Purpose: To compare the impact of two different training intensity distributions in terms of conditional and performance parameters and spent time to training in recreational athletes.Methods: Two different training intensity distribution model were performed for 8 weeks by 38 recreational runners. Runners recruited were randomly assigned to 2 different training models based on HR intensity detected with maximal test. The percentage distribution splitted in zone 1, 2, and 3 were by 77/3/20 and 40/50/10 in polarized endurance training group (PET) and focused endurance training (FOC) group, respectively. Programs were balanced for total training impulse (TRIMP). To evaluate effects of training, before and after treatment were performed a maximal exercise test to determine Maximal Oxygen Uptake (V'O 2max ), Ventilatory Threshold (VT), respiratory-compensation point (RCT) Running Economy (RE), and 2 Km performance. To investigate the effects of training on muscular performance were performed one repetition maximum (1 RM), squat jump (SJ), and counter movement jump (CMJ).Results: Both groups significantly improved their velocity at V'O 2max (3.2 and 4.0%), at VT (4.0 and 3.2%), RCT (5.7 and 3.4%), the average velocity in 2 Km performance (3.5 and 3.0%) and RE (−5.3 and −8.7%) for PET and FOC, respectively for each variable. No differences were found between the groups on any parameter investigated except about the total training time (PET = 29.9 ± 3.1 h and FOC = 24.8 ± 2.0 h). Conclusion: Focused Endurance Training obtains similar improvements than PolarizedEndurance Training saving 17% of training time in recreational runners.

BackgroundCalcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a powerful neuropeptide that is strongly involved in headache pain pathogenesis by triggering vasodilation, mast cell degranulation and neurogenic inflammation. This evidence has prompted us to investigate the acute influence of endurance exercise on CGRP concentration in blood.MethodsThe study population consisted of 48 male amateur runners, who ran a half-marathon distance at 75%–85% of maximal oxygen uptake. Blood was drawn before the run (pre-run) and immediately after each runner ended his trial (post-run). The serum concentration of CGRP was measured with a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique.ResultsOverall, 22/48 subjects (45.8%) reported suffering from headache, three of whom (6.2%) had an exertional headache, whilst 26/48 (54.2%) subjects did not report at least one headache episode during the previous 6 months (i.e. headache-free). All 48 athletes successfully covered the 21.1 km distance. Serum concentration of CGRP significantly increased by 1.5-fold in the entire group, as well as in the headache-positive and headache-free cohorts. Univariate Spearman’s correlation revealed that post-run variation of serum CGRP was significantly and inversely associated with running time (r = −0.30; p = 0.036).ConclusionsThe serum concentration of CGRP is significantly enhanced by medium-distance endurance exercise and the post-exercise increase is dependent on running intensity. Accordingly, high-exercise intensity might be directly related to triggering both exertional headache and/or migraine episodes.

No abstract

Nowadays, it is widely acknowledged that low physical activity levels are associated with an increase in terms of both disease recurrence and mortality in cancer survivors. In this light, deciphering those factors able to hamper or facilitate an active lifestyle is crucial in order to increase patients' adherence to physical activity. The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and motivations in a sample of female oncological patients, practising running using the ecological model and compare them with healthy controls. Focus group interviews were conducted at Verona University. Participants were 12 female cancer survivors and 7 matched healthy controls who had participated at "Run for Science" project. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. Transcripts were categorized according to the ecological model, identifying barriers and motivations as themes. About motivations, three sub-themes were included: personal, interpersonal and environmental/organizational factors. Regarding barriers, another sub-theme was recognized: community/policy factors. Compared to healthy controls, survivors expressed motivations and barriers specifically related to their oncological disease. Running was a challenge with their cancer and a hope to give to other patients. Main barriers were represented by treatment-related side effects, inexperienced trainers and external factors, e.g. delivery of incorrect information. Running programs dedicated to oncological patients should consider intrinsic obstacles, related to cancer and its treatment. The interventions should offer a personalized program performed by qualified trainers, together with a motivational approach able to improve participants' adherence to an active lifestyle.