Responders and non-responders to aerobic exercise training: beyond the evaluation of V˙O2max

20Citations
Citations of this article
81Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The evaluation of the maximal oxygen uptake ((Formula presented.)) following exercise training is the classical assessment of training effectiveness. Research has lacked in investigating whether individuals that do not respond to the training intervention ((Formula presented.)), also do not improve in other health-related parameters. We aimed to investigate the cardiovascular and metabolic adaptations (i.e., performance, body composition, blood pressure, vascular function, fasting blood markers, and resting cardiac function and morphology) to exercise training among participants who showed different levels of (Formula presented.) responsiveness. Healthy sedentary participants engaged in a 6-week exercise training program, three times a week. Our results showed that responders had a greater increase in peak power output, second lactate threshold, and microvascular responsiveness, whereas non-responders had a greater increase in cycling efficiency. No statistical differences were observed in body composition, blood pressure, fasting blood parameters, and resting cardiac adaptations. In conclusion, our study showed, for the first time, that in addition to the differences in the (Formula presented.), a greater increase in microvascular responsiveness in responders compared to non-responders was observed. Additionally, responders and non-responders did not show differences in the adaptations on metabolic parameters. There is an increasing need for personalized training prescription, depending on the target clinical outcome.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mattioni Maturana, F., Soares, R. N., Murias, J. M., Schellhorn, P., Erz, G., Burgstahler, C., … Nieß, A. M. (2021). Responders and non-responders to aerobic exercise training: beyond the evaluation of V˙O2max. Physiological Reports, 9(16). https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.14951

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free