Final exam

Anonymous
timer Asked: Apr 7th, 2017

Step 1: Pick one of the four articles posted to Black Board and read it. Step 2: Answer the below questions about the article you read. Methodology The methodology of any research paper asks us to address the following items: • • • Study hypothesis Study population Sample size and statistical power Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me the study hypothesis, population, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the 3 points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Assignment The second component of the framework is assignment, or the selection of study participants for the study and control group(s). The three basic issues and key questions are as follows: • • • Process of assignment Confounding variables Masking Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me the process of assignment, confounding variables, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the 3 points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Assessment This is the measurement of outcomes or end points in the study group and in the control group. In order to assess the results of an investigation, researchers must define the outcome or end points they intend to measure. The assessment portion of research is considered valid when it fulfills these 3 criteria: • • • Measurement is Appropriate Measurement is Accurate Measurement is Precise Additionally, implementation of measurement or assessment should be: • • Complete Unaffected by the process Speak on each of the points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me about the measurement process and completeness, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Results The fourth component of the framework is where we perform statistical calculations on the raw data collected during the assessment phase. In this component, we address 3 key questions: • • • Estimation Inference Adjustment Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me the process of estimation, inference, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the 3 points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Interpretation The fifth component asks us to address questions about the meaning of the investigations results for those who participated in the investigation. The 3 questions/issues that can be addressed by interpretation are: • • • Contributory cause of efficacy Harms Subgroups Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me how the study demonstrated efficacy or looks at harms, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the 3 points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Extrapolation The final component asks what the results of the investigation tell us about individuals not included in the study and for situations not directly addressed by the study. When conducting extrapolation, we ask how the investigation applied the results to: • • • People similar to the average participant in the investigation Situations that go beyond the range of the study’s data Populations or settings that differ from those in the investigation Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text.
A C TA Obstetricia et Gynecologica AOGS M A I N R E SE A RC H A R TI C LE The efficacy of moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial KAROLINA PETROV FIERIL1, ANNA GLANTZ2 & MONIKA FAGEVIK OLSEN1 1 Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, and 2Antenatal Care, Primary Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden Key words Exercise, pregnancy, public health, randomized controlled trial Correspondence Karolina Petrov Fieril, N€ arh€ alsan, Rehabmottagning, Olskroken, 416 65 Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: karolina.fieril@vgregion.se Conflict of interest The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. Please cite this article as: Petrov Fieril K, Glantz A, Fagevik Olsen M. The efficacy of moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94: 35–42. Received: 14 April 2014 Accepted: 29 September 2014 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12525 Abstract Objectives. To assess the effect and safety of moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise during pregnancy. Design. Randomized controlled study. Setting. Two antenatal clinics in Gothenburg, Sweden. Population. Ninety-two healthy pregnant women. Methods. The intervention was administered during gestational weeks 14–25. The intervention group received supervised resistance exercise twice a week, performed at an activity level equivalent to within moderate-tovigorous (n = 51). The control group received generalized exercise recommendation, a home-based training program and a telephone follow up (n = 41). Main outcome measures. Health-related quality of life, physical strength, pain, weight, blood pressure, functional status, activity level, and perinatal data. Results. Functional status deteriorated during the intervention in both groups and pain increased. Significant differences between the groups were obtained only for birthweight. Newborns delivered by women who underwent resistance exercise during pregnancy were significantly heavier than those born to control women; 3561 (452) g vs. 3251 (437) g (p = 0.02), a difference that disappeared when adjustment was made for gestational age (p = 0.059). Both groups showed normal health-related quality of life, blood pressure, and perinatal data. Conclusions. These findings indicate that supervised, moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise does not jeopardize the health status of healthy pregnant women or the fetus during pregnancy, but instead appears to be an appropriate form of exercise in healthy pregnancy. BP, blood pressure; DRI, disability rating index; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; HRQoL, health-related quality of life; RCT, randomized controlled trials; SF-36, Short Form-36 Health Survey. Abbreviations: Introduction Maintaining a physically active lifestyle is associated with many benefits, including lower risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, some types of cancer, and depression (1). Exercise is defined as a planned, structured, and repetitive subset of physical activity that improves or maintains physical fitness, overall health or well-being as an intended intermediate or final objective (2). Pregnant, healthy women are recommended to do 30 min or more of light to moderate exercise a day on most, if not all, days of the week (3,4). Exercise during pregnancy is associated with reduced back pain (5), improved health perception (6), and weight gain control Key Message Supervised regular, moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise has no adverse effect on childbirth outcome, pain, or blood pressure. Further investigation into the use of resistance exercise during pregnancy is needed. ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 35 Resistance exercise during pregnancy (7). In the literature investigations have reported on the effect of aerobic exercise when adopted in pregnancy. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCT) have, however, examined the efficacy and safety of resistance exercise during pregnancy (8–10). One study found resistance exercise performed with an elastic band effective in improving glycaemic control in women with gestation diabetes mellitus (GDM) (9). No adverse impact on the delivery (10), or the newborn has been seen (8). Hence, in their review Nascimento et al. (11) suggested adding resistance exercise to the exercise recommendations. Although the exercise recommendations do not provide specific guidance for vigorous intensity exercise (3,4), Nascimento et al. (11) suggested that their results supported the promotion of moderate-to-vigorous prenatal exercise. Ruchat et al. (12) concluded that a walking program of vigorous intensity is safe and beneficial to both the mother and fetus, and also promotes decline in glucose concentrations among women at risk of GDM (13). In a prospective study Jukic et al. found an association between first-trimester vigorous exercise and longer gestation, and reduced risk of preterm births (14). To the best of our knowledge, no RCT has been conducted that studies prenatal resistance exercise at moderate-to-vigorous intensity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the health effect and safety of moderate-to-vigorous intensity resistance exercise when free weights are used by healthy women during pregnancy, with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain location, physical strength, body weight gain, blood pressure (BP), functional status, activity level, and childbirth outcomes. Material and methods Participants for this study were recruited from February 2006 through November 2006, and from September 2008 through April 2009, all from two antenatal clinics in Gothenburg, Sweden. Background variables did not significantly differ in between the two study periods. The participants were verbally informed about the study by midwives or they received written information available at the antenatal clinic. Those interested in participating contacted the research coordinator. The criteria of inclusion were: (i) Pregnancy <14 weeks of gestation; (ii) single pregnancy; (iii) absence of medical or obstetric diseases; (iv) ability to understand verbal and written Swedish. Criteria of exclusion followed the recommendation regarding contraindications according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (4). Approximately 1500 pregnant women had been registered at the antenatal clinics at that time (99% of Swedish women receiving combined obstetric and midwifery 36 K. Petrov Fieril et al. care have their deliveries in the public health system, via antenatal clinics) (15). Of 116 women willing to participate, 24 were excluded for either twin pregnancy or being ≥14 weeks of gestation. Hence, 92 women were included (Figure 1). The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board at the University of Gothenburg (D No. 353-05) and registered in the Research and Development Center in Sweden (registration number VGFOUGSB-4388). Written informed consent for participation was obtained from each participant. The CONSORT guidelines were followed while conducting the study. The women were enrolled at gestational week 13, at which time the research coordinator (physiotherapist) met with each and provided them with general exercise recommendations and a home training program. Participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group (allocation ratio 1:1). The research coordinator performed the randomization by using opaque sealed envelopes, which were randomly picked out before the meeting with each participant. All data were collected at a primary health care location by an investigator (physiotherapist) who was blinded to participant group status. The intervention group practised high-repetition, resistance training twice a week for 12 weeks (pregnancy weeks 14–25), performed using light barbells [1–10 lbs (0.45–4.5 kg)] and weight plates [2.5– 10 lbs (1.1–4.5 kg)], which was carried out while listening to music in a supervised (by the research coordinator) group exercise setting (16). The exercises were selfadjusted to each woman’s condition of pregnancy and performed at a self-estimated, moderate to vigorous intensity (17). Each session was 60 min long, including warm-up and wind-down. All major muscle groups were trained repeatedly (50–80 repetitions for each muscle group) during 3–5 min, including shorter breaks. The training was inspired by BODYPUMPTM (16) but adjusted to pregnant women: warm-up and relaxation periods were extended a few more minutes, squat jumps were exchanged for heel raises, the squats were less deep and the abdominal training was exchanged for pelvic-lift and static-abdominal training. All such training was performed with good form for trunk- and pelvic-floor muscle control and these were supervised by the research coordinator. Besides this training, additional exercises were recommended to the participants, including walking, bicycling, water-gymnastics, Pilates, yoga and resistance exercises. Compliance was defined as participation in at least two-thirds of all training sessions. Control group participants received general exercise recommendations during pregnancy and were informed of appropriate exercise and exercise frequency. Additionally, they were given written guidance and instruction on ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 K. Petrov Fieril et al. Resistance exercise during pregnancy Assessed for eligibility (n = 116) Excluded (n = 24) ♦ Not meeting inclusion criteria (n = 24) Enrollment Randomized (n = 92) Allocation Allocated to intervention group (n = 51) ♦ Received allocated intervention (n = 51) Allocated to control group (n = 41) ♦ Received allocated intervention (n = 41) Lost to follow up (n = 13) Lost to follow up (n = 7) Discontinued intervention (timeconstraints)(n = 5) Change of work (n = 2) Personal reasons (n = 1) Moving from town (= 1) Dislocated placenta (n = 1) Discomfort during exercise (n = 1) Pelvic girdle pain (n = 1) Miscarriage (n = 1) Follow up Not motivated (n = 3) Personal reasons (n = 2) Moving from town (n = 1) Miscarriage (n = 1) Analysis Analysed (n = 38) ♦ Excluded from analysis (n = 0) Analysed (n = 34) ♦ Excluded from analysis (n = 0) Figure 1. Flow diagram summarizing the study design. a general training program containing home exercises suitable for pregnancy, including pelvic-floor muscle training. They were offered a free visit to a physiotherapist if desired. Exercises were recommended to the control participants, including walking, bicycling, watergymnastics, Pilates, yoga and resistance exercises. In pregnancy week-18 the research coordinator contacted the controls by telephone for follow up. Before and after the intervention the participants filled in questionnaires and performed the following tests: HRQoL was measured using the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36; Swedish Acute Version 1.0) (18) SF-36 comprises 36 items, 35 of which are arranged in eight physical and mental health scales, and one being a self report of health change. Scores may be obtained ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores positively correlate with higher levels of functioning. The eight sub-scales are: (i) physical functioning; (ii) role, physical; (iii) bodily pain; (iv) general health; (v) vitality; (vi) social functioning; (vii) role, emotional; and (viii) mental health. Pain was measured using a graphic (drawings) depiction of body locations, upon which the participant would localize the area of pain. Scores were assigned to indicate the presence or absence of pain in each of 45 body areas (19). Five areas located to the lower back and pelvis were selected for analysis. Hand-grip isometric strength was defined as the peak, voluntary, hand-grip force applied using the Grippit electronic hand-grip strength detector (GrippitAB, Gothenburg, Sweden), administered in accordance with standard laboratory protocol (20). Grip strength correlates with upper extremity strength (21). Weight gain and BP were obtained from medical records at the perinatal clinic, Primary Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden. Weight gain was measured in kilograms, wearing clothes but with no shoes. Functional status was measured by the Disability Rating Index (DRI) and recorded on a visual analogue scale, i.e. a self-estimation scale from 0 to 100, where 0 indicated no restricted activity and 100 indicated inability to perform the activity. The DRI includes 12 items that measure functions, including: dressing, outdoor walks, climbing stairs, sitting for a longer time, standing bent over a sink, carrying a bag, making bed, running, light physical activity, heavy physical activity, lifting heavy objects and participating in exercises/sports. During the intervention period all of the participants kept a structured diary of daily physical activity, according to the ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 37 Resistance exercise during pregnancy K. Petrov Fieril et al. Table 1. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics; mean values  SD or n (%). Baseline demographics Maternal age, mean (SD) Education, years at school, mean (SD) Prepregnancy body mass index, mean (SD) Activity level pregnancy week 13 (min/day), mean (SD) Walking Moderate Vigorous Primipara, n (%) Marital status, n (%) Married/ cohabiting, n (%) Smoking, n (%) Taking snuff, n (%) Intervention group (n = 38) Control group (n = 34) p-value 30.8 (3.6) 30.6 (3.4) 0.77 15.4 (1.79) 16.3 (1.8) 0.07 The participants estimated the number of minutes per day that they had performed the different activities. Perinatal data, including birthweight, birth length, gestational age at time of delivery and cesarean section rates were obtained from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital’s perinatal records. Statistical analysis 22.6 (2.5) 23.0 (2.6) 0.50 52 11.7 1.1 28 47 18.3 1.2 28 0.68 0.12 0.89 0.52 (47) (14.8) (3.2) (74) 38 (100) 1 (2.5) 1 (2.5) (58) (20.7) (4.3) (82) 33 (97) – – 0.47 0.52 0.52 short form of International Physical Activity Questionnaire (22). Each activity was divided into “vigorous intensity”, “moderate intensity”, “walking” and “sedentary”. The sample size calculation was calculated on a difference in HRQoL measured by SF-36. To detect a clinically significant difference between groups with 80% power and at the 5% significance level, and a difference between groups of 10 units, 40 participants were needed in each group. Group-mean differences in physical strength, body mass index, BP, activity level, birthweight, birth length, and gestational age were analyzed by the Student’s t-test or chi-squared test using statistical software SPSS version 22.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). Subgroup scores in SF-36 and DRI were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U-test. Birthweights adjusted for gestational week were converted to Z-scores. A p-value <0.05 (two-tailed) was defined as significant. Only participants who fully completed the trial according to the protocol were considered compliant and analyzed. Ninety-two women met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled (Figure 1). No significant differences in background characteristics were found between the group of women who dropped out and those for whom complete Figure 2. Group differences in Quality of Life (SF-36) between gestational weeks 13 and 25, respectively, Intervention group (n = 38) and Control group (n = 34). Abbreviations: PF, Physical Functioning; RP, Role Physical; BP, Bodily Pain; GH, General Health; VT, Vitality; SF, Social Functioning; RE, Role Emotional; MH, Mental Health. 38 ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 K. Petrov Fieril et al. data were obtained, up to and including gestational week 25. Sixty percent of the women in the intervention group estimated their own resistance exercise as “vigorous” and 40% rated their exercise as “moderate” intensity. The mean attendance rate in the intervention group was 80% (67–100%). Results The group means for the intervention group and control group did not significantly differ on multiple variables, including: age, education, parity, pre-pregnancy body mass index, physical activity, marital status, and tobacco status (Table 1). HRQoL did not differ between the intervention group and controls (Figure 2), neither number of women with back pain nor those with pelvic pain (Table 2). Group-means scores for peak voluntary strength, weight gain, BP, and activity level did not differ significantly (Table 2). As shown in Figure 3, no significant differences were found between the groups in physical functioning, measured by the DRI. Birthweights were significantly higher in the intervention (x ̅I = 3561  452 g) compared with the control group (x ̅c = 3251  437 g; p = 0.02). However, when adjusted for gestational age, this difference did not remain (p = 0.059). The mean birth length was 50.7 (2.1) cm in the intervention group and 49.4 (2.6) in controls (p = 0.10), and gestational age was 280.1 (12.5) days in the intervention group and 276.7 (7.7) among controls (p = 0.16). There were no differences in cesarean section rates. In each group, five women had a cesarean section: 14% and 15% in the intervention group and the control group, respectively. Discussion Benefits of resistance exercise for adults are well-known (23), but in pregnancy women are recommended to proceed with caution, particularly when exercise is performed at moderate or vigorous levels (3,4). The present study indicates that supervised regular, moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise performed twice a week does not adversely impact childbirth outcome, pain, or BP. However, it is important to note that physical and emotional status changes accompany pregnancy, including a decrease in functional status and an increase in pain, whether one does resistance exercise or not. The intervention did not have any significant impact on HRQoL. Previous studies were inconclusive. Barakat et al. reported improved health self-perception, a component of HRQoL, among previously sedentary pregnant women (6). However, other studies failed to show a significant increase in HRQoL among exercising, overweight/obese Resistance exercise during pregnancy Table 2. Pain, peak voluntary strength, weight, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure. Outcome Intervention group (n = 38) Control group (n = 34) Pain, n (%) Gw 13 12 (31%) 12 (36%) Gw 25 22 (58%) 21 (52%) Peak voluntary strength, mean (SD) Left hand Gw 13 311 (47) 309 (58) Gw 25 317 (52) 311 (55) Right hand Gw13 338 (46) 342 (58) Gw25 344 (54) 248 (67) Weight Gw13 66.5 (9.3) 65.0 (10.3) Gw25 72.7 (9.2) 70.5 (11.0) Systolic blood pressure Gw13 109 (18.8) 111 (10.5) Gw25 112 (8.8) 112 (9.7) Diastolic blood pressure Gw13 66.2 (8.3) 63.7 (7.7) Gw25 65.7 (8.2) 63.4 (7.8) Activity level Walking Gw13 52 (47) 47 (58) Gw25 118 (109) 79 (76) Moderate Gw13 11.7 (14.8) 18.3 (20.7) Gw25 15.8 (12.9) 16.8 (15.4) Vigorous Gw13 1.1 (3.2) 1.2 (4.3) Gw25 11.2 (26.9) 4.6 (7.1) Sedentary Gw13 316 (196) 366 (170) Gw25 372 (171) 384 (171) p-value CI 0.40 0.52 0.92 0.65 25.8 to 23.2 31.2 to 19.4 0.73 0.69 20.7 to 28.1 24.3 to 32.8 0.61 0.80 6.1 to 3.1 6.7 to 2.6 0.39 0.56 5.1 to 9.2 4.7 to 4.0 0.35 0.56 6.23 to 1.28 6.02 to 1.52 0.68 0.08 0.12 0.76 29.6 to 19.4 83.6 to 5.1 1.73 to 14.99 5.60 to 7.61 0.89 0.15 1.88 to 1.64 15.9 to 2.78 0.25 0.77 35.9 to 136.2 68.8 to 92.7 Mean values  SD and confidence interval (CI) or n (%). Gw, gestational week. women (24), or pregnant women performing water gymnastic training (25). The participants self-rate the intensity of their resistance exercise as moderate-to-vigorous; few RCTs with pregnant women have exercised to such a vigorous level of intensity. Remarkably, these results show no adverse effects on the course of pregnancy or the health status of offspring (12–14). In our study, birthweight in the intervention group was higher than that of those born to control women, but when adjusted for gestational age this was not significant. In the body of literature we found inconsistent results on exercise and birthweight. Exercise may reduce the risk of low birthweight outcome (26) leading to a hypothesis that exercise enhances growth in the feto–placental unit and reduces the risk of preterm ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 39 Resistance exercise during pregnancy K. Petrov Fieril et al. Figure 3. Group differences in Disability Rating Index between gestational weeks 13 and 25, respectively, Intervention group (n = 38) and Control group (n = 34). birth (14). Additionally, though in contrast, Jukic et al. reported that women who performed exercise tended to have lighter babies (14). A few RCTs have studied resistance training during pregnancy. Light-to-moderate resistance training seems to be effective in improving glycaemic control in women with GDM (9), and does not adversely impact the type of delivery (10) or the health status of offspring (8). The present study corroborates this, supporting the finding that higher intensity resistance training is appropriate as a prenatal exercise. Back and pelvic pain are common during pregnancy. Pennick and Liddle concluded from their review that more than two-thirds of pregnant women experience back pain and almost one-fifth experience pelvic pain (27). One might be apprehensive about performing weight-bearing exercise with barbell and weight-plates because this could negatively impact pelvic girdle pain and lumbar pain. However, the present study shows that women from both intervention and control groups reported back and pelvic pain equally as often. In a large RCT, Stafne et al. (28) concluded that prenatal exercise does not modify the risk of low back pelvic pain, although the women they studied who regularly exercised seemed to handle the disorders in a better way. Pregnancy in itself is dynamic, of course, in many respects. This presents a methodological challenge, and it is hard to determine a baseline for many of the variables under study. The SF-36 measures physical and mental health functioning along eight dimensions, but these are 40 conditions that change naturally as pregnancy progresses (29). This underscores the benefit of carrying out RCTs. A limitation in the present study may be the small sample size: though our power analysis led us to choose 80 participants, the effect size in our instruments may have been underestimated, which is a possible explanation for not finding significant differences in most of the obstetric and perinatal outcomes (type 2 error). Another limitation is that both groups exhibited a relatively high level of physical activity, including that both groups were physically active at baseline, which may explain why no significant difference was found between the groups. For instance, Price et al. (30) showed that in comparison with pregnant women who remain sedentary during the gestation period, active pregnant women improve muscular strength and fitness. An alternative approach might have been to study sedentary women, or women with some kind of disability, such as back pain, obesity, GDM or reduced HRQoL, to examine group differences. Future studies might examine the efficacy of regular resistance training among pregnant women with poorer HRQoL, back pain, GDM or women sedentary at baseline. Another limitation is the potential bias associated with the high drop-out rate, as 20 of 92 participants did not complete the intervention. During pregnancy unforeseen things do occur, including miscarriage, as occurred once in each of the groups in this study. Another woman in the intervention group dropped out due to ‘discomfort during exercise’, in her case while doing squats, a lower ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 K. Petrov Fieril et al. body resistance movement. Good trunk- and pelvic-floor muscle control is very important during moderate-to-vigorous exercise in pregnancy, especially during exercises when the hip is in flexion and a heavier load is placed on pelvic floor muscles and cervix (for example squats or cycling in a forward leaning position). Since the study comprised women who were volunteers and motivated to participate in an exercise program during pregnancy, the result may not be generalizable to other populations. Additionally, the women were used to doing exercise, ranging from regular walks to vigorous exercise. In comparison with the background population, these women were also highly educated and had a low body mass index. We consider that supervised, self-rated moderate-tovigorous resistance training does not jeopardize the pregnant woman or the fetus in healthy pregnancy, although pregnant women should follow the exercise recommendations and start at an exercise level corresponding to lightto-moderate (3,4). Within our knowledge, this is the first study to examine moderate to vigorous resistance training. In a review, Nascimento et al. (11) recommend moderate-to-high-intensity exercise for active women. Noting that no upper level of safe exercise intensity has been established (3, 4), this study warrants further investigation into the use of resistance exercise during pregnancy, to advance arguments toward new recommendations regarding appropriate exercise activity and intensity in healthy pregnancy. Conclusion The results of this study indicate that supervised, moderate-to-vigorous resistance training does not jeopardize the pregnant women or the fetus during pregnancy, but instead appears to be an appropriate form of exercise in healthy pregnancy. Resistance exercise during pregnancy 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Funding 14. This study was financially supported by the Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren’s Research Foundation, IRIS Stipendiet, the Renee Eander fund, the local Research and Development Center of Gothenburg and South Bohusl€an, and from Research and Development Primary health Care of Gothenburg (clinical trial registration number 2021). 15. References 1. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2010. 2. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and 16. distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100:126–31. Wolfe LA, Davies GA. Canadian guidelines for exercise in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;46:488–95. ACOG Committee opinion. Number 267, January 2002: exercise during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:171–3. Garshasbi A, Faghih Zadeh S. The effect of exercise on the intensity of low back pain in pregnant women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;88:271–5. Barakat R, Pelaez M, Montejo R, Luaces M, Zakynthinaki M. Exercise during pregnancy improves maternal health perception: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:402 e1–7. Lamina S, Agbanusi E. Effect of aerobic exercise training on maternal weight gain in pregnancy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2013;23:59–64. Barakat R, Lucia A, Ruiz JR. Resistance exercise training during pregnancy and newborn’s birth size: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Obes (Lond). 2009;33:1048–57. de Barros MC, Lopes MA, Francisco RP, Sapienza AD, Zugaib M. Resistance exercise and glycemic control in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:556 e1–6. Barakat R, Ruiz JR, Stirling JR, Zakynthinaki M, Lucia A. Type of delivery is not affected by light resistance and toning exercise training during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:590 e1–6. Nascimento SL, Surita FG, Cecatti JG. Physical exercise during pregnancy: a systematic review. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24:387–94. Ruchat SM, Davenport MH, Giroux I, Hillier M, Batada A, Sopper MM, et al. Walking program of low or vigorous intensity during pregnancy confers an aerobic benefit. Int J Sports Med. 2012;33:661–6. Ruchat SM, Davenport MH, Giroux I, Hillier M, Batada A, Sopper MM, et al. Effect of exercise intensity and duration on capillary glucose responses in pregnant women at low and high risk for gestational diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012;28:669–78. Jukic AM, Evenson KR, Daniels JL, Herring AH, Wilcox AJ, Hartmann KE. A prospective study of the association between vigorous physical activity during pregnancy and length of gestation and birthweight. Matern Child Health J. 2012;16:1031–44. McKey S. Models of midwifery care: Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands. In: van Teijlingen E, Lowis G, McCaffery P, Porter M (eds). Midwifery and the medicalization of child birth: Comparative perspectives. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc, 2004. pp. 158. Greco CC, Oliveira AS, Pereira MP, Figueira TR, Ruas VD, Goncalves M, et al. Improvements in metabolic and neuromuscular fitness after 12-week Bodypump training. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25:3422–31. ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 41 Resistance exercise during pregnancy 17. Borg G, Linderholm H. Exercise performance and perceived exertion in patients with coronary insufficiency, arterial hypertension and vasoregulatory asthenia. Acta Med Scand. 1970;187:17–26. 18. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE Jr. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey-I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1349–58. 19. Margolis RB, Tait RC, Krause SJ. A rating system for use with patient pain drawings. Pain. 1986;24:57–65. 20. Nilsen T, Hermann M, Eriksen CS, Dagfinrud H, Mowinckel P, Kjeken I. Grip force and pinch grip in an adult population: reference values and factors associated with grip force. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19:288–96. 21. Bohannon RW. Hand-grip dynamometry provides a valid indication of upper extremity strength impairment in home care patients. J Hand Ther. 1998;11:258–60. 22. Mader U, Martin BW, Schutz Y, Marti B. Validity of four short physical activity questionnaires in middle-aged persons. Med Sci Sports Exer. 2006;38:1255–66. 23. Cornelissen VA, Fagard RH, Coeckelberghs E, Vanhees L. Impact of resistance training on blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Hypertension. 2011;58:950–8. 42 K. Petrov Fieril et al. 24. Nascimento SL, Surita FG, Parpinelli MA, Siani S, Pinto e Silva JL. The effect of an antenatal physical exercise programme on maternal/perinatal outcomes and quality of life in overweight and obese pregnant women: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG. 2011;118: 1455–63. 25. Vallim AL, Osis MJ, Cecatti JG, Baciuk EP, Silveira C, Cavalcante SR. Water exercises and quality of life during pregnancy. Reprod Health. 2011;8:14. 26. Leiferman JA, Evenson KR. The effect of regular leisure physical activity on birth outcomes. Matern Child Health J. 2003;7:59–64. 27. Pennick V, Liddle SD. Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;8:CD001139. 28. Stafne SN, Salvesen KA, Romundstad PR, Stuge B, Morkved S. Does regular exercise during pregnancy influence lumbopelvic pain? A randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:552–9. 29. Hueston WJ, Kasik-Miller S. Changes in functional health status during normal pregnancy. J Fam Pract. 1998;47:209– 12. 30. Price BB, Amini SB, Kappeler K. Exercise in pregnancy: effect on fitness and obstetric outcomes-a randomized trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:2263–9. ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 Copyright of Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is the property of WileyBlackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors