Search

Commercially wrist-worn devices often present inaccurate estimations of energy expenditure (EE), with large between-device differences. We aimed to assess the validity of the Apple Watch Series 6 (AW), Garmin FENIX 6 (GF) and Huawei Watch GT 2e (HW) in estimating EE during outdoor walking and running. Twenty young normal-weight Chinese adults concurrently wore three index devices randomly positioned at both wrists during walking at 6 km/h and running at 10 km/h for 2 km on a 400- meter track. As a criterion, EE was assessed by indirect calorimetry (COSMED K5). For walking, EE from AW and GF was significantly higher than that obtained by the K5 (p < 0.001 and 0.002, respectively), but not for HW (p = 0.491). The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was 19.8% for AW, 32.0% for GF, and 9.9% for HW, respectively. The limits of agreement (LoA) were 44.1, 150.1 and 48.6 kcal for AW, GF, and HW respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.821, 0.216 and 0.760 for AW, GF, and HW, respectively. For running, EE from AW and GF were significantly higher than the K5 (p < 0.001 and 0.001, respectively), but not for HW (p = 0.946). The MAPE was 24.4%, 21.8% and 11.9% for AW, GF and HW, respectively. LoA were 62.8, 89.4 and 65.6 kcal for AW, GF and HW, respectively. The ICC was 0.741, 0.594, and 0.698 for AW, GF and HW, respectively. The results indicate that the tested smartwatches show a moderate validity in EE estimations for outdoor walking and running.

Purpose: To assess the effect of chronic exercise training on blood lactate metabolism at rest (i.e., basal lactate concentrations) and during exercise (i.e., blood lactate concentration at a fixed load, load at a fixed blood lactate concentration, and load at the individual blood lactate threshold) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Methods: PubMed (MedLine), Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and case-control studies using chronic exercise training (i.e., 4 weeks) and that assessed blood lactate concentrations at rest and during exercise in T2DM patients were included.Results: Thirteen studies were eligible for the systematic review, while 12 studies with 312 participants were included into the meta-analysis. In the pre-to-post intervention meta-analysis, chronic exercise training had no significant effect on changes in basal blood lactate concentrations (standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.20; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.16; p = 0.28), and the results were similar when comparing the effect of intervention and control groups. Furthermore, blood lactate concentration at a fixed load significantly decreased (SMD = −0.73; 95% CI, −1.17 to −0.29; p = 0.001), while load at a fixed blood lactate concentration increased (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.72; p = 0.02) after chronic exercise training. No change was observed in load at the individual blood lactate threshold (SMD = 0.28; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.71; p = 0.20).Conclusion: Chronic exercise training does not statistically affect basal blood lactate concentrations; however, it may decrease the blood lactate concentrations during exercise, indicating improvements of physical performance capacity which is beneficial for T2DM patients' health in general. Why chronic exercise training did not affect basal blood lactate concentrations needs further investigation.

Introduction: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered the basic treatment for advanced prostate cancer, but it is highly associated with detrimental changes in muscle mass and muscle strength. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of supervised physical training on lean mass and muscle strength in prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT.Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and ScienceDirect until October 2018. Only studies that examined both muscle mass and strength in prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT were included. Outcomes of interest were changes in lean body mass (surrogate for muscle mass) as well as upper and lower body muscle strength. The meta-analysis was performed with fixed-effects models to calculate mean differences between intervention and no-training control groups.Results: We identified 8,521 publications through the search of the following key words: prostate cancer, prostate tumor, prostate carcinoma, prostate neoplasm, exercise, and training. Out of these studies, seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and where included in the analysis. No significant mean differences for changes in lean mass were observed between the intervention and control groups (0.49 kg, 95% CI: −0.76, 1.74; P = 0.44). In contrast, the mean difference for muscle strength was significant both in chest (3.15 kg, 95% CI: 2.46, 3.83; P < 0.001) and in leg press (27.46 kg, 95% CI: 15.05, 39.87; p < 0.001).Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence that low- to moderate-intensity resistance and aerobic training is effective for increasing muscle strength but may not be sufficient to affect muscle mass in prostate cancer patients undergoing ADT. The underlying mechanisms for this maladaptation may in part be explained by an insufficient stimulus induced by the training regimens as well as a delayed initiation of training in relation to the start of ADT. When interpreting the present findings, one should bear in mind that the overall number of studies included in this review was rather low, emphasizing the need for further studies in this field.