FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2062421336> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2062421336 endingPage "917" @default.
• W2062421336 startingPage "916" @default.
• W2062421336 abstract "Dear Editor-in-Chief: The 1998 American College of Sports Medicine's Position Stand for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory and Muscular Fitness and Flexibility in Healthy Adults (1) is a landmark document because of its emphases on different training modalities, the specification of frequency, intensity, and duration of exercise, and the recognition of a broad continuum of exercise doses that produces health benefits. The document takes center-stage for both health policy and program design where the over-riding goal is to involve an increasingly sedentary population in virtually any meaningful sustained activity. Given that goal, the points we make may at first seem to be splitting hairs and merely trying to refine sophisticated programs when, indeed, the first priority should be promoting the most simple activities such as walking. However, the position stand is a scientific document, and a number of its key points are not well supported by exercise science research. Moreover, the emphasis on some points, also without scientific support, may not only lead to minimally effective programming but the continuation of an older paradigm where current data suggest the advent of a newer paradigm with numerous program and health-related implications. A good deal of the rationale of the guidelines appears to still revolve around the overall volume of an exercise program, i.e., caloric expenditure, as both the major stimulus and defining quality of the program, despite the emphasis in the position stand on frequency, intensity, and duration, and specific exercise doses (pp. 976-978). Indeed, on page 978 it is stated that: ... improvement will be similar for activities performed at a lower intensity-longer duration compared with high intensity-shorter duration if the total energy cost of the activities is similar. Although this statement repeats an axiom from earlier position stands, the statement is not true. In fact, some of the most interesting work with significant importance for health programs shows that the health-related outcomes for a protocol depend upon the specific exercise stimulus. This is true for more moderate intensity exercise where, for example, fast, brisk, or slower walking of 3 miles results in similar energy expenditure but predictably different effects on V̇O2max(4). It appears also to be true for body composition change where moderately high-intensity interval protocols that expend fewer calories than steady-state training showed more body fat loss (8). And this appears particularly to be the case for high-intensity training where an interval training protocol of several minutes (with minimal overall calorie expenditure) yielded greater gains in V̇O2max than 1-h sessions of steady-state training expending many more calories than the interval protocol (5). Indeed, this was even true for two high-intensity interval protocols where the one producing a greater stimulus (high levels of oxygen consumption) for the aerobic system involved less work and presumably less caloric expenditure (6). In contrast, some health-related outcomes (increasing levels of plasma HDL cholesterol) may be more responsive to duration of training than intensity (9). Such studies also show movement toward a new and potentially very fruitful paradigm with more focus on specific stimuli, specific biological mechanisms, and specific thresholds of intensity and duration that appear required to trigger specific responses (10). There are several caveats that need to be introduced into the sections on resistance training that also reflect more specificity of training parameters and closer examination of the research literature. Recommendations of acceptable ranges for repetitions of resistance exercise cannot be adequately made without reference to speed of movement. Thus, for example, performance of four to five repetitions per set of each exercise may be quite safe when each complete repetition takes 12-15 s. Likewise, 15 repetitions may have high potential for injury when each repetition is performed in 2-3 s. The research literature also does not provide definitive evidence that one range of repetitions necessarily enhances power and strength more than another range of repetitions. In fact, any range of repetitions providing a reasonable overload and time under load appears to increase strength, power, and muscle mass (7). There is also virtually no empirical evidence to support this statement: For the more serious weight lifter (athlete), a regimen of heavier weights (6-12 RM) of 1-3 sets using periodization techniques usually provides greater benefits (and) ... greater gains in strength and FFM can be obtained when using heavy weights, few repetitions (e.g.1-6 RM), and multiple set regimens ... (p. 983). Indeed, a recent review of 34 studies comparing one set of an exercise to multiple sets of an exercise only showed outcomes favoring multiple sets in two of these studies (3). Moreover, one of these two studies, the frequently cited seminal study in the field (conducted more than 35 yr ago and noted on page 983), showed an inconsistent pattern of outcomes. This study also had basic methodological problems (nonrandom assignment, alpha inflation possibly contributing to a Type 1 error) and has not been replicated (2). As with cardiovascular training, it appears that a very specific stimulus that just sufficiently transcends a threshold may be the major requirement for producing increases in strength and muscle mass. That is, the generic biological model and paradigm is the same for training different systems (10). Programs following this paradigm may provide more prescriptive, effective, and efficient protocols for obtaining specific health-related outcomes. Once again, we commend the overall thrust of the position stand but believe the document can be improved by a scientific perspective emphasizing a greater specificity of training parameters and more reliance on the empirical foundations of the field. Richard A. Winett, Ph.D. Center for Research in Health Behavior; Virginia Tech; Blacksburgh, VA 24061-0436 Ralph N. Carpinelli, Ed.D. Human Performance Laboratory; Adelphi University; Garden City, NY 11530" @default.
• W2062421336 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2062421336 creator A5068057363 @default.
• W2062421336 creator A5084799451 @default.
• W2062421336 date "1999-06-01" @default.
• W2062421336 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2062421336 title "THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF EXERCISE FOR HEALTHY ADULTS" @default.
• W2062421336 cites W2053723515 @default.
• W2062421336 cites W2063036083 @default.
• W2062421336 cites W2081987075 @default.
• W2062421336 cites W2088224247 @default.
• W2062421336 cites W2113479573 @default.
• W2062421336 cites W2121882327 @default.
• W2062421336 cites W4321061160 @default.
• W2062421336 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199906000-00024" @default.
• W2062421336 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10378923" @default.
• W2062421336 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W2062421336 type Work @default.
• W2062421336 sameAs 2062421336 @default.
• W2062421336 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2062421336 countsByYear W20624213362013 @default.
• W2062421336 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2062421336 hasAuthorship W2062421336A5068057363 @default.
• W2062421336 hasAuthorship W2062421336A5084799451 @default.
• W2062421336 hasBestOaLocation W20624213361 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C117437137 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C2779903281 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C2780598303 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C74909509 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C105795698 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C117437137 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C144024400 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C15744967 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C1862650 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C2779903281 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C2780598303 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C2908647359 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C33923547 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C36289849 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C71924100 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C74909509 @default.
• W2062421336 hasConceptScore W2062421336C99454951 @default.
• W2062421336 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2062421336 hasLocation W20624213361 @default.
• W2062421336 hasLocation W20624213362 @default.
• W2062421336 hasLocation W20624213363 @default.
• W2062421336 hasOpenAccess W2062421336 @default.
• W2062421336 hasPrimaryLocation W20624213361 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W1541703659 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W2026525358 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W2068905820 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W2379927600 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W2464846772 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W2914053210 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W588387564 @default.
• W2062421336 hasRelatedWork W1596334392 @default.
• W2062421336 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2062421336 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2062421336 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2062421336 magId "2062421336" @default.
• W2062421336 workType "article" @default.