4.0 Article

Effects of Three Methods of Exercise Training on Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Obese Boys

期刊

IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

KOWSAR CORP
DOI: 10.5812/ijp.7145

关键词

Endurance Training; Resistance Training; Combined Training; Cardiovascular Risk Factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Current changing lifestyles of Iranians, especially in childhood, may affect the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of endurance, resistance, and combined training on cardiovascular risk factors in male obese children. Methods: Sixty male obese children (age 8 - 12 years, BMI between 30 - 35 kg and Z-score above + 2) were chosen randomly divided into four groups of exercise training: group I, endurance exercise training (EET); group II, resistance exercise training (RET); group III, combined exercise training (CET); group IV, controls (C). Exercise training programs were performed for eight weeks, 4 sessions per week, with the same intensity and duration in all types of exercise training groups. Blood samples were collected 24 and 48 hours before and after exercise training, respectively. Data were obtained in all groups and analyzed by repeated measurement and one way ANOVA using SPSS software (version 21). Results: Results indicated that fasting glucose, BMI, TC, TG, LDL, VLDL, TC/HDL, and LDL/HDL ratio decreased significantly and HDL increased in three types of exercise training compared to the control group (P < 0.001). The endurance training method compared to the resistance and combined training methods was more effective in improving these parameters. The three types of exercise training had no significant effect on the ankle-brachial index (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The three types of exercise training, especially endurance training method, decrease the risk factors for occurrence of cardiovascular diseases and health complications related to obesity in inactive male obese children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据