John R. McLester

A Comparison of Motivational Factors and Barriers to Physical Activity among Traditional versus Nontraditional College Students.

Abstract Objective: To investigate the motivational factors and the barriers to physical activity (PA) in traditional college students (TS) and nontraditional college students (NTS) and determine if differences exist between these 2 groups. Participants: A total of 746 college students; 628 were TS (19.1 ± 1.2 years), and 118 were NTS (31.2 ± 8.6 years). Methods: In fall 2010, students voluntarily completed a demographic questionnaire, Barriers to Being Active Quiz, and Exercise Motivations Inventory–2 (EMI-2). Results: EMI-2 revealed that TS and NTS differed on 8 of the 14 motivational factors for exercise. There was a significant difference between TS and NTS for the following barriers: fear of injury (p = .001), lack of resources (p = .017), and lack of skill (p = .003). Conclusion: Based on these findings, interventions can be developed for the varied needs of a diverse student population as it pertains to PA participation.

The influence of citrus aurantium and caffeine complex versus placebo on the cardiac autonomic response: a double blind crossover design

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine the resting cardiac autonomic nervous system’s response to the ingestion of a complex containing Citrus aurantium + Caffeine (CAu2009+u2009C) and its influence on recovery following a high-intensity anaerobic exercise bout in habitual caffeine users.MethodsTen physically active males (25.1u2009±u20093.9xa0years; weight 78.71u2009±u20099.53xa0kg; height 177.2 ± 4.6xa0cm; body fat 15.5u2009±u20093.13%) participated in this study, which consisted of two exhaustive exercise protocols in a randomized crossover design. On each visit the participants consumed either a CAu2009+u2009C (100xa0mg of CA and 100xa0mg of C) or placebo (dextrose) capsule. After consumption, participants were monitored throughout a 45-min ingestion period, then completed a repeated Wingate protocol, and were then monitored throughout a 45-min recovery period. Cardiac autonomic function (Heart Rate (HR) and Heart Rate Variability (HRV)) and plasma epinephrine (E) and norepinephrine (NE) were taken at four different time points; Ingestion period: baseline (I1), post-ingestion period (I2); Recovery period: immediately post-exercise (R1), post-recovery period (R2). Heart rate variability was assessed in 5-min increments.ResultsA repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant time-dependent increases in HR, sympathetic related markers of HRV, and plasma E and NE at I2 only in the CAu2009+u2009C trial (pu2009<u20090.05); however, no meaningful changes in parasympathetic markers of HRV were observed. Participants recovered in a similar time-dependent manner in all markers of HRV and catecholamines following the PLA and CAu2009+u2009C trials.ConclusionThe consumption of CAu2009+u2009C results in an increase of sympathetic activity during resting conditions without influencing parasympathetic activity. CAu2009+u2009C provides no influence over cardiac autonomic recovery.

An investigation of the accuracy and reliability of body composition assessed with a handheld electrical impedance myography device

Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the body fat per cent (BF%) assessed with a unique handheld electrical impedance myography (EIM) device, along with other popular methods, to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Participants included 33 males (aged 24.3u2009±u20094.6 years) and 38 females (aged 25.3u2009±u20098.9 years) who completed 2 visits separated by 24–72u2005h. The assessments included DXA, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), skinfold measures (SKF), and three separate EIM measurements. No significant differences in BF% (Pu2009>u20090.05) were found between all EIM assessments when compared against DXA for both males and females for each visit. All methods showed no significant differences in BF% (Pu2009>u20090.05) between days within themselves. Across both days, the standard error of the estimate (SEE) for the EIM measurements ranged from 2.66% to 3.15%, the SEE for BIA was 2.80 and 2.85, and for SKF was 2.90 and 2.82. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from ±5.34% to ±6.38% for EIM measurements and were highest for SKF (±7.42% and ±7.47%). The total error for both days was largest for SKF (5.20% and 5.35%) and lowest for the EIM measurements (2.48–3.24%). This investigation supports use of a handheld EIM device as an accurate and reliable method of estimating BF% compared to DXA in young, apparently healthy individuals with BF% in the range of 10–22% for males and 20–32% in females and suggests this EIM device be considered a viable alternative to other established field measurements in this population.