<> "The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license."^^ . <> . . "Exercise intensity prescription in cancer survivors"^^ . "Thanks to the numerous positive effects of exercise (1-5) and its steadily growing importance in\r\nexercise oncology, exercise is recommended to all cancer survivors (CS) (3, 6-9). The existing\r\noncology exercise guidelines are based on the assumption that intensity specifications can be\r\ntransferred from healthy individuals to CS. However, it was shown that cardio-metabolic\r\nparameters used for intensity prescription may be altered in CS due to cancer treatment (10,\r\n11). So-called second-generation trials are demanded which compare the effects of different\r\ntraining prescriptions aiming at elaborating the optimal exercise prescription for CS (12).\r\nConsequently, before conducting the demanded studies, a fundamental question must first be\r\nclarified: “Is my selected dosage actually what it claims to be when I prescribe a certain intensity\r\nfor a cancer survivor?”. This was the leading question of this dissertation; Without its final\r\nclarification no progress can be made towards individualized training prescription. A precise\r\nintensity prescription is a prerequisite for eliciting the greatest possible training effects without\r\nprovoking training overload. The TOP study was the first to systematically investigate whether\r\ncurrently used methods of intensity prescription are reliable for its use in CS.\r\nThe main questions were (I) whether maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) as the major parameter\r\nused for intensity prescription, is actually attained by CS during a cardiopulmonary exercise test\r\n(CPET), (II) whether three different established methods for intensity prescription for endurance\r\nexercise are equally suitable for targeting a specific intensity zone, and (III) whether commonly\r\nused methods of intensity testing and prescription in resistance exercise are also valid in CS. The\r\nTOP study was designed to answer these research questions; The results were discussed in three\r\nmanuscripts which constitute the main body of this dissertation.\r\nI. Manuscript 1 (chapter 5) targets the question whether CS attain their true VO2max in a CPET.\r\nWe analyzed data from 75 CS who underwent a supramaximal verification test to confirm\r\nthe attainment of VO2max. We found that VO2max was not underestimated in the CPET on the\r\ngroup level, yet one third of CS did not attain their true VO2max. We concluded that the\r\nverification test appears feasible and beneficial for distinguishing between patients who\r\nattained their true VO2max and those who did not.\r\nII. In manuscript 2 (chapter 6) we evaluated whether threshold concepts might be useful\r\nsubmaximal alternatives to %VO2max in terms of meeting the vigorous intensity zone. We\r\ncompared physiological and psychological responses of three training sessions defined by\r\nAbstract\r\nIII\r\nthree different prescription methods: blood lactate (bLa) thresholds, ventilatory thresholds,\r\nand %VO2max as reference. The data showed that all intensity prescription methods met the\r\ntargeted intensity zone on average, however the session prescribed via bLa thresholds\r\nprovoked the most homogeneous bLa responses. Furthermore, not all CS were able to\r\ncomplete the training sessions, we therefore concluded that slightly lower percentages\r\nshould be chosen to improve durability of the training sessions.\r\nIII. Manuscript 3 (chapter 7) focused on whether different maximum strength tests yield\r\ncomparable results and are therefore applicable interchangeably. Maximal strength values\r\nderived from two indirect strength testing methods (h1-RM after Brzycki (13) and Epley\r\n(14)) were compared to one direct method of 1-RM determination, all performed at six\r\ndifferent resistance machines. The results vary between the different methods with the\r\noccurrence of both, over- and underestimation of patients’ strength performance. This\r\nshould be considered when training intensities are to be described based on maximal\r\nstrength values, and when comparing maximal strength data between studies using\r\ndifferent testing procedures. Moreover, we aimed to investigate the prediction accuracy for\r\ntargeting specific intensity zones in resistance exercise in CS, i.e., whether the achieved\r\nnumber of repetitions (NOR) corresponding to specific values of %1-RM/h1-RM were\r\naccurately predicted. We found in part extreme deviations between the targeted NOR and\r\nthe NOR actually performed. We conclude that the prediction accuracy of all test\r\nprocedures seems to be very poor for all tested strength training machines for the chosen\r\nintensities. The use of %1-RM/h1-RM for intensity prescription is therefore questionable for\r\nthis population.\r\nOur results demonstrate that currently used methods of exercise testing and prescription seem\r\nto have only limited applicability in CS. The overall conclusion for endurance exercise is that\r\nthreshold concepts seem to be suitable alternatives to %VO2max for intensity prescription, yet\r\nbLa thresholds should be favored if a defined metabolic strain is intended as this method evokes\r\nthe most homogeneous bLa response between individuals. Furthermore, a verification test\r\nseems necessary to ensure VO2max attainment, if percentages of VO2max are used for intensity\r\nprescription, or if the effect of a training intervention is evaluated based on changes of VO2max.\r\nRegarding resistance exercise, commonly used methods for testing are not safe (1-RM) or\r\nimprecise (h1-RM) which is also true when %1-RM/h1-RM is used for intensity prescription.\r\nAbstract\r\nIV\r\nDirectly approaching specified intensities might be an alternative method for intensity\r\nprescription in resistance training.\r\nA phenomenon that connects all three manuscripts is that the individual data show in part\r\nextreme interindividual variations which tell different stories than the group means. Therefore,\r\nspecial attention should be paid to interindividual variability when prescribing exercise for CS.\r\nThe choice of methods should fit the goals and possibilities of the patients. Subsequently,\r\nmaximum accuracy is warranted in the context of studies, whereas in practice, more inaccuracies\r\ncan be accepted, and the methods should be chosen accordingly. Independent of the setting,\r\nour results demonstrate that it is important not to blindly trust on calculated exercise intensity\r\nspecifications but to consider them as orientation. For this, it is important to closely monitor the\r\npatients for signs of over- or underload, to ensure maximum safety and adequate training\r\nstimulus at the same time.\r\nThere will and can never be one method that fits all. People are individuals and training should\r\nbe prescribed accordingly. The results presented in this dissertation contribute important\r\ninsights about the accuracy of different exercise testing as well as prescription methods, and\r\nfurther advance the field of personalized exercise oncology. However, they only represent a first\r\nstep in the still largely unresearched field of exercise prescription in CS and point to a need for\r\nfurther research."^^ . "2023" . . . . . . . "Justine"^^ . "Schneider"^^ . "Justine Schneider"^^ . . . . . . "Exercise intensity prescription in cancer survivors (PDF)"^^ . . . "Dissertation_JSchneider.pdf"^^ . . . "Exercise intensity prescription in cancer survivors (Other)"^^ . . . . . . "indexcodes.txt"^^ . . . "Exercise intensity prescription in cancer survivors (Other)"^^ . . . . . . "lightbox.jpg"^^ . . . "Exercise intensity prescription in cancer survivors (Other)"^^ . . . . . . "preview.jpg"^^ . . . "Exercise intensity prescription in cancer survivors (Other)"^^ . . . . . . "medium.jpg"^^ . . . "Exercise intensity prescription in cancer survivors (Other)"^^ . . . . . . "small.jpg"^^ . . "HTML Summary of #33847 \n\nExercise intensity prescription in cancer survivors\n\n" . "text/html" . .