In comparison to other European countries, during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Poland reported a relatively low number of confirmed cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. To estimate the scale of the pandemic in Poland, a serosurvey of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was performed after the first wave of COVID-19 in Europe (March–May 2020). Within this study, we collected samples from 28 July to 24 September 2020 and, based on the ELISA results, we found that 1.67% (25/1500, 95% CI 1.13–2.45) of the Poznan (Poland) metropolitan area’s population had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after the first wave of COVID-19. However, the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was confirmed with immunoblotting in 56% (14/25) samples, which finally resulted in a decrease in seroprevalence, i.e., 0.93% (14/1500, 95% CI 0.56–1.56). The positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG results were associated with age, occupation involving constant contact with people, travelling abroad, non-compliance with epidemiological recommendations and direct contact with the novel coronavirus. Our findings confirm the low SARS-CoV-2 incidence in Poland and imply that the population had little herd immunity heading into the second and third wave of the pandemic, and therefore, that herd immunity contributed little to preventing the high numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19-related deaths in Poland during these subsequent waves.
This study compared subjective and objective methods of measuring different categories of physical activity in non-depressed middle-aged subjects with normal cognitive function (NCF) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In total, 75 participants (NCF: n = 48, MCI: n = 27) were recruited and physical activity was assessed for seven days using the ActiGraph and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Anthropometric parameters, body compositions, resting metabolic rate, and energy expenditure were also assessed. ActiGraph data indicated that subjects with NCF were more active than MCI subjects. A comparison of the IPAQ and the ActiGraph data revealed a significant correlation between these methods for total (r = 0.3315, p < 0.01) and moderate (r = 0.3896, p < 0.01) physical activity in the total population and moderate activity (r = 0.2893, p < 0.05) within the NCF group. No associations between these methods were found within the MCI group. Independent predictors of subjectively evaluated total physical activity were alcohol consumption (p = 0.0358) and socio-professional status (p = 0.0288), while weight (p = 0.0285) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment results (p = 0.0309) were independent predictors of objectively measured physical activity. In conclusion, the long version of IPAQ is a more reliable tool to assess PA in subjects with NCF than those with MCI. More studies are needed to confirm this finding.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of endurance, strength, and combined training on inflammatory markers and adipokine concentrations in overweight and obese adults. We performed a literature search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and identified 24 randomised control trials published prior to June 2021. Our findings indicate that endurance training was significantly more beneficial than strength training in reducing C-reactive protein (CRP) (standard mean difference (SMD): −1.317, 95% confidence intervals (CI): −2.565, −0.070, p = 0.0385), interleukin 6 (IL-6) (SMD: −0.363, 95% CI: −0.648, −0.078, p = 0.0126), and visfatin (SMD: −0.618, 95% CI: −1.015, −0.222, p = 0.0023) concentrations. Moreover, combined training was more beneficial than strength training alone in lowering tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) levels (SMD: 0.890, 95% CI: −0.301, 1.478, p = 0.0030). There were no differences between the effects of different types of training programmes on adiponectin and leptin concentrations. In conclusion, compared with strength training, endurance training is more effective in lowering CRP, IL-6, and visfatin concentrations, while combined training is more beneficial in reducing TNF-α levels in overweight and obese adults. Further studies are needed to determine which type of training has a better effect on adiponectin and leptin concentrations in this population.
The most effective type of training to improve cardiometabolic parameters in overweight subjects is unknown. This meta-analysis compared the effect of endurance, strength and combined training on glucose, insulin metabolism and the lipid profile of overweight and obese adults. The Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched to identify randomised trials assessing the effect of training intervention on fasting and 2 h glucose and insulin levels, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA), C-peptide, total cholesterol (TC), low- (LDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides (TG). Forty-six studies were included showing that endurance training more favourably reduced HbA1c (p = 0.044), and LDL-C (p = 0.021) than strength training. Endurance-strength training more effectively decreased glucose (p = 0.002), HbA1c (p = 0.032), HOMA (p = 0.002), TC (p = 0.039), LDL-C (p = 0.046), HDL (p = 0.036) and TG levels (p = 0.025) than strength training. Combined training significantly reduced the HOMA index (p = 0.009) and TG levels (p = 0.039) compared with endurance training. Endurance and endurance-strength training have a more favourable effect on glucose and insulin homeostasis and lipid profile than strength training in overweight and obese adults. However, the results from this meta-analysis should be interpreted cautiously due to significant heterogeneity among included studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.