| Title |
Progressive Resistance Training in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Can Pumping Iron Improve Clinical Outcomes?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-014-0206-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Birinder S. Cheema, Lisa Vizza, Soji Swaraj |
| Abstract |
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine disorder and cause of subfertility in women. The etiology of PCOS has not been fully elucidated; however, insulin resistance has been shown to exacerbate the disease process due to its effect on androgen synthesis. Progressive resistance training (PRT) is an anabolic exercise modality that can improve skeletal muscle size and quality (metabolic capacity), and studies have consistently shown that PRT can increase insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes and other cohorts. However, PRT is not currently recommended or routinely prescribed in PCOS. The objective of this article was to provide a rationale for the application of PRT in the management and treatment of PCOS. This will be accomplished by (1) overviewing the pathophysiology of PCOS with emphasis on the etiological role of insulin resistance; (2) summarizing the effectiveness of PRT in treating insulin resistance; (3) presenting evidence that PRT is feasible to prescribe in women with PCOS; and (4) providing general recommendations for PRT to complement existing guidelines for aerobic training in this cohort. We also provide recommendations for future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 102 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 23% |
| Sports and Recreations | 20 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 25 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 October 2014.
All research outputs
#3,526,574
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,641
of 2,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,329
of 226,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#38
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 50.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.