There is mounting evidence that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) adults experience disparities across several cardiovascular risk factors compared with their cisgender heterosexual peers. These disparities are posited to be driven primarily by exposure to psychosocial stressors across the life span. This American Heart Association scientific statement reviews the extant literature on the cardiovascular health of LGBTQ adults. Informed by the minority stress and social ecological models, the objectives of this statement were (1) to present a conceptual model to elucidate potential mechanisms underlying cardiovascular health disparities in LGBTQ adults, (2) to identify research gaps, and (3) to provide suggestions for improving cardiovascular research and care of LGBTQ people. Despite the identified methodological limitations, there is evidence that LGBTQ adults (particularly lesbian, bisexual, and transgender women) experience disparities across several cardiovascular health metrics. These disparities vary by race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Future research in this area should incorporate longitudinal designs, elucidate physiological mechanisms, assess social and clinical determinants of cardiovascular health, and identify potential targets for behavioral interventions. There is a need to develop and test interventions that address multilevel stressors that affect the cardiovascular health of LGBTQ adults. Content on LGBTQ health should be integrated into health professions curricula and continuing education for practicing clinicians. Advancing the cardiovascular health of LGBTQ adults requires a multifaceted approach that includes stakeholders from multiple sectors to integrate best practices into health promotion and cardiovascular care of this population.

Exercise training provides physiological benefits for both improving athletic performance and maintaining good health. Different exercise training modalities and strategies exist. Two common exercise strategies are high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous exercise training (MCT). HIIT was first used early in the 20th century and popularized later that century for improving performance of Olympic athletes. The primary premise underlying HIIT is that, compared to energy expenditure-matched MCT, a greater amount of work is performed at a higher intensity during a single exercise session which is achieved by alternating high-intensity exercise intervals with low-intensity exercise or rest intervals. Emerging research suggests that this same training method can provide beneficial effects for patients with a chronic disease and should be included in the comprehensive medical management plan. Accordingly, a major consideration in developing an individual exercise prescription for a patient with a chronic disease is the selection of an appropriate exercise strategy. In order to maximize exercise training benefits, this strategy should be tailored to the individual's need. The focus of this paper is to provide a brief summary of the current literature regarding the use of HIIT to enhance the functional capacity of individuals with cardiovascular, pulmonary, and diabetes diseases.

Background: STRRIDE (Studies Targeting Risk Reduction Interventions through Defined Exercise) was an eight-month exercise study conducted from 1998–2003. Subjects were randomized to control or one of three exercise groups differing in intensity and amount. To determine if there were legacy effects, we invited 161 individuals who completed the intervention phase to return for a 10-year Reunion study. Methods: Subjects completed medical history and physical activity questionnaires. Height, body weight, blood pressure, waist circumference, and peak VO 2 were measured. Fasting blood samples were analyzed for glucose, insulin and lipids. Of 161 original subjects, 153 were within 10 years of STRRIDE completion. Of these, 28 were lost to follow-up and 21 declined to participate in the Reunion study. Overall, 104 subjects (83% eligible) participated. Change over time was computed as the 10-year Reunion value minus the pre-intervention value. Significant within group changes were calculated using two-tailed t -tests. ANCOVA determined differences among groups with pre-intervention values as covariates. Bonferroni corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons. Results: Ten years after completing STRRIDE, there were a number of group-specific health and fitness legacy effects. Original participation in either the moderate intensity exercise or control group resulted in a 10.5% decrease in peak VO 2 over the ensuing 10 years. Conversely, both vigorous intensity groups experienced only a 4.7% decrement in cardiorespiratory fitness over that time period. As compared to controls, all three exercise groups experienced smaller increases in waist circumference. Those who participated in moderate intensity exercise experienced the greatest 10-year reduction in fasting insulin. Compared to all other groups, the moderate intensity subjects had greater reductions in mean arterial pressure at the Reunion timepoint. Summary: Ten years after completing a randomized eight-month exercise training intervention, previously sedentary individuals exhibited group-specific differences consistent with an intervention-based legacy effect on cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiometabolic parameters. These findings highlight the critical need to better understand the sustained legacy health effects of exercise training interventions.

No abstract

Purpose This study aimed to characterize the timing and self-reported determinants of exercise dropout among sedentary adults with overweight or obesity. We also sought to explore variations in adherence among individuals who completed a 6- to 8-month structured exercise intervention. Methods A total of 947 adults with dyslipidemia (STRRIDE I, STRRIDE AT/RT) or prediabetes (STRRIDE-PD) were enrolled to either control or to 1 of 10 exercise interventions, ranging from doses of 8 to 23 kcal·kg−1·wk−1, intensities of 50% to 75% V˙O2 peak, and durations of 6 to 8 months. Two groups included resistance training, and one included dietary intervention (7% weight loss goal). Dropout was defined as an individual who withdrew from the study because of a variety of determinants. Timing of intervention dropout was defined as the last session attended and categorized into phases. Exercise training adherence was calculated by dividing weekly minutes or total sets of exercise completed by weekly minutes or total sets of exercise prescribed. General linear models were used to characterize the associations between timing of dropout and determinant category. Results Compared with exercise intervention completers (n = 652), participants who dropped out (n = 295) were on average non-White (98% vs 80%, P < 0.01), had higher body mass index (31.0 vs 30.2 kg·m−2, P < 0.01), and were less fit at baseline (25.0 vs 26.7 mL·kg−1·min−1, P < 0.01). Of those who dropped out, 67% did so before the start of or while ramping up to the prescribed exercise volume and intensity. The most commonly reported reason for dropout was lack of time (40%). Notably, among individuals who completed the ramp training period, subsequent exercise intervention adherence did not waiver over the ensuing 6–8 months of training. Conclusions These findings are some of the first to delineate associations between the timing of dropout and dropout determinants, providing guidance for future exercise interventions to better support individuals at risk for dropout.