Influence of Differences in Exercise-intensity and Kilograms/Set on Energy Expenditure During and After Maximally Explosive Resistance Exercise

With resistance exercise, greater intensity typically elicits increased energy expenditure, but heavier loads require that the lifter perform more sets of fewer repetitions, which alters the kilograms lifted per set. Thus, the effect of exercise-intensity on energy expenditure has yielded varying results, especially with explosive resistance exercise. This study was designed to examine the effect of exercise-intensity and kilograms/set on energy expenditure during explosive resistance exercise. Ten resistance-trained men (22±3.6 years; 84±6.4 kg, 180±5.1 cm, and 13±3.8 %fat) performed squat and bench press protocols once/week using different exercise-intensities including 48% (LIGHT-48), 60% (MODERATE-60), and 72% of 1-repetition-maximum (1-RM) (HEAVY-72), plus a no-exercise protocol (CONTROL). To examine the effects of kilograms/set, an additional protocol using 72% of 1-RM was performed (HEAVY-72MATCHED) with kilograms/set matched with LIGHT-48 and MODERATE-60. LIGHT-48 was 4 sets of 10 repetitions (4x10); MODERATE-60 4x8; HEAVY-72 5x5; and HEAVY-72MATCHED 4x6.5. Eccentric and concentric repetition speeds, ranges-of-motion, rest-intervals, and total kilograms were identical between protocols. Expired air was collected continuously throughout each protocol using a metabolic cart, [Blood lactate] using a portable analyzer, and bench press peak power were measured. Rates of energy expenditure were significantly greater (p≤0.05) with LIGHT-48 and HEAVY-72MATCHED than HEAVY-72 during squat (7.3±0.7; 6.9±0.6 \u3e 6.1±0.7 kcal/min), bench press (4.8±0.3; 4.7±0.3 \u3e 4.0±0.4 kcal/min), and +5min after (3.7±0.1; 3.7±0.2 \u3e 3.3±0.3 kcal/min), but there were no significant differences in total kcal among protocols. Therefore, exercise-intensity may not effect energy expenditure with explosive contractions, but light loads (~50% of 1-RM) may be preferred because of higher rates of energy expenditure, and since heavier loading requires more sets with lower kilograms/set

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee