Validity of Borg Ratings of Perceived Exertion During Active Video Game Play

International Journal of Exercise Science 6(2) : 164-170, 2013. During physically interactive video game play (e.g., Nintendo Wii), users are exposed to potential distracters (e.g., video, music), which may decrease their ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) throughout game play. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the association between RPE scores and heart rate while playing the Nintendo Wii. Healthy adults (N = 13, 53.5 ± 5.4 years old) participated in two exercise sessions using the Nintendo Wii Fit Plus. During each session participants played a five-minute warm-up game (Basic Run), two separate Wii Fit Plus games (Yoga, Strength Training, Aerobics or Balance Training) for fifteen minutes each, and then a five-minute cool down game (Basic Run). Borg RPE and heart rate were assessed during the final 30 seconds of the warm up and cool down, as well during the final 30 seconds of play for each Wii Fit Plus game. Correlation analysis combining data from both exercise sessions indicated a moderate positive relationship between heart rate and RPE (r = 0.32). Mixed-effects model regression analyses demonstrated that RPE scores were significantly associated with heart rate (p \u3c 0.001). The average percentage of age-predicted heart rate maximum achieved (58 ± 6%) was significantly greater (p = 0.001) than the percentage of maximum RPE indicated (43 ± 11%). Borg RPE scores were positively associated with heart rate in adults during exercise sessions using the Wii Fit Plus. However, this relationship was lower than observed in past research assessing RPE validity during different modes of exercise (e.g. walking, running) without distracters

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences

The Effects of Medicine Ball Training on Bat Swing Velocity in Prepubescent Softball Players

International Journal of Exercise Science 11(4): 75-83, 2018. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of an 8-week medicine ball training program on bat swing velocity in prepubescent softball players. Twenty-seven female prepubescent softball players (age = 10.2 ± 1.2) participated in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to either a medicine ball training (MB = 13) or control (CON = 14) group. Pre- and post-testing consisted of 10 dry swings using the bat that the participants would normally use during competition, which was then followed by 10 hits off of a pitching machine with bat swing velocity being measured with each swing. During the 8 weeks of training, the MB group completed sport-specific medicine ball throws that were aimed at developing rotational velocity. Exercises included side medicine ball throws, Russian twists, woodchoppers, and standing band rotations. Participants that were 8-10 years old used a 4-lb medicine ball while 11-13 year olds used a 6-lb medicine ball during all exercises. Participants completed 1 set of 12 repetitions 2x/wk. There were no significant interaction effects (F = 1.91, p = 0.18) between both conditions (MB and CON) from pre- to post-testing for average bat swing velocity. Average bat swing velocity from pre- to post-testing for the MB group was 35.93 ± 6.66 miles×hour-1 and 38.22 ± 8.63 miles×hour-1, respectively. Average bat swing velocity from pre- to post-testing for the CON group was 36.07 ± 5.92 miles×hour-1 and 37.71 ± 4.42 miles×hour-1, respectively. Overall, there was a 6.37% and 4.55% increase in bat swing velocity from pre- to post-testing for the MB and CON groups, respectively. Therefore, medicine ball training offers no additional benefits in bat swing velocity