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 ?
Football training improves lean body mass in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy.
And rogen deprivation therapy ( ADT ) remains a cornerstone in the management of patients with prostate cancer ( PCa ) despite adverse effects on body composition and functional parameters . We compared the effects of football training with st and ard care in PCa patients managed with ADT ( > 6 months ) . Fifty-seven men aged 67 ( range : 43 - 74 ) were r and omly assigned to a football group ( FG , n = 29 ) or a usual care control group ( CON , n = 28 ) . The primary outcome was change in lean body mass ( LBM ) assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning . Secondary outcomes included changes in knee-extensor muscle strength ( one repetition maximum ) , fat percentage , and maximal oxygen uptake ( VO2max ) . Mean heart rate during training was 137.7 ( st and ard deviation 13.7 ) bpm or 84.6 (3.9)% HRmax . In FG , LBM increased by 0.5 kg [ 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) 0.1 - 0.9 ; P = 0.02 ] with no change in CON ( mean group difference 0.7 kg ; 95 % CI 0.1 - 1.2 ; P = 0.02 ) . Also , muscle strength increased in FG ( 8.9 kg ; 95 % CI 6.0 - 11.8 ; P < 0.001 ) with no change in CON ( mean group difference 6.7 kg ; 95 % CI 2.8 - 10.7 ; P < 0.001 ) . In FG , VO2max increased ( 1.0 mL/kg/min ; 95 % CI 0.2 - 1.9 ; P = 0.02 ) and fat percentage tended to decrease ( 0.7 % ; 95%CI 1.3 - 0.0 ; P = 0.06 ) , but these changes were not significantly different from CON . In conclusion , football training over 12 weeks improved LBM and muscle strength compared with usual care in men with prostate cancer receiving ADT
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 ?