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 ?
High-intensity training and cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and non-small-cell lung cancer undergoing lobectomy.
OBJECTIVES Peak VO2 , as measure of physical performance is central to a correct preoperative evaluation in patients with both non-small-cell lung cancer ( NSCLC ) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( COPD ) because it is closely related both to operability criteria and the rate of postoperative complications . Strategies to improve peak VO2 , as a preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation programme ( PRP ) , should be considered favourably in these patients . In order to clarify the role of pulmonary rehabilitation , we have evaluated the effects of 3-week preoperative high-intensity training on physical performance and respiratory function in a group of patients with both NSCLC and COPD who underwent lobectomy . METHODS We studied 40 patients with both NSCLC and COPD , age < 75 years , TNM stages I-II , who underwent lobectomy . Patients were r and omly divided into two groups ( R and S ) : Group R underwent an intensive preoperative PRP , while Group S underwent only lobectomy . We evaluated peak VO2 in all patients at Time 0 ( T0 ) , after PRP/before surgery in Group R/S ( T1 ) and 60 days after surgery , respectively , in both groups ( T2 ) . RESULTS There was no difference between groups in peak VO2 at T0 , while a significant difference was observed both at T1 and T2 . In Group R , peak VO2 improves significantly from T0 to T1 : 14.9 ± 2.3 - 17.8 ± 2.1 ml/kg/min ± st and ard deviation ( SD ) , P < 0.001 ( 64.5 ± 16.5 - 76.1 ± 14.9 % predicted ± SD , P < 0.05 ) and deteriorates from T1 to T2 : 17.8 ± 2.1 - 15.1 ± 2.4 , P < 0.001 ( 76.1 ± 14.9 - 64.6 ± 15.5 , P < 0.05 ) , reverting to a similar value to that at T0 , while in Group S peak VO2 did not change from T0 to T1 and significantly deteriorates from T1 to T2 : 14.5 ± 1.2 - 11.4 ± 1.2 ml/kg/min ± SD , P < 0.00001 ( 60.6 ± 8.4 - 47.4 ± 6.9 % predicted ± SD , P < 0.00001 ) . CONCLUSIONS PRP was a valid preoperative strategy to improve physical performance in patients with  both NSCLC and COPD and this advantage was also maintained after surgery
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 ?