Endurance athletes integrate four conditioning concepts in their training programs: high-volume training (HVT), ‘threshold-training’ (THR), high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and a combination of these aforementioned concepts known as polarized training (POL). The purpose of this study was to explore which of these four training concepts provides the greatest response on key components of endurance performance in well-trained endurance athletes. Methods: Forty eight runners, cyclists, triathletes and cross-country skiers (peak oxygen uptake: (VO2peak): 62.6±7.1 mL∙min-1∙kg-1) were randomly assigned to one of four groups performing over nine weeks. An incremental test, work economy and a VO2peak tests were performed. Training intensity was heart rate controlled. Results: POL demonstrated the greatest increase in VO2peak (+6.8 ml∙min∙kg-1 or 11.7%, P0.05). Conclusion: POL resulted in the greatest improvements in most key variables of endurance performance in well-trained endurance athletes. THR or HVT did not lead to further improvements in performance related variables.

Athletes adapt their training daily to optimize performance, as well as avoid fatigue, overtraining and other undesirable effects on their health. To optimize training load, each athlete must take his/her own personal objective and subjective characteristics into consideration and an increasing number of wearable technologies (wearables) provide convenient monitoring of various parameters. Accordingly, it is important to help athletes decide which parameters are of primary interest and which wearables can monitor these parameters most effectively. Here, we discuss the wearable technologies available for non-invasive monitoring of various parameters concerning an athlete’s training and health. On the basis of these considerations, we suggest directions for future development. Furthermore, we propose that a combination of several wearables is most effective for accessing all relevant parameters, disturbing the athlete as little as possible, and optimizing performance and promoting health.

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Background: Physical activity reduces the incidences of noncommunicable diseases, obesity, and mortality, but an inactive lifestyle is becoming increasingly common. Innovative approaches to monitor and promote physical activity are warranted. While individual monitoring of physical activity aids in the design of effective interventions to enhance physical activity, a basic prerequisite is that the monitoring devices exhibit high validity. Objective: Our goal was to assess the validity of monitoring heart rate (HR) and energy expenditure (EE) while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity with 4 popular wrist-worn wearables (Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa). Methods: While wearing the 4 different wearables, 25 individuals performed 5 minutes each of sitting, walking, and running at different velocities (ie, 1.1 m/s, 1.9 m/s, 2.7 m/s, 3.6 m/s, and 4.1 m/s), as well as intermittent sprints. HR and EE were compared to common criterion measures: Polar-H7 chest belt for HR and indirect calorimetry for EE. Results: While monitoring HR at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.09-0.62, 0.13-0.88, 0.62-1.24, and 0.47-1.94 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 0.9%-4.3%, 2.2%-6.7%, 2.9%-9.2%, and 4.1%-19.1%, respectively, for the 4 wearables. While monitoring EE at different exercise intensities, the standardized typical errors of the estimates were 0.34-1.84, 0.32-1.33, 0.46-4.86, and 0.41-1.65 for the Apple Watch Series 4, Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, respectively. Depending on exercise intensity, the corresponding coefficients of variation were 13.5%-27.1%, 16.3%-28.0%, 15.9%-34.5%, and 8.0%-32.3%, respectively. Conclusions: The Apple Watch Series 4 provides the highest validity (ie, smallest error rates) when measuring HR while sitting or performing light-to-vigorous physical activity, followed by the Polar Vantage V, Garmin Fenix 5, and Fitbit Versa, in that order. The Apple Watch Series 4 and Polar Vantage V are suitable for valid HR measurements at the intensities tested, but HR data provided by the Garmin Fenix 5 and Fitbit Versa should be interpreted with caution due to higher error rates at certain intensities. None of the 4 wrist-worn wearables should be employed to monitor EE at the intensities and durations tested.

To compare the effects of a 3‐week multimodal rehabilitation involving supervised high‐intensity interval training (HIIT) on female breast cancer survivors with respect to key variables of aerobic fitness, body composition, energy expenditure, cancer‐related fatigue, and quality of life to those of a standard multimodal rehabilitation program. A randomized controlled trial design was administered. Twenty‐eight women, who had been treated for cancer were randomly assigned to either a group performing exercise of low‐to‐moderate intensity (LMIE; n = 14) or a group performing high‐intensity interval training (HIIT; n = 14) as part of a 3‐week multimodal rehabilitation program. No adverse events related to the exercise were reported. Work economy improved following both HIIT and LMIE, with improved peak oxygen uptake following LMIE. HIIT reduced mean total body fat mass with no change in body mass, muscle or fat‐free mass (best P < 0.06). LMIE increased muscle and total fat‐free body mass. Total energy expenditure (P = 0.45) did not change between the groups, whereas both improved quality of life to a similar high extent and lessened cancer‐related fatigue. This randomized controlled study demonstrates that HIIT can be performed by female cancer survivors without adverse health effects. Here, HIIT and LMIE both improved work economy, quality of life and cancer‐related fatigue, body composition or energy expenditure. Since the outcomes were similar, but HIIT takes less time, this may be a time‐efficient strategy for improving certain aspects of the health of female cancer survivors.

With great interest, we1 have been following the growing popularity of non-invasive wearable sensor technology as a way to increase physical performance, assist recovery or monitor health. These sensors, integrated into clothing worn on the body, are often referred to as ‘wearables’ or ‘wearable technology’. The popularity of the wearables is mainly due to three recent advances: (1) miniature sensor technology,1 (2) telemetric transfer and (web-based) storage of personal data and (3) extension of battery life. According to a worldwide survey of fitness trends, wearable technology appears set to be the number 1 trend in 2017,2 with expected sales for some wearables in the range of 1.5–2.6 billion US$.2 We believe that this type of technology will be a central tool in the fitness and health industry, provided some fundamental issues …