity interval training provide similar benefits to physical fitness. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2018; 28 Suppl 1:18-32. [PMID: 29979479 DOI: 10.1111/sms.13241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/11/2018] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
This study compared the effects of recreational football and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on body composition, muscular fitness, and cardiorespiratory fitness in overweight and obese children. Forty-two overweight/obese males aged 11-13 years [body mass index (BMI) >20.5 kg/m2 ] were randomly assigned to a recreational football training group (n = 14; 157.9 ± 5.8 cm; 63.7 ± 12.6 kg), HIIT group (n = 14; 163.8 ± 9.4 cm; 71.5 ± 10.5 kg), or nontraining control group (n = 14; 162.7 ± 9.3 cm; 67.4 ± 16.1 kg). Physical fitness components were measured at baseline and after 12 weeks of training at the same time of the day and under similar conditions, including body composition, muscular fitness (lower-body power, change-of-direction speed, and flexibility), and cardiovascular fitness (Yo-Yo Intermittent Endurance test distance, resting heart rate, and blood pressure). Lean body mass (4.3%, ES = 0.40; 95% CI: -0.48, 1.29; P = .382) and muscle mass 4.4% (ES = 0.40; 95% CI: -0.48, 1.29; P = .378) very likely increased in the recreational football group, while possible improvements were observed in the HIIT group (lean body mass: 2.5%, ES = 0.22; 95% CI: -0.62, 1.06; P = .607, muscle mass: 2.8%, ES = 0.23; 95% CI: -0.61, 1.07; P = .594). Only trivial increases were observed in the control group for lean body mass (0.5%, ES = 0.05; 95% CI: -0.70, 0.79; P = .906) and muscle mass (1.1%, ES = 0.09; 95% CI: -0.65, 0.83; P = .814). Significant differences were found between the recreational football and control groups in post-training body mass (P = .034) and body mass index (P = .017). Body fat very likely decreased in the recreational football group (-7.7%, ES = -0.41; 95% CI: -1.29, 0.48; P = .376) and possibly decreased in the HIIT group (-5.2%, ES = -0.22; 95% CI: -1.05, 0.62; P = .607), with a trivial reduction in the control group (-1.1%, ES = -0.04; 95% CI: -0.78, 0.70; P = .914). Very likely increases in lower-body power were evident in the recreational football (17.0%, ES = 0.76; 95% CI: -0.15, 1.66; P = .107) and control groups (16.1%, ES = 0.55; 95% CI: -0.20, 1.31; P = .156), while small improvements were observed in the HIIT group (6.0%, ES = 0.24; 95% CI: -0.60, 1.08; P = .580, possible). Likely to most likely improvements in Yo-Yo Intermittent Endurance test performance and change-of-direction speed were noted in the recreational football group (Yo-Yo: 79.8%, ES = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.16, 2.03; P = .025, change-of-direction speed: -10.6%, ES = -1.05; 95% CI: -1.98, -0.12; P = .031) and the HIIT group (Yo-Yo: 81.2%, ES = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.15, 1.92; P = .025, change-of-direction speed: -5.4%, ES = -0.91; 95% CI: -1.79, -0.04; P = .045). Diastolic blood pressure likely decreased in the recreational football (-8.6%, ES = -0.74; 95% CI: -1.64, 0.17; P = .116) and HIIT groups (-9.8%, ES = -0.57; 95% CI: -1.40, 0.30; P = .195), with a possible increase in the control group (1.2%, ES = 0.21; 95% CI: -0.53, 0.96; P = .068). Recreational football and HIIT elicited improvements in all muscular and cardiorespiratory fitness measures. In contrast, the control group, which performed only physical education classes, increased body mass, BMI, and fat mass. Therefore, additional activities such as recreational football or HIIT might counter the prevalence of overweight and obesity in children.
Collapse
|
Randomized Controlled Trial |
7 |
62 |
11
|
Steinhauser G, Adlassnig W, Risch JA, Anderlini S, Arguriou P, Armendariz AZ, Bains W, Baker C, Barnes M, Barnett J, Baumgartner M, Baumgartner T, Bendall CA, Bender YS, Bichler M, Biermann T, Bini R, Blanco E, Bleau J, Brink A, Brown D, Burghuber C, Calne R, Carter B, Castaño C, Celec P, Celis ME, Clarke N, Cockrell D, Collins D, Coogan B, Craig J, Crilly C, Crowe D, Csoka AB, Darwich C, Del Kebos T, Derinaldi M, Dlamini B, Drewa T, Dwyer M, Eder F, de Palma RE, Esmay D, Rött CE, Exley C, Falkov R, Farber CI, Fearn W, Felsmann S, Flensmark J, Fletcher AK, Foster M, Fountoulakis KN, Fouratt J, Blanca JG, Sotelo MG, Gittler F, Gittler G, Gomez J, Gomez JF, Polar MGG, Gonzalez J, Gösselsberger C, Habermacher L, Hajek M, Hakala F, Haliburton MS, Hankins JR, Hart J, Hasslberger S, Hennessey D, Herrmann A, Hersee M, Howard C, Humphries S, Isharc L, Ivanovski P, Jenuth S, Jerndal J, Johnson C, Keleta Y, Kenny A, Kidd B, Kohle F, Kolahi J, Koller-Peroutka M, Kostova L, Kumar A, Kurosawa A, Lance T, Lechermann M, Lendl B, Leuchters M, Lewis E, Lieb E, Lloyd G, Losek A, Lu Y, Maestracci S, et alSteinhauser G, Adlassnig W, Risch JA, Anderlini S, Arguriou P, Armendariz AZ, Bains W, Baker C, Barnes M, Barnett J, Baumgartner M, Baumgartner T, Bendall CA, Bender YS, Bichler M, Biermann T, Bini R, Blanco E, Bleau J, Brink A, Brown D, Burghuber C, Calne R, Carter B, Castaño C, Celec P, Celis ME, Clarke N, Cockrell D, Collins D, Coogan B, Craig J, Crilly C, Crowe D, Csoka AB, Darwich C, Del Kebos T, Derinaldi M, Dlamini B, Drewa T, Dwyer M, Eder F, de Palma RE, Esmay D, Rött CE, Exley C, Falkov R, Farber CI, Fearn W, Felsmann S, Flensmark J, Fletcher AK, Foster M, Fountoulakis KN, Fouratt J, Blanca JG, Sotelo MG, Gittler F, Gittler G, Gomez J, Gomez JF, Polar MGG, Gonzalez J, Gösselsberger C, Habermacher L, Hajek M, Hakala F, Haliburton MS, Hankins JR, Hart J, Hasslberger S, Hennessey D, Herrmann A, Hersee M, Howard C, Humphries S, Isharc L, Ivanovski P, Jenuth S, Jerndal J, Johnson C, Keleta Y, Kenny A, Kidd B, Kohle F, Kolahi J, Koller-Peroutka M, Kostova L, Kumar A, Kurosawa A, Lance T, Lechermann M, Lendl B, Leuchters M, Lewis E, Lieb E, Lloyd G, Losek A, Lu Y, Maestracci S, Mangan D, Mares AW, Barnett JM, McClain V, McNair JS, Michael T, Miller L, Monzani P, Moran B, Morris M, Mößmer G, Mountain J, Phuthe OMM, Muñoz M, Nakken S, Wambui AN, Neunteufl B, Nikolić D, Oberoi DV, Obmode G, Ogar L, Ohara J, Rybine NO, Owen B, Owen KW, Parikh R, Pearce NJG, Pemmer B, Piper C, Prince I, Reid T, Rindermann H, Risch S, Robbins J, Roberts S, Romero A, Rothe MT, Ruiz S, Sacher J, Sackl W, Salletmaier M, Sanand J, Sauerzopf C, Schwarzgruber T, Scott D, Seegers L, Seppi D, Shields K, Siller-Matula J, Singh B, Sithole S, Six F, Skoyles JR, Slofstra J, Sole DA, Sommer WF, Sonko M, Starr-Casanova CJ, Steakley ME, Steinhauser W, Steinhoff K, Sterba JH, Steppan M, Stindl R, Stokely J, Stokely K, St-Pierre G, Stratford J, Streli C, Stryg C, Sullivan M, Summhammer J, Tadesse A, Tavares D, Thompson L, Tomlinson A, Tozer J, Trevisanato SI, Trimmel M, Turner N, Vahur P, van der Byl J, van der Maas T, Varela L, Vega CA, Vermaak S, Villasenor A, Vogel M, von Wintzigerode G, Wagner C, Weinberger M, Weinberger P, Wilson N, Wolfe JF, Woodley MA, Young I, Zuraw G, Zwiren N. Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science. THEORETICAL MEDICINE AND BIOETHICS 2012; 33:359-376. [PMID: 23054375 DOI: 10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1] [Show More Authors] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being "filtered out" or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses.
Collapse
|
Comparative Study |
13 |
9 |