The COVID-19 outbreak has led to recurring quarantines resulting in drastic reductions in physical activity (PA) levels. Given its health benefits, there is a need to explore strategies to increase PA rates during this period. Video-conferencing platforms can be used to deliver live, online, group PA sessions. However, there are only few established PA protocols on how to use such platforms. Hence, the purposes of this study were to (a) design an online PA protocol and (b) explore its feasibility among older adults during a quarantine. A group of exercise specialists developed a PA protocol while accounting for challenges that may arise when using a video-conferencing platform (“Zoom”). A special focus was placed on safety, individualization, and motivational aspects. Then, 31 community dwelling older adults (71.5 ± 4 years) were recruited via social media to follow this protocol twice a week for 8 weeks. Outcome measures included adverse events, adherence rates, and satisfaction with the protocol, its delivery, and technological aspects. Twenty-eight participants completed the protocol. No adverse events occurred, and adherence rates were high (90%). Most participants (97%) indicated they would participate in such a program in the future and highly rated all aspects of the protocol (median score >6 in 1–7 Likert scales). The PA protocol delivered live via a video-conferencing platform was found to be safe and feasible with this cohort. It can therefore be implemented in practice, and in future studies planning to utilize home-based PA sessions for older adults.

Background In resistance-training (RT), the number of repetitions is traditionally prescribed using a predetermined approach (e.g., three sets of 10 repetitions). An emerging alternative is the estimated repetitions to failure (ERF) approach (e.g., terminating sets two repetitions from failure). Despite the importance of affective responses experienced during RT, a comparison between the two approaches on such outcomes is lacking. Methods Twenty women (age range: 23–45 years) without RT experience completed estimated one repetition maximum (RM) tests in four exercises. In the next two counterbalanced sessions, participants performed the exercises using 70%1RM. Participants completed ten repetitions in all three sets (predetermined condition) or terminated the sets when perceived to be two repetitions away from task-failure (ERF condition). Primary outcomes were affective-valence, enjoyment, and approach-preference and secondary outcomes were repetition-numbers completed in each exercise. Results We observed trivial differences in the subjective measures and an approximately even approach-preference split. Under the ERF condition, we observed greater variability in repetition-numbers between participants and across exercises. Specifically, the mean number of repetitions was slightly lower in the chest-press, knee-extension, and lat-pulldown (~1 repetition) but considerably higher in the leg-press (17 vs. 10, p<0.01). Conclusions Both approaches led to comparable affective responses and to an approximately even approach preference. Hence, prior to prescribing either approach, coaches should consider trainee’s preferences. Moreover, under the ERF condition participants completed a dissimilar number of repetitions across exercises while presumably reaching a similar proximity to task-failure. This finding suggests that ERF allows for better effort regulation between exercises.

Introduction: Rating of perceived effort (RPE) scales are used to prescribe intensity in resistance training (RT) in several ways. For instance, trainees can reach a specific RPE value by modifying the number of repetitions, lifted loads, or other training variables. Given the multiple approaches of prescribing intensity using RPE and its growing popularity, we compared the effects of two RPE prescription approaches on adherence rates, body composition, performance and psychological outcomes, in an online RT intervention.Methods: We randomly assigned 57 healthy participants without RT experience (60% females, age range: 18–45) to one of two groups that received two weekly RT sessions using a resistance-band for 8 weeks. In the fixed-repetition group, participants adjusted the band resistance with the goal of completing 10 repetitions and reaching a 7-RPE on a 0–10 scale by the 10th repetition. In the open-repetition group, participants selected their preferred band resistance and completed repetitions until reaching a 7-RPE by the final repetition. We measured body composition, performance, and program satisfaction rates.Results: We assessed 46 participants at post-test, 24 from the fixed-repetition group and 22 from the open-repetition group. We observed non-significant and trivial differences between groups in all outcomes (p &gt; 0.05). We then combined the pre-post change scores of the two groups. We found that adherence rates began at 89% and gradually decreased to 42%. On average, participants increased their fat-free mass [0.3 kg (95% CI: 0.1–0.6)], isometric mid-thigh pull [5.5 kg (95% CI: 0.8–10.4)], isometric knee-extension [2.2 kg (95% CI: 0.8–3.7)], and push-ups [6.3 repetitions (95% CI: 4.5–8.2)]. We observed non-significant and trivial changes in bodyweight, grip-force, and countermovement jump. Participants reported high satisfaction rates with all components of the program.Conclusion: Participants in both groups improved their body composition and physical capacity to a similar extent, and reported comparable satisfaction rates with the programs they followed. Accordingly, either prescription approach can be used to deliver online RT sessions based on personal preferences and logistical constraints. However, since adherences rates declined over the course of the study, future research should test additional strategies aiming to maintain adherence rates.

No abstract

No abstract