Jump up ^ Olsen CM (December 2011). "Natural rewards, neuroplasticity, and non-drug addictions". Neuropharmacology. 61 (7): 1109–1122. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.03.010. PMC 3139704. PMID 21459101. Similar to environmental enrichment, studies have found that exercise reduces self-administration and relapse to drugs of abuse (Cosgrove et al., 2002; Zlebnik et al., 2010). There is also some evidence that these preclinical findings translate to human populations, as exercise reduces withdrawal symptoms and relapse in abstinent smokers (Daniel et al., 2006; Prochaska et al., 2008), and one drug recovery program has seen success in participants that train for and compete in a marathon as part of the program (Butler, 2005). ... In humans, the role of dopamine signaling in incentive-sensitization processes has recently been highlighted by the observation of a dopamine dysregulation syndrome in some patients taking dopaminergic drugs. This syndrome is characterized by a medication-induced increase in (or compulsive) engagement in non-drug rewards such as gambling, shopping, or sex (Evans et al., 2006; Aiken, 2007; Lader, 2008).

In recent years, the simple exercise DVD has morphed into a complete “home fitness system,” offering multiple discs with up to a dozen workouts that are combined in very prescriptive ways. They come complete with diets, making them more like plans than just exercise routines. And they cost a lot more than the $10 or $12 you’d spend on a workout DVD. It has been almost a decade since P90X, the leader of the trend, came on the market. The craze shows no sign of slowing down, so we decided to find out whether four leading DVD systems were worth it.


Hormonal responses to the two exercise bouts are presented in fig 4A–D. Visual inspection led to the conclusion that there are no differences in relative cortisol response between the NFO and the OTS group. ACTH, PRL and GH responses are higher in the NFO group compared with the OTS group, especially in the second exercise bout. However, the SE of GH in the NFO group was probably too large to draw clear conclusions. Indeed, the main effect of group gave an F ratio of F1,7=1.4 for GH. For ACTH and PRL, F ratios were F1,7=5.1 and F1,6=14.7, both significant at p<0.05, confirming larger responses for the NFO group. Visual inspection led to the conclusion that this larger response was much more pronounced after the second exercise bout. Indeed, parametric results pointed in the direction of an interaction effect between test and group for ACTH and PRL (F1,7=4.1; p=0.084; F1,6=4.0; p=0.092).

* Exercise isn't supposed to be fun or enjoyable (that's what recreation is for). Exercise is a means-to-an-end. It shouldn't be something you look forward to, nor should you dread doing it; it should just be part of your lifestyle... like eating or sleeping. If you DO look forward to it, and even crave it, you could be hooked on the endorphin rush you get from doing an activity that is considered by the body to be over-doing it. And since the body would rather you not do this, it would be prudent to respect the body's wishes.
Video Abstract for the ESSR 46.1 article “Sedentary Behaviors and Adiposity in Young People: Causality and Conceptual Model” from author Stuart Biddle. Research on sedentary behavior and adiposity in youth dates back to the 1980s. Sedentary behaviors, usually screen time, can be associated with adiposity. While the association is usually small but significant, the field is complex, and results are dependent on what sedentary behaviors are assessed, and may be mediated and moderated by other behaviors.
Jump up ^ Cunha GS, Ribeiro JL, Oliveira AR (June 2008). "[Levels of beta-endorphin in response to exercise and overtraining]". Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol (in Portuguese). 52 (4): 589–598. PMID 18604371. Interestingly, some symptoms of OT are related to beta-endorphin (beta-end(1-31)) effects. Some of its effects, such as analgesia, increasing lactate tolerance, and exercise-induced euphoria, are important for training.

Ideally, a workout regimen will involve all three of these exercise types, as they each offer different benefits to the body. Focusing on a single exercise type may leave a lot to be desired in other areas that do not benefit from that singular exercise. Take, for example, stretching after a cardiovascular workout session versus stretching completely separately from a cardiovascular workout section. In the former example, stretching offers the maximum benefit to the body's joints and muscles because they have already been warmed up by the cardiovascular exercise, and will stretch further than they otherwise would. In the latter example, the joints and muscles being stretched will not reach their maximum flexibility potential. As such, by using these exercise types together, one can ensure that they are approaching physical fitness from a holistic and balanced perspective.


Brovold et al. [7] supposed the importance of an exercise is based on a high-intensity and continuous monitoring model because in their research a nonmonitored home-based group did not improve their physical fitness as much as the monitored group that accomplished a high-intensity aerobic exercise adjusted by means of the Borg Scale and a musical pace [25]. However, Brovold et al. [7], despite an exercise protocol with a high-intensity aerobic interval (HIA), found a small effect on SFT. This may be due to the fact that the exercise protocol used by Brovold et al. [7] did not interact favorably with the skills tested by SFT. Thus, a positive relationship among vigorous physical exercise [17] or HIA exercise [7] and the functional abilities tested by the SFT is not fully evident. On the contrary, the vigorous exercise protocol used here enhanced 5 out of 6 of the SFT and seems to be more focused than the aforementioned one. The small effect of vigorous physical exercise through the 8-foot up and go test is not fully clear and may depend on several factors: (i) a large standard deviation at T0 due to the presence of two subjects who showed a very low functional capacity; (ii) inadequacy of the exercises to improve this ability; and/or (iii) inadequate sensitivity of an 8-foot up and go test. In a recent study by Furtado et al. [15] conducted on a large number of elderly females, even though the SFT was used at baseline and after 8 months from an intervention program of multimodal exercise training (3 days per week), not all skills tested were found improved. However, according to a meta-analysis [11] that included 18 different exercise studies, even a small positive effect can be considered to be of great value in this group of individuals who are at risk of further functional decline. In conclusion, the present study shows that vigorous physical exercise in healthy elderly people provides significant improvements in the majority of the different skills assessed by the SFT.

The VE group consisted of 8 women and 12 men (age 69.6 ± 3.9 years; weight 70.7 ± 12.1 kg; height 161.3 ± 6.9 cm). The control group consisted of 6 women and 14 men (age 71.2 ± 3.7 years; weight 76.1 ± 12.3 kg; height 167.5 ± 9.8 cm). Only 20 subjects of the VE group and 8 of the control group correctly completed the trials (see Figure 1 and Limitation of the Study paragraph). Adherence to protocol of the VE group was checked daily by our motor scientist by means of a daily record where he noted the week and participation number, the mean HR of the sessions, the type of exercises, and the number of repetitions per set carried out. During the training period, no adverse events such as dizziness, musculoskeletal pain, or cardiovascular issues were recorded. After 12 weeks, there were significant improvements in strength, flexibility, balance, and agility tested by SFT. T0-T1 differences are shown in Figures ​Figures22 and ​and3.3. Namely, 5 tests out of 6 showed significant improvement: Chair Stand (T0 12.4 ± 2.4; T1 13.5 ± 2.6, p < 0.01), Arm Curl (T0 14.2 ± 3.6; T1 16.6 ± 3.6, p < 0.01), 2 min step (T0 98.2 ± 15.7; T1 108.9 ± 16.2, p < 0.01), Chair Sit-and-Reach (T0 −9.9 ± 7.7 cm; T1 1.7 ± 6.3 cm, p < 0.01), and Back Scratch (T0 −15.8 ± 10.9 cm; T1 −8.4 ± 13.1 cm, p < 0.01). Conversely, the 8-foot up and go test (T0 6.5 ± 7.6 sec; T1 4.5 ± 0.6 sec, p > 0.05) showed no significant statistical difference due to a high SD in T0 assessment.

×