Key result
Personal 1:1 exercise supervision boosts VO2 peak by ~10% vs unsupervised training in healthy adults.
Why the study?
The effects of different types of exercise supervision on cardiometabolic health improvements in healthy employees were unknown.
Does supervised exercise improve cardiometabolic outcomes in healthy employees compared to unsupervised exercise?
RCT (n=85)
Randomized to personal, nonpersonal supervision, or unsupervised control
Does supervised exercise improve cardiometabolic outcomes in healthy employees compared to unsupervised exercise?
Personal 1:1 exercise supervision in an onsite facility provides superior improvements in lower-body strength and body composition compared to nonpersonal or unsupervised exercise.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports supervised workplace exercise programs; extends prior clinical population findings to healthy employees.
Hunter, JR, Gordon, BA, Bird, SR, and Benson, AC. Exercise supervision is important for cardiometabolic health improvements: a 16-week randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond Res 34(3): 866-877, 2020-Exercise supervision enhances health and fitness improvements in clinical populations compared with unsupervised or home-based exercise, but effects of supervision type are unknown in healthy employees. Eighty-five Australian university employees (62 females; mean ± SD 43.2 ± 9.8 years) were randomized to personal (1:1; SUP, n = 28), nonpersonal (typical gym-based; NPS, n = 28) supervision or unsupervised control (CON, n = 29) exercise groups. Subjects received a 16-week individually tailored, moderate-to-high intensity aerobic and resistance exercise program completed at an onsite exercise facility (SUP and NPS) or without access to a specific exercise facility (CON). Repeated-measures ANOVA analyzed changes to cardiometabolic outcomes. Mean ± SD increases to V[Combining Dot Above]O2 peak were greater (p < 0.01) with SUP (+10.4 ± 11.1%) vs. CON (+3.8 ± 8.9%) but not different to NPS (+8.6 ± 8.2%). Compared to CON (+1.7 ± 7.7%), upper-body strength increases were greater with SUP (+12.8 ± 8.4%; p < 0.001) and NPS (+8.4 ± 7.3%; p < 0.05). Lower-body strength increases were greater with SUP (+26.3 ± 12.7%) vs. NPS (+15.0 ± 14.6%; p < 0.05) and CON (+4.1 ± 12.4%; p < 0.001), and NPS vs. CON (p < 0.01). Body fat reductions were greater with SUP (-2.2 ± 2.2%) vs. NPS (-0.6 ± 1.9%; p < 0.05) and CON (-0.7 ± 1.9%; p < 0.05). Access to an onsite exercise facility with personal or nonpersonal exercise supervision was important for improving several cardiometabolic outcomes, with greater improvements to lower-body strength and body composition from personal 1:1 exercise supervision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hunter et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Healthy employees (n=85). Personal (1:1) or nonpersonal exercise supervision vs. Unsupervised control was evaluated on VO2 peak increase (p=<0.01). Personal 1:1 exercise supervision over 16 weeks significantly increased VO2 peak (+10.4% vs +3.8%; p<0.01) and lower-body strength compared to unsupervised control in healthy employees.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: