↓ Skip to main content

Both aerobic endurance and strength training programmes improve cardiovascular health in obese adults

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Science, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
224 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
515 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Both aerobic endurance and strength training programmes improve cardiovascular health in obese adults
Published in
Clinical Science, October 2008
DOI 10.1042/cs20070332
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inga E. Schjerve, Gjertrud A. Tyldum, Arnt E. Tjønna, Tomas Stølen, Jan P. Loennechen, Harald E. M. Hansen, Per M. Haram, Garreth Heinrich, Anja Bye, Sonia M. Najjar, Godfrey L. Smith, Stig A. Slørdahl, Ole J. Kemi, Ulrik Wisløff

Abstract

Regular exercise training is recognized as a powerful tool to improve work capacity, endothelial function and the cardiovascular risk profile in obesity, but it is unknown which of high-intensity aerobic exercise, moderate-intensity aerobic exercise or strength training is the optimal mode of exercise. In the present study, a total of 40 subjects were randomized to high-intensity interval aerobic training, continuous moderate-intensity aerobic training or maximal strength training programmes for 12 weeks, three times/week. The high-intensity group performed aerobic interval walking/running at 85-95% of maximal heart rate, whereas the moderate-intensity group exercised continuously at 60-70% of maximal heart rate; protocols were isocaloric. The strength training group performed 'high-intensity' leg press, abdominal and back strength training. Maximal oxygen uptake and endothelial function improved in all groups; the greatest improvement was observed after high-intensity training, and an equal improvement was observed after moderate-intensity aerobic training and strength training. High-intensity aerobic training and strength training were associated with increased PGC-1alpha (peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor gamma co-activator 1alpha) levels and improved Ca(2+) transport in the skeletal muscle, whereas only strength training improved antioxidant status. Both strength training and moderate-intensity aerobic training decreased oxidized LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels. Only aerobic training decreased body weight and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, high-intensity aerobic interval training was better than moderate-intensity aerobic training in improving aerobic work capacity and endothelial function. An important contribution towards improved aerobic work capacity, endothelial function and cardiovascular health originates from strength training, which may serve as a substitute when whole-body aerobic exercise is contra-indicated or difficult to perform.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 515 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 1%
United States 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 493 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 102 20%
Student > Bachelor 102 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 12%
Researcher 40 8%
Student > Postgraduate 33 6%
Other 73 14%
Unknown 103 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 163 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 96 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 7%
Social Sciences 12 2%
Other 36 7%
Unknown 126 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 24 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,399,044
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Science
#75
of 2,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,439
of 89,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Science
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 89,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them