RESUMO
Background: Both physical fitness and mental fitness are essential to achieve success, especially in medical college students, where the academic pressure is high. Studies have shown that exercise helps to reduce mental stress as well as to maintain the fitness. Aims and Objectives: The present study was aimed to compare the level of physical fitness and level of mental stress in exercising and non-exercising medical students. Materials and Methods: A study was done on 60 medical students of age group of 18–20 years with 30 in the exercise group and 30 in the non-exercise group. Modified Harvard step test was used to assess physical fitness index and perceived stress scale questionnaire to assess mental stress. Descriptive analysis and independent t-test were used for statistical analysis. Results: The study demonstrated higher physical fitness (P < 0.01) and lower mental stress levels (P < 0.01) in the exercising group when compared to the non-exercising group. Conclusion: There was better physical fitness and lower mental stress levels among the exercising group when compared with the non-exercising group.
RESUMO
Background: Cardiovascular fitness is directly related to the physical health of the person. Aerobic capacity (VO2max) is one of the major criteria to decide the cardiovascular fitness of an individual. To help quantify the fitness level by calculating their VO2max, there are various indirect maximal tests available but out of these, which one would predict VO2max better, is a major concern. Hence the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two indirect maximal tests i.e. Incremental Shuttle Run Test (ISRT) and Harvard’s Step Test (HST) on peak exercise performance in young healthy males.Methods: A cross-sectional study with purposive sampling was performed on healthy untrained 100 males of age group 18-25 years. Day 1 subjects performed ISRT on 20 m track and after a 48 hours rest period, on day 3 same subject performed Harvard’s step test. Pre and post-test parameters (Pulse rate, respiratory rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and RPE) were measured and predicted VO2max was calculated.Results: Post-test parameters i.e. PR, RR, SBP significantly increased (p=0.00*) by Harvard’s step test. The diastolic blood pressure did not change significantly (p=0.3) for both the tests. Rating of perceived exertion by both the test was of the range 17-19 (very hard to maximal). Calculated predicted VO2max was significantly more by ISRT than HST in males (p=0.00*).Conclusions: Incremental shuttle run test is more efficient in predicting VO2max than Harvard’s step test in healthy adult’s males.
RESUMO
Objetivo: establecer la calidad científica de las pruebas de campo utilizadas para calcular el consumo máximo de oxígeno (VO2max) en adultos sanos no entrenados. Materiales y métodos: se hizo una revisión sistemática de la literatura científica publicada en español, inglés y portugués, entre 1943 y 2013, sobre pruebas diagnósticas para calcular el VO2max por medio de pruebas de campo, con el propósito de sintetizar los resultados y establecer cuáles son las que mejor se correlacionan con la medición directa (ergoespirometría). Fueron consultadas las bases de datos MedLine, PubMed, ProQuest, Ovid, Hinari, Ebsco y BVS. Se siguieron las recomendaciones del Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2006. Resultados: inicialmente, 952 artículos, de los cuales después del proceso de descarte, se encontraron diez que cumplían con todos los requisitos. Las pruebas de campo analizadas que se correlacionan bien con el protocolo de laboratorio son el UMTT (1984) con r = 0,99, QCST y 1000m para hombres r = 0,95; el RWFT para hombres r = 0,93; 1,000m para mujeres y 1,5M r = 0,86; QCST para mujeres r = 0,83 y RWFT para mujeres r = 0,74; para adultos el UMTT r = 0,96 y 20m-SRT r=0,9. Conclusiones: dado el coeficiente de validez y el SEE, es posible utilizar pruebas de campo para calcular rápida y económicamente el VO2max en adultos sanos no entrenados. Según edad, sexo, condición física y patologías se recomiendan diferentes pruebas de campo.
Objective: To establish the scientific quality of the field tests used to calculate the maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max) in untrained healthy adults. Materials and methods: A systematic review of the scientific literature on diagnostic tests for calculating VO2max through field tests published between 1943 and 2013 in Spanish, English and Portuguese, , in order to synthesize the results and establish which are the best to correlate with direct measurement (ergospirometry). MedLine, PubMed, ProQuest, Ovid, Hinari, Ebsco and BVS databases were consulted. The recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2006 were followed. Results: Initially, 952 articles were found, after the elimination process was reached, ten of these met all requirements. Field tests analyzed to correlate well with the laboratory protocol are: UMTT (1984) r = 0.99, QCST and 1000m. men r = 0.95; RWFT men's r = 0.93; 1,000m. Women and 1.5M r = 0.86; QCST women r = 0.83 and RWFT for women r = 0.74, for adults UMTT r = 0.96 and 20m-SRT r = 0.9. Conclusions: Given the validity coefficient and the SEE, it is possible to use field tests to swiftly and economically calculate VO2max in untrained healthy adults. Different field tests are recommended according to age, gender, physical condition and pathologies.
Objetivo: Estabelecer a qualidade científica das provas de campo utilizadas para calcular o consumo máximo de oxigênio (VO2max) em adultos sãos não treinados. Materiais e métodos: se revisou sistematicamente a literatura científica publicada em espanhol, inglês e português, entre 1943 e 2013, sobre provas diagnósticas para calcular o VO2max através de provas de campo, com o propósito de sintetizar os resultados e estabelecer quais são as que melhor se correlacionam com a medição direta (ergoespirometria). Foram consultadas as bases de dados MedLine, PubMed, ProQuest, Ovid, Hinari, Ebsco e BVS. Seguiram-se as recomendações do Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2006. Resultados: Inicialmente 952 artigos, dos quais depois do processo de descarte encontramos dez que cumpriam com todos os requisitos. As provas de campo analisadas que se correlacionam bem com o protocolo de laboratório são: o UMTT (1984) com r = 0,99, QCST e 1000m para homens r = 0,95; o RWFT para homens r = 0,93; 1,000m para mulheres e 1,5M r = 0,86; QCST para mulheres r=0,83 e RWFT para mulheres r = 0,74; para adultos o UMTT r = 0,96 e 20m-SRT r = 0,9. Conclusões: Dado o coeficiente de validez e o SEE, é possível utilizar provas de campo para calcular rápida e economicamente o VO2max em adultos sãos não treinados. Segundo idade, sexo, condição física e patologias se recomendam diferentes provas de campo.