Jochen Hansel

Cardiorespiratory fitness determines the reduction in blood pressure and insulin resistance during lifestyle intervention.

Objective Lifestyle intervention is not always effective for improving arterial hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors, and the parameters determining the outcome are not known. Because high cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) protects from cardiovascular disease and mortality, we determined whether CRF at baseline predicts the improvement of blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors during a lifestyle intervention. Methods A total of 219 patients at risk for type 2 diabetes, who underwent a 9-month lifestyle intervention with diet modification and increase in physical activity, and had measurement of CRF, were studied. Insulin sensitivity was estimated during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Total body, visceral and liver fat were measured by magnetic resonance (MR) tomography and 1H-MR spectroscopy. CRF was estimated using two different methods, an incremental cycle exercise (maximal aerobic capacity-VO2max) test and a motorized treadmill (individual anaerobic threshold) test. Results After 9 months of intervention adiposity, glycemia, CRF, insulin sensitivity, SBP and serum lipids (except high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, P = 0.65) improved (all other P ≤ 0.006). DBP did not change significantly (P = 0.06). High CRF at baseline predicted decreases in SBP (P ≤ 0.0002) and DBP (P ≤ 0.004), and increase in insulin sensitivity (P ≤ 0.04), but not change in serum lipids (all P ≥ 0.06). For 1 SD increase in baseline CRF the odds ratio for resolution of hypertension or prehypertension was 2.26 (individual anaerobic threshold; 95% CI 1.40–3.80) and 1.75 (VO2max; 95% CI 1.08–2.89). Conclusion CRF at baseline predicts the effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention in improving insulin sensitivity, and particularly blood pressure.

Reproducibility of Determining Anaerobic Capacity Using Treadmill Ergometry~!2009-03-05~!2009-06-16~!2009-08-10~!

To implement a method measuring anaerobic capacity within the field of training control, the reproducibility of the results is of deciding significance. In this study, we examined the test-retest-reliability of the most commonly used method for measuring anaerobic capacity to date, modified according to Monod and Scherrer, on a motorized treadmill. Ten healthy, athletically active, male participants carried out two defined test series of each three sprint tests with an interval of one week. The work output of each participant and test series was calculated from this data. These results, as well as the running time of the sprint tests were graphically plotted using a work-exhaustion-time-diagram. After calculating a linear regression, the point of intersection of the regression line with the y-axis (y-intercept) was defined as the measure of anaerobic capacity (AC). The mean AC determined from the first sprint test series was 1.4 ± 0.8KJ and from the second sprint test series 1.2 ± 0.06KJ. The AC shows a mean difference of 18.4% (95% CI: 10.5 - 26.4), which is statistically significantly higher (p=0.004) than a tolerable mean difference level of 5%. Based on this difference, the described method does not seem suitable as a training control in competitive sport. This method, however, could be implemented for talent sighting.

Letter by Hansel and Simon Regarding Article, “Body Mass Index and Vigorous Physical Activity and the Risk of Heart Failure Among Men”

To the Editor: We read with interest the article “Body mass index and vigorous physical activity and the risk of heart failure among men” by Kenchaiah et al.1 This article has some interesting findings, but we believe that there are some shortcomings that we would like to address here. First, in our opinion a more appropriate title for this study might be “Body mass index and self-reported physical inactivity and the risk of heart failure among men.” Second, we find that the core statement of this …