Water-based interval aerobic training positively affected the lipid profile in premenopausal dyslipidemic women.

Background: There are a lack of clinical trials with suitable methodological quality that compare aquatic exercise training types in type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment. This study aimed to compare the effects of aerobic and combined aquatic training on cardiorespiratory outcomes in patients with T2D. Methods: Untrained patients with T2D were randomized to receive an aerobic aquatic training, a combined aquatic training, or a procedure control in 3 weekly sessions for 15 weeks. The sessions were 50 minutes long. The intensities were from 85% to 100% of heart rate of anaerobic threshold and at maximal velocity for aerobic and resistance parts, respectively. Resting heart rate, peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), and oxygen uptake corresponding to second ventilatory threshold and its relation with VO2peak were evaluated. Results: Participants were 59.0 (8.2) years old and 51% women. Intervention groups increased in VO2peak (aerobic aquatic training group: 4.48 mL·kg−1·min−1, P = .004; combined aquatic training group: 5.27 mL·kg−1·min−1; P = .006) and oxygen uptake corresponding to second ventilatory threshold, whereas the control group presented an increase in oxygen uptake corresponding to second ventilatory threshold and minimal change in VO2peak. Conclusions: Aerobic and combined aquatic exercise interventions improve the cardiorespiratory fitness of patients with T2D.

Both continuous and interval aerobic exercise, in a same intensity, are effective for glycemic and pressure acute reductions in individuals with type 2 diabetes. For patients with greater risk of hypertension, we believe that the interval method is safer.

Background Aerobic training (AT) improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the role of the progression of training variables remains unclear. The objective of this review was to analyze the effects of progressive AT (PAT) and non-progressive AT (NPAT) on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods Data sources used were PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and LILACS. Studies that evaluated the effect of at least 12 weeks of PAT and NPAT compared to a control condition on HbA1c levels in type 2 diabetes patients were eligible for analysis. Two independent reviewers screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using the standardized mean difference in HbA1c levels between the intervention and control groups using a random-effect model. Results Of 5848 articles retrieved, 24 randomized clinical trials (825 participants) were included. Among the included studies, 92% reported to have performed a randomization process, 8% presented allocation concealment, 21% reported blinding of outcome assessment, and 38% reported complete outcome data. AT reduced HbA1c levels by 0.65% (ES: − 1.037; 95% confidence interval [CI]: − 1.386, − 0.688; p < 0.001). The reduction in HbA1c induced by PAT was 0.84% (ES: − 1.478; 95% CI − 2.197, − 0.759; p < 0.001), and NPAT was 0.45% (ES: − 0.920; 95% CI − 1.329, − 0.512; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of the different forms of progression showed a reduction in HbA1c levels of 0.94% (ES: − 1.967; 95% CI − 3.783, − 0.151; p = 0.034) with progression in volume, 0.41% (ES: − 1.277; 95% CI − 2.499, − 0.056; p = 0.040) with progression in intensity, and 1.27% (ES: − 1.422; 95% CI − 2.544, − 0.300; p = 0.013) with progression in both volume and intensity. Subgroup analysis of the different modalities of AT showed a reduction of 0.69% (ES: − 1.078; 95% CI − 1.817, − 0.340; p = 0.004) with walking and/or running and of 1.12% (ES: − 2.614; 95% CI − 4.206, − 1.022; p = 0.001) with mixed protocols while progressive training was adopted. In non-progressive protocols, a significant HbA1c reduction was only found with walking and/or running (− 0.43%; ES: − 1.292; 95% CI − 1.856, − 0.72; p < 0.001). Conclusion The effect of PAT on glycemic control was greater than that of NPAT, especially when volume and intensity were progressively incremented throughout the interventions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40798-019-0194-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The aim of this study was to understand the knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and behaviors of mental health professionals about physical activity and exercise for people with mental illness. Methods: The Portuguese version of The Exercise in Mental Illness Questionnaire was used to assess knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and behaviors about exercise prescription for people with mental illness in a sample of 73 mental health professionals (68.5% women, mean age = 37.0 years) from 10 Psychosocial Care Units (Centros de Atenc¸ã o Psicossocial) in Porto Alegre and Canoas, state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Results: Most of respondents had received no formal training in exercise prescription. Exercise ranked fifth as the most important treatment, and most of the sample never or occasionally prescribed exercise. The most frequently reported barriers were lack of training in physical activity and exercise prescription and social stigma related to mental illness. Professionals who themselves met recommended physical activity levels found fewer barriers to prescribing physical activity and did so with greater frequency. Conclusion: Exercise is underrated and underused as a treatment. It is necessary to include physical activity and exercise training in mental health curricula. Physically active professionals are more likely to prescribe exercise and are less likely to encounter barriers to doing so. Interventions to increase physical activity levels among mental health professionals are necessary to decrease barriers to and increase the prescription of physical activity and exercise for mental health patients.