Andressa Santoro Faber Fidalgo1,2, Paulo Farinatti1,2, Juliana Pereira Borges2, Tainah de Paula2, Walace Monteiro3,4. 1. Graduate Program in Physical Activity Sciences, Salgado de Oliveira University, Bloco A, Rua Marechal Deodoro, 217, bloco A, Centro, Niterói, RJ, CEP 24030-060, Brazil. 2. Laboratory of Physical Activity and Health Promotion, Institute of Physical Education and Sports, University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524, sala 8121F, Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20550-900, Brazil. 3. Graduate Program in Physical Activity Sciences, Salgado de Oliveira University, Bloco A, Rua Marechal Deodoro, 217, bloco A, Centro, Niterói, RJ, CEP 24030-060, Brazil. walacemonteiro@uol.com.br. 4. Laboratory of Physical Activity and Health Promotion, Institute of Physical Education and Sports, University of Rio de Janeiro State, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524, sala 8121F, Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20550-900, Brazil. walacemonteiro@uol.com.br.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Institutional position stands are useful for practitioners when designing exercise routines for specific populations. Resistance training has been included in programs for patients with cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to analyze institutional guidelines providing recommendations for resistance training applied to cardiovascular disease. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception until 30 April, 2018. RESULTS: Of 994 articles initially found, 13 position stands were retained. Consensual indications occurred only for number of sets (one to three sets) and training frequency (two to three sessions/week). Recommendations concerning other major training variables were discordant regarding workload (none or loads ranging from < 30% up to 80% 1 repetition maximum) and exercise order (none or vaguely indicating alternation of muscle groups or circuit format), or insufficient regarding intervals between sets and exercises or number and type of exercises. Overall, guidelines lack recommendations of specific procedures for each type of disease at different severity levels, cardiovascular risk during exercise, or criteria for training progression. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations provided by institutional guidelines appear to be insufficient to support adequate resistance training prescription in the context of cardiovascular disease.
BACKGROUND: Institutional position stands are useful for practitioners when designing exercise routines for specific populations. Resistance training has been included in programs for patients with cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to analyze institutional guidelines providing recommendations for resistance training applied to cardiovascular disease. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched from inception until 30 April, 2018. RESULTS: Of 994 articles initially found, 13 position stands were retained. Consensual indications occurred only for number of sets (one to three sets) and training frequency (two to three sessions/week). Recommendations concerning other major training variables were discordant regarding workload (none or loads ranging from < 30% up to 80% 1 repetition maximum) and exercise order (none or vaguely indicating alternation of muscle groups or circuit format), or insufficient regarding intervals between sets and exercises or number and type of exercises. Overall, guidelines lack recommendations of specific procedures for each type of disease at different severity levels, cardiovascular risk during exercise, or criteria for training progression. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations provided by institutional guidelines appear to be insufficient to support adequate resistance training prescription in the context of cardiovascular disease.
Authors: M L Pollock; B A Franklin; G J Balady; B L Chaitman; J L Fleg; B Fletcher; M Limacher; I L Piña; R A Stein; M Williams; T Bazzarre Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-02-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Eugene Braunwald; Elliott M Antman; John W Beasley; Robert M Califf; Melvin D Cheitlin; Judith S Hochman; Robert H Jones; Dean Kereiakes; Joel Kupersmith; Thomas N Levin; Carl J Pepine; John W Schaeffer; Earl E Smith; David E Steward; Pierre Theroux; Raymond J Gibbons; Joseph S Alpert; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Gabriel Gregoratos; Loren F Hiratzka; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-10-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Raymond J Gibbons; Jonathan Abrams; Kanu Chatterjee; Jennifer Daley; Prakash C Deedwania; John S Douglas; T Bruce Ferguson; Stephan D Fihn; Theodore D Fraker; Julius M Gardin; Robert A O'Rourke; Richard C Pasternak; Sankey V Williams Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Linda S Pescatello; Barry A Franklin; Robert Fagard; William B Farquhar; George A Kelley; Chester A Ray Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Elliott M Antman; Daniel T Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R Bates; Lee A Green; Mary Hand; Judith S Hochman; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Gervasio A Lamas; Charles J Mullany; Joseph P Ornato; David L Pearle; Michael A Sloan; Sidney C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-08-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Luis Leitão; Moacir Marocolo; Hiago L R de Souza; Rhai André Arriel; Yuri Campos; Mauro Mazini; Ricardo Pace Junior; Teresa Figueiredo; Hugo Louro; Ana Pereira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 3.390