BackgroundIndividuals differ in the response to regular exercise. Whether there are people who experience adverse changes in cardiovascular and diabetes risk factors has never been addressed.Methodology/Principal FindingsAn adverse response is defined as an exercise-induced change that worsens a risk factor beyond measurement error and expected day-to-day variation. Sixty subjects were measured three times over a period of three weeks, and variation in resting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and in fasting plasma HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), and insulin (FI) was quantified. The technical error (TE) defined as the within-subject standard deviation derived from these measurements was computed. An adverse response for a given risk factor was defined as a change that was at least two TEs away from no change but in an adverse direction. Thus an adverse response was recorded if an increase reached 10 mm Hg or more for SBP, 0.42 mmol/L or more for TG, or 24 pmol/L or more for FI or if a decrease reached 0.12 mmol/L or more for HDL-C. Completers from six exercise studies were used in the present analysis: Whites (N = 473) and Blacks (N = 250) from the HERITAGE Family Study; Whites and Blacks from DREW (N = 326), from INFLAME (N = 70), and from STRRIDE (N = 303); and Whites from a University of Maryland cohort (N = 160) and from a University of Jyvaskyla study (N = 105), for a total of 1,687 men and women. Using the above definitions, 126 subjects (8.4%) had an adverse change in FI. Numbers of adverse responders reached 12.2% for SBP, 10.4% for TG, and 13.3% for HDL-C. About 7% of participants experienced adverse responses in two or more risk factors.Conclusions/SignificanceAdverse responses to regular exercise in cardiovascular and diabetes risk factors occur. Identifying the predictors of such unwarranted responses and how to prevent them will provide the foundation for personalized exercise prescription.

Fractal HR dynamics were improved more by combining strength training with endurance training in our older men compared with endurance training alone, although strength training alone produced no changes in fractal HR behavior. The synergistic effect in fractal HR behavior occurred regardless of changes in aerobic capacity.

Physical activity recommendations for public health include typically muscle-strengthening activities for a minimum of 2 days a week. The range of interindividual variation in responses to resistance training (RT) aiming to improve health and well-being requires to be investigated. The purpose of this study was to quantify high and low responders for RT-induced changes in muscle size and strength and to examine possible effects of age and sex on these responses. Previously collected data of untrained healthy men and women (age 19 to 78 years, n = 287 with 72 controls) were pooled for the present study. Muscle size and strength changed during RT are 4.8 ± 6.1 % (range from −11 to 30 %) and 21.1 ± 11.5 % (range from −8 to 60 %) compared to pre-RT, respectively. Age and sex did not affect to the RT responses. Fourteen percent and 12 % of the subjects were defined as high responders (>1 standard deviation (SD) from the group mean) for the RT-induced changes in muscle size and strength, respectively. When taking into account the results of nontraining controls (upper 95 % CI), 29 and 7 % of the subjects were defined as low responders for the RTinduced changes in muscle size and strength, respectively. The muscle size and strength responses varied extensively between the subjects regardless of subject's age and sex. Whether these changes are associated with, e.g., functional capacity and metabolic health improvements due to RT requires further studies.

Waist circumference and skinfold thickness seem to reasonably assess changes in percent body fat during training. However, only DXA was capable to separate small differences between the groups in training-induced changes in lean body mass. Combined strength and endurance training is of greater value than either alone in optimizing body composition or improving physical fitness in older men.

In this study adaptations in body composition, physical fitness and metabolic health were examined during 21 weeks of endurance and/or strength training in 39- to 64-year-old healthy women. Subjects (n = 62) were randomized into endurance training (E), strength training (S), combined strength and endurance training (SE), or control groups (C). S and E trained 2 and SE 2 + 2 times in a week. Muscle strength and maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2)max) were measured. Leg extension strength increased 9 +/- 8% in S (P < 0.001), 12 +/- 8% in SE (P < 0.001) and 3 +/- 4% in E (P = 0.036), and isometric bench press 20% only in both S and SE (P < 0.001). VO(2)max increased 23 +/- 18% in E and 16 +/- 12% in SE (both P < 0.001). The changes in the total body fat (dual X-ray absorptiometry) did not differ between groups, but significant decreases were observed in E (-5.9%, P = 0.022) and SE (-4.8%, P = 0.005). Lean mass of the legs increased 2.2-2.9% (P = 0.004-0.010) in S, SE and E. There were no differences between the groups in the changes in blood lipids, blood pressure or serum glucose and insulin. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased in E. Both S and SE showed small decreases in serum fasting insulin. Both endurance and strength training and their combination led to expected training-specific improvements in physical fitness, without interference in fitness or muscle mass development. All training methods led to increases in lean body mass, but decreases in body fat and modest improvements in metabolic risk factors were more evident with aerobic training than strength training.