RESUMEN
Major depression disorder is a frequent psychiatric condition with serious consequences. Many patients don't respond to usual psychopharmacological and/or psychotherapeutic treatments. This observation has stimulated the research of alternative treatment options. Repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a recent therapeutic tool with few side effects. Its efficacy relies on stimulation of cortical networks through the application of a magnetic field on the skull. rTMS has been approved as a full therapeutic option for major depressive disorder by the FDA in 2008. It could therefore be routinely used in the future and complete the usual treatments in this condition. Our paper reviews what is currently known about the clinical use of rTMS in major depressive disorder.
Asunto(s)
Trastorno Depresivo Mayor/terapia , Estimulación Magnética Transcraneal , Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , Contraindicaciones , Trastorno Depresivo Mayor/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Estimulación Magnética Transcraneal/efectos adversos , Estimulación Magnética Transcraneal/estadística & datos numéricos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
The recently reported static stretching impairments found in adults have not been studied in youth. Furthermore, stretch-training effects on sprint performance are equivocal, hence the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of stretch and sprint training on the acute effects of static stretching in 13-15 year olds. A total of 48 students were randomly divided into a sprint only and a stretch and sprint training groups who performed static stretching at the beginning and middle of the speed training sessions (6 weeks). Flexibility tests and 30-m sprints were performed before and after training. Sprint performance was evaluated with and without prior stretching. A main effect indicated that prior static stretching impairs sprint times at 10 (P = 0.01) and 30 m (P = 0.0005). Both groups improved times over 10 (0.7%; P = 0.04) and 30-m (1.5%; P = 0.0007) sprint distance after training. Stretch and sprint trained participants were more resistant to stretch-induced sprint deficits with 3.2% (P < 0.0001), 3.6% (P = 0.0002) and 1.3% (P < 0.0001) faster times at 5, 10, and 30 m, respectively, than the sprint only group. In conclusion, a stretch and sprint training program in 13-15 year olds diminished the detrimental effects of static stretching compared to a sprint only training program.
Asunto(s)
Ejercicio Físico/fisiología , Articulaciones/fisiología , Ejercicios de Estiramiento Muscular , Músculo Esquelético/fisiología , Carrera , Adolescente , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Rango del Movimiento Articular , Análisis y Desempeño de Tareas , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study examined the association between dominant somatotype and the effect on aerobic capacity variables of individualised aerobic interval training. METHODS: Forty one white North African subjects (age 21.4+/-1.3 years; Vo2max = 52.8+/-5.7 ml kg(-1) min(-1)) performed three exercise tests 1 week apart (i) an incremental test on a cycle ergometer to determine Vo2max and Vo2 at the second ventilatory threshold (VT2); (ii) a VAM-EVAL track test to determine maximal aerobic speed (vVo2max); and (iii) an exhaustive constant velocity test to determine time limit performed at 100% vVo2max (tlim100). Subjects were divided into four somatometric groups: endomorphs-mesomorphs (Endo-meso; n = 9), mesomorphs (Meso; n = 11), mesomorphs-ectomorphs (Meso-ecto; n = 12), and ectomorphs (Ecto; n = 9). Subjects followed a 12 week training program (two sessions/week). Each endurance training session consisted of the maximal number of successive fractions for each subject. Each fraction consisted of one period of exercise at 100% of vVo2max and one of active recovery at 60% of vVo2max. The duration of each period was equal to half the individual tlim100 duration (153.6+/-39.7 s). After the training program, all subjects were re-evaluated for comparison with pre-test results. RESULTS: Pre- and post-training data were grouped by dominant somatotype. Two way ANOVA revealed significant somatotype-aerobic training interaction effects (p<0.001) for improvements in vVo2max, Vo2max expressed classically and according to allometric scaling, and Vo2 at VT2. There were significant differences among groups post-training: the Meso-ecto and the Meso groups showed the greatest improvements in aerobic capacity. CONCLUSION: The significant somatotype-aerobic training interaction suggests different trainability with intermittent and individualised aerobic training according to somatotype.
Asunto(s)
Ejercicio Físico/fisiología , Aptitud Física/fisiología , Somatotipos/fisiología , Adaptación Fisiológica/fisiología , Adulto , África del Norte/etnología , Análisis de Varianza , Prueba de Esfuerzo/métodos , Frecuencia Cardíaca/fisiología , Humanos , Consumo de Oxígeno/fisiología , Resistencia Física/fisiologíaRESUMEN
AIM: To examine the effects of the sequencing order of individualised intermittent endurance training combined with muscular strengthening on aerobic performance and capacity. METHODS: Forty eight male sport students (mean (SD) age 21.4 (1.3) years) were divided into five homogeneous groups according to their maximal aerobic speeds (vV*o2max). Four groups participated in various training programmes for 12 weeks (two sessions a week) as follows: E (n = 10), running endurance training; S (n = 9), strength circuit training; E+S (n = 10) and S+E (n = 10) combined the two programmes in a different order during the same training session. Group C (n = 9) served as a control. All the subjects were evaluated before (T0) and after (T1) the training period using four tests: (1) a 4 km time trial running test; (2) an incremental track test to estimate vV*o2max; (3) a time to exhaustion test (t(lim)) at 100% vV*o2max; (4) a maximal cycling laboratory test to assess V*o2max. RESULTS: Training produced significant improvements in performance and aerobic capacity in the 4 km time trial with interaction effect (p < 0.001). The improvements were significantly higher for the E+S group than for the E, S+E, and S groups: 8.6%, 5.7%, 4.7%, and 2.5% for the 4 km test (p < 0.05); 10.4%, 8.3%, 8.2%, and 1.6% for vV*o2max (p < 0.01); 13.7%, 10.1%, 11.0%, and 6.4% for V*o2max (ml/kg(0.75)/min) (p < 0.05) respectively. Similar significant results were observed for t(lim) and the second ventilatory threshold (%V*o2max). CONCLUSIONS: Circuit training immediately after individualised endurance training in the same session (E+S) produced greater improvement in the 4 km time trial and aerobic capacity than the opposite order or each of the training programmes performed separately.