The SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic may negatively impact mood and emotion. Physical activity may protect against mood disturbance and promote positive affect. This study asked if physical activity before, during, or the change in physical activity with the pandemic, impacted affect and mood during the pandemic. US adult residents (18–74 years; N = 338) were surveyed from 29 April to 3 June 2020. Physical activity before and during the pandemic was assessed with the Physical Activity Rating survey. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule measured affect and the Profile of Moods Questionnaire assessed mood. Comparisons between physically inactive and active participants by Analysis of Covariance found greater vigour in participants classed as physically active before the pandemic. Positive affect, vigour and esteem‐related affect were greater in participants physically active during the pandemic. Multiple linear regression revealed relationships between the change in physical activity and mood. Change in physical activity positively associated with positive affect ( b = 1.06), esteem‐related affect ( b = 0.33) and vigour ( b = 0.53), and negatively associated with negative affect ( b = −0.47), total mood disturbance ( b = −2.60), tension ( b = −0.31), anger ( b = −0.24), fatigue ( b = −0.54), depression ( b = −0.50) and confusion ( b = −0.23). These data demonstrate that physical activity during the pandemic, and increased physical activity relative to before the pandemic, related to better mood.

No abstract

Exercise has been shown to slow pancreatic tumor growth, but whether exercise interventions of differing volume or intensity yield differential effects on tumor outcomes is unknown. In this study, we compared three exercise training interventions implemented with and without chemotherapy on pancreatic tumor growth in mice.Methods: Male C57BL/6 mice (6–8 weeks old) were subcutaneously inoculated with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumor cells (PDAC 4662). Upon tumor detection, mice received gemcitabine 15 mg/kg intraperitoneally 3 days/week and were assigned to exercise: high volume continuous exercise (HVCE), low volume continuous exercise (LVCE), high intensity interval training (HIIT), or sedentary (SED). HVCE ran at 12 m/min for 45 min and LVCE for 15 min, 5 days/week. HIIT ran 1-min at 20 m/min, followed by 1-min walking at 8 m/min for 20 total intervals, 3 days/week. SED did not run. Additional sets of inoculated mice were assigned to the exercise interventions but did not receive gemcitabine. Tumor volume was measured every other day for 2 weeks; tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were assessed by flow cytometry 3-week post-inoculation.Results: Tumor growth did not differ between groups that received gemcitabine (F(3, 34) = 1.487; p = 0.235; η2 = 0.116). In contrast, tumor growth differed between groups not provided gemcitabine (F(3,14) = 3.364; p = 0.049, η2 = 0.419), with trends for slower growth in LVCE than SED (p = 0.088) and HIIT (p = 0.084). Groups did not differ in tumor infiltrating lymphocytes.Conclusion: Contrary to our hypotheses, the exercise interventions compared here did not further reduce pancreatic tumor growth beyond that provided by gemcitabine. However, in mice not receiving gemcitabine, there was a trend for reduced tumor growth in LVCE.

No abstract

No abstract