Background Our aim was to assess the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on metabolic parameters and body composition in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Methods and analysis A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE (via Ovid), PubMed, Sport Discus, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (advanced feature) up to September 2020. Two authors independently screened citations and determined the risk of bias and quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects model. Results Seven trials (n = 423) were included in the systematic review. The studies included HIIT interventions vs. moderate exercise or control groups. Most studies were small (average 32, range 24–110 participants) and of relatively short duration (10–16 weeks). The training intensity was performed between 90% and 95% of the maximum heart rate, three times a week, for at least 10 weeks. Insulin resistance, measured using homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and body mass index (BMI) showed a significant decrease (MD −0.57; 95% CI, −0.98 to −0.16, p = 0.01), (MD −1.90, 95% CI −3.37, −0.42, p = 0.01) with moderate and high certainty of evidence, respectively. Conclusion Results support that HIIT alone is effective for reducing HOMA-IR and BMI in women with PCOS. However, evidence is limited to discern the effect of HIIT on other outcomes. Future studies with a longer duration (> 16 weeks), larger sample sizes and other outcomes are needed.

The present study aimed to determine the effect of mental fatigue (MF) on total training volume (TTV; number of repetitions x number of sets x load) and on ratings of perceived exertion (RPE; Borg, 1982 ) in the half-back squat exercise (HBSE). Nine male subjects ( M age = 22.6 years, SD =  2.3; M height = 172.3 cm , SD =  6.8; M weight = 76.2 kg , SD =  9.8; M years of resistance training experience = 4.1, SD = 2.3 years) recruited from a university population were study participants in this participant-blind cross-over and randomized study. Participants underwent either the Stroop task – a highly demanding cognitive task (CT) – or a control condition (CON) in which they viewed a documentary exhibition for 30 minutes. Perception of MF and motivation were assessed after treatments using a visual analog scale of 100 mm. Participants then engaged in a countermovement jump (CMJ) test and three sets of HBSE until they reached momentary concentric failure, reporting RPE at the end of each exercise set. Following the CT, participants showed a significantly increased self-perception of MF in relation to the CON condition ( p = 0.01; d = 1.2), but this did not affect their motivation to engage in subsequent tests ( p = 0.99; d = 0.006). Neither the CMJ performances nor the RPE were statistically different between CT and CON conditions ( p = 0.33; d = 0.09 and p = 0.20 ; η2 = 0.20, respectively). TTV was significantly lower in the CT relative to the CON experimental condition (Δ = −15.8%; p = 0.04; η2 = 0.48). Prolonged involvement in a CT was associated with reduced volume on a resistance exercise, though this effect was not associated with changes in CMJ performance or motivation to exercise.

The aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors and the incidence of injuries in high-intensity functional training (HIFT) practitioners. A survey was administered to 213 HIFT practitioners. Participants reported the number of injuries, the location of the injuries, and training exposure during the preceding six months and answered questions regarding potential risk factors for injury. We found there were 7.1 injuries for every 1000 hours of training. In addition, we found that individuals with experience in the modality (>2 years) were 3.77 times more likely to be affected by injury when compared with beginner individuals (<6 months) (CI95%=1.59–8.92; p=0.003). When the analysis was performed only for the competitive level, we found that practitioners competing at the national level were 5.69 times more likely to experience an injury than competitors who do not compete (CI95%=1.10–29.54; p=0.038). We also found that the injuries mainly affect the shoulder and lumbar regions. It was possible to conclude that subjects with a higher level of experience in the modality are more likely to be affected by injuries and that the shoulder and lumbar areas are most likely to be injured during HIFT.

The physiological benefits of applying blood flow restriction (BFR) in isolation or in the presence of physical exercise have been widely documented in the scientific literature. Most investigations carried out under controlled laboratory conditions have found the technique to be safe. However, few studies have analyzed the use of the technique in clinical settings. To analyze how the BFR technique has been applied by professionals working in the clinical area and the prevalence of side effects (SEs) resulting from the use of this technique. This is a cross-sectional study. A total of 136 Brazilian professionals who perform some function related to physical rehabilitation, sports science, or physical conditioning participated in this study. Participants answered a self-administered online questionnaire consisting of 21 questions related to the professional profile and methodological aspects and SEs of the BFR technique. Professionals reported applying the BFR technique on individuals from different age groups from youth (≤18 years; 3.5%) to older adults (60–80 years; 30.7%), but mainly on people within the age group of 20 to 29 years (74.6%). A total of 99.1% of the professionals coupled the BFR technique with resistance exercise. Their main goals were muscle hypertrophy and physical rehabilitation. The majority (60.9%) of interviewees reported using BFR in durations of less than 5 minutes and the pressure used was mainly determined through the values of brachial blood pressure and arterial occlusion. Moreover, 92% of professionals declared observing at least 1 SE resulting from the BFR technique. Most professionals observed tingling (71.2%) and delayed onset of muscle soreness (55.8%). Rhabdomyolysis, fainting, and subcutaneous hemorrhaging were reported less frequently (1.9%, 3.8%, and 4.8%, respectively). Our findings indicate that the prescription of blood flow restriction technique results in minimal serious side effects when it is done in a proper clinical environment and follows the proposed recommendations found in relevant scientific literature.

Context: Several studies have compared perceptual responses between resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and traditional resistance exercise (non-BFR). However, the results were contradictory. Objectives: To analyze the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise [low-load resistance exercise (LL-RE) or high-load resistance exercise (HL-RE)] on perceptual responses. Data Sources: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed®, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched through August 28, 2021, and again on August 25, 2022. Study Selection: Studies comparing the effect of RE+BFR versus non-BFR resistance exercise on rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and muscle pain/discomfort were considered. Meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 2. Data Extraction: All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: Thirty studies were included in this review. In a fixed repetition scheme, the RPE [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.04; P < 0.01] and discomfort (SMD = 1.10; P < 0.01) were higher in RE+BFR than in non-BFR LL-RE, but similar in sets to voluntary failure. There were no significant differences in RPE in the comparisons between RE+BFR and non-BFR HL-RE; after sensitivity analyses, it was found that the RPE was higher in non-BFR HL-RE in a fixed repetition scheme. In sets to voluntary failure, discomfort was higher in RE+BFR versus non-BFR HL-RE (SMD = 0.95; P < 0. 01); however, in a fixed scheme, the results were similar. Conclusion: In sets to voluntary failure, RPE is similar between RE+BFR and non-BFR exercise. In fixed repetition schemes, RE+BFR seems to promote higher RPE than non-BFR LL-RE and less than HL-RE. In sets to failure, discomfort appears to be similar between LL-RE with and without BFR; however, RE+BFR appears to promote greater discomfort than HL-RE. In fixed repetition schemes, the discomfort appears to be no different between RE+BFR and HL-RE, but is lower in non-BFR LL-RE.