Exercise training comprising of single 20-s cycle sprints does not provide a sufficient stimulus for improving maximal aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals.

PURPOSE: Sprint interval training (SIT) provides a potent stimulus for improving maximal aerobic capacity ([Formula: see text]), which is among the strongest markers for future cardiovascular health and premature mortality. Cycling-based SIT protocols involving six or more 'all-out' 30-s Wingate sprints per training session improve [Formula: see text], but we have recently demonstrated that similar improvements in [Formula: see text] can be achieved with as few as two 20-s sprints. This suggests that the volume of sprint exercise has limited influence on subsequent training adaptations. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to examine whether a single 20-s cycle sprint per training session can provide a sufficient stimulus for improving [Formula: see text]. METHODS: Thirty sedentary or recreationally active participants (10 men/20 women; mean ± SD age: 24 ± 6 years, BMI: 22.6 ± 4.0 kg m(-2), [Formula: see text]: 33 ± 7 mL kg(-1) min(-1)) were randomised to a training group or a no-intervention control group. Training involved three exercise sessions per week for 4 weeks, consisting of a single 20-s Wingate sprint (no warm-up or cool-down). [Formula: see text] was determined prior to training and 3 days following the final training session. RESULTS: Mean [Formula: see text] did not significantly change in the training group (2.15 ± 0.62 vs. 2.22 ± 0.64 L min(-1)) or the control group (2.07 ± 0.69 vs. 2.08 ± 0.68 L min(-1); effect of time: P = 0.17; group × time interaction effect: P = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Although we have previously demonstrated that regularly performing two repeated 20-s 'all-out' cycle sprints provides a sufficient training stimulus for a robust increase in [Formula: see text], our present study suggests that this is not the case when training sessions are limited to a single sprint.

Midwifery negligence: a case study.

A professional health practitioner can be found in law to be liable to compensate clients when the practitioner causes harm to the client through a negligent act or omission. To date, most health-related litigation has been directed toward the medical profession. A minority of cases are taken against health institutions with respect to nursing and midwifery practice. In recent years there have been a few cases in England in which midwifery practice has been an issue. The purpose of this article is to report on one such case. It is important for all midwifery practitioners to be aware of the facts and circumstances in which midwives have been found to be negligent, and the way in which the courts have dealt with the matters in dispute.

Patient access to medical records.

The issue of, and access to, medical records has been a contentious matter for some years in Australia. The recent High Court decision of Breen v Williams has clarified the law nationwide. The High Court confirmed that the ownership of medical records is vested in the creator of the records. The High Court further held that a patient has no right at law to access his or her medical records in the absence of any statute granting such a right, or other legal process.

Refusal to consent: can it be ignored?

The common law has long recognised the right of competent adults to autonomy and self determination and this has been held to apply to the right to refuse medical and surgical treatment even when refusal could lead to severe detriment to the individual's life and health. Those who work with patients in a health profession can be faced with a refusal to consent to treatment when the best clinical opinion is that the treatment is appropriate and necessary, and considered to be in the patient's best interests. There have been no clear guidelines which health professionals can follow in deciding to treat or not treat in the presence of a patient's refusal. Where the patient continues to be competent there is an opportunity to take the matter up again with him or her as circumstances change. However, when the patient loses competence, a clinical dilemma arises. There are documented legal cases in which courts have authorized treatment of competent adults even when they have refused or are refusing treatment. Some of these cases involve saving the life of an unborn child. The question which arises is whether different principles apply when an unborn child is involved. To date most of the cases have been heard in North American courts. However, there have been two recent cases in England where courts have authorized treatment without consent when the subjects have apparently had the capacity to make a decision to refuse treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)