Interventions to promote exercise in cancer survivors who report better levels of adherence share some common behaviour change techniques .
These involve setting programme goals , prompting practise and self-monitoring and encouraging participants to attempt to generalise behaviours learned in supervised exercise environments to other , non-supervised context s. However , expecting most sedentary survivors to achieve current guideline recommendations of at least 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise is likely to be unrealistic .
BACKGROUND The beneficial effects of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer are becoming apparent .
However , how to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary cancer cohorts is not as well understood .
A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet exercise recommendations .
Hence , review ing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following questions : Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance ?
What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions ?
Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers ?
Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term ( 12 months or longer ) exercise behaviour ?
What frequency of contact with exercise professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What theoretical basis is most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What behaviour change techniques are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
Safety and efficacy of resistance training in germ cell cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a randomized controlled trial
Background : Bleomycin – etoposid – cisplatin ( BEP ) chemotherapy is curative in most patients with disseminated germ cell cancer ( GCC ) but also associated with toxic actions and dysfunction in non-targeted tissues . We investigated changes in muscle function during BEP and the safety and efficacy of resistance training to modulate these changes . Methods : Thirty GCC patients were r and omly assigned to resistance training ( resistance training group ( INT ) , n=15 ) or usual care ( CON , n=15 ) during 9 weeks of BEP therapy . Resistance training consisted of thrice weekly sessions of four exercises , 3–4 sets/exercise of 10–15 repetitions at 12–15 repetition maximum load . The primary endpoint was muscle fibre size , assessed in muscle biopsies from musculus vastus lateralis . Secondary endpoints were fibre phenotype composition , body composition , strength , blood biochemistry and patient-reported endpoints . Healthy age-matched subjects ( REF , n=19 ) performed the same RT-programme for comparison purpose s. Results : Muscle fibre size decreased by −322 μm2 ( 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) : −899 to 255 ; P=0.473 ) in the CON-group and increased by + 206 μm2 ( 95 % CI : −384 to 796 ; P=0.257 ) in the INT-group ( adjusted mean difference ( AMD ) , + 625 μm2 , 95 % CI : −253 to 1503 , P=0.149 ) . Mean differences in type II fibre size ( AMD , + 823 μm2 , P=0.09 ) and lean mass ( AMD , + 1.49 kg , P=0.07 ) in favour of the INT-group approached significance . The REF-group improved all muscular endpoints and had significantly superior changes compared with the INT-group ( P<0.05 ) . Conclusions : BEP was associated with significant reduction in lean mass and strength and trends toward unfavourable changes in muscle fibre size and phenotype composition  . Resistance training was safe and attenuated dysfunction in selected endpoints , but BEP blunted several positive adaptations observed in healthy controls . Thus , our study does not support the general application of resistance training in this setting but larger-scaled trials are required to confirm this finding
Interventions to promote exercise in cancer survivors who report better levels of adherence share some common behaviour change techniques .
These involve setting programme goals , prompting practise and self-monitoring and encouraging participants to attempt to generalise behaviours learned in supervised exercise environments to other , non-supervised context s. However , expecting most sedentary survivors to achieve current guideline recommendations of at least 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise is likely to be unrealistic .
BACKGROUND The beneficial effects of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer are becoming apparent .
However , how to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary cancer cohorts is not as well understood .
A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet exercise recommendations .
Hence , review ing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following questions : Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance ?
What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions ?
Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers ?
Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term ( 12 months or longer ) exercise behaviour ?
What frequency of contact with exercise professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What theoretical basis is most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What behaviour change techniques are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?