Key result
Reformer pilates improves acute flexibility ~66% over Cadillac and Chair, with similar cardiac autonomic responses.
Why the study?
Comparative data on the immediate effects of reformer, cadillac, and chair pilates exercises on cardiovascular function and flexibility remain unclear.
Does Reformer Pilates compared to Cadillac or Chair Pilates improve cardiac autonomic modulation and flexibility in sedentary middle-aged women?
RCT (n=15)
computer-generated randomization sequence with balanced Latin Square design
No
Does Reformer Pilates compared to Cadillac or Chair Pilates improve cardiac autonomic modulation and flexibility in sedentary middle-aged women?
Reformer Pilates provides superior acute flexibility benefits compared to Cadillac or Chair apparatuses in sedentary middle-aged women, though all three elicit similar acute cardiac autonomic modulation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports preferring reformer for acute flexibility gains in sedentary women; extends apparatus comparisons while confirming equivalent autonomic responses.
Background/Objectives: Pilates exercises performed on different apparatuses may elicit distinct acute responses in cardiovascular function and musculoskeletal flexibility, yet comparative data on the immediate effects of reformer (RF), cadillac (CD), and chair (CH) pilates exercises remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate and compare the acute effects of RF, CD, and CH pilates sessions on cardiac autonomic modulation and flexibility in sedentary middle-aged women. Methods: Fifteen participants (mean age: 42.2 ± 1.5 years) completed all three exercise conditions in a randomized crossover design, with sessions separated by at least 72 h. Heart rate variability (HRV) was assessed at pre-exercise, during exercise, and at 10 min intervals up to 40 min post-exercise. Flexibility was measured using standardized sit-and-reach tests at pre-exercise, immediately post-exercise, and 40 min post-exercise. Results: Results revealed a significant condition × time interaction for flexibility (p < 0.010, η2p = 0.207), with the RF session producing greater immediate improvements in flexibility compared to CD (p = 0.030; g = 0.24) and CH sessions (p = 0.030; g = 0.24). Notably, flexibility gains from the RF session were maintained at 40 min post-exercise relative to the CH session (p = 0.035; g = 0.28). In contrast, no significant interactions between condition × time were observed for HRV parameters (p > 0.05). However, the main effect of time was evident across all HRV measures (p < 0.05), indicating post-exercise autonomic modulation independent of apparatus type. Conclusions: These findings suggest that while acute cardiovascular responses may not differ substantially between pilates apparatuses, the RF apparatus may be more effective for immediate flexibility enhancement in sedentary middle-aged women. Practitioners and clinicians may consider selecting apparatus based on specific functional goals, such as improving flexibility, when designing pilates-based interventions for this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Güngör et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in sedentary middle-aged women aged 40-45 years with no prior pilates experience and without metabolic or cardiovascular diseases (n=15). Reformer pilates apparatus session vs. Cadillac and Chair pilates apparatus sessions was evaluated on Acute effects on cardiac autonomic modulation assessed by heart rate variability (HRV) and flexibility assessed by sit-and-reach test (p=0.030; Hedges' g=0.26 for immediate post-exercise flexibility improvement for Reformer vs Chair, p=p=0.010 for flexibility condition × time interaction; no significant differences for HRV). Reformer pilates apparatus session produced greater immediate post-exercise flexibility improvements (+65.6%) than Cadillac and Chair sessions (p=0.030; g=0.24-0.26), while all apparatuses induced similar acute cardiac autonomic responses with no significant differences.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: