Next Article in Journal
The Physical and Mental Well-Being of Medical Doctors in the Silesian Voivodeship
Next Article in Special Issue
Combined Training with Aerobic Exercise Performed Outdoors Can Promote Better Blood Pressure and Affective Responses in Individuals with Cardiovascular Risk Factors
Previous Article in Journal
The Associations between Meeting 24-Hour Movement Guidelines (24-HMG) and Self-Rated Physical and Mental Health in Older Adults—Cross Sectional Evidence from China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pilot Feasibility Assessment of a Tailored Physical Activity Prescription in Overweight and Obese People in a Public Hospital
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 20
10.3390/ijerph192013408
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Social Distance Impacts from COVID-19 Pandemic on the Development of Two Orders of a Concurrent Training Programme for Morbidly Obese Patients

by
Pedro Delgado-Floody
1,2,3,
Luis Chirosa-Ríos
2,3,
Iris Paola Guzmán-Guzmán
4,
Claudia Andrea Vargas
1,
Karina Sandoval-Aguilera
1,
Felipe Caamaño-Navarrete
5,
Francisco Guede-Rojas
6 and
Cristian Alvarez
6,*
1
Department of Physical Education, Sport and Recreation, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco 4811230, Chile
2
Department Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain
3
Strength & Conditioning Laboratory, CTS-642 Research Group, Department Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, 18011 Granada, Spain
4
Faculty of Chemical-Biological Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero, Chilpancingo 39087, Mexico
5
Physical Education Career, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Temuco 4780000, Chile
6
Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago de Chile 7591538, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(20), 13408; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013408
Submission received: 8 September 2022 / Revised: 10 October 2022 / Accepted: 12 October 2022 / Published: 17 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physical Activity and Exercise Training for Improving Cardiometabolic Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Although there is relevant information regarding the consequences of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), little is known about the impact of the imposed social confinement (at home) on the development of exercise training programmes in populations with morbid obesity. Aim: To describe the effects of the imposed COVID-19 confinement on the cardiometabolic health benefits acquired through a concurrent training programme that started before the pandemic in populations with morbid obesity. Methods: This was an experimental randomized clinical study, in which sedentary morbidly obese women were assigned 1:1 to a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) plus resistance training (RT) group (HIIT + RT; n = 11; BMI 42.1 ± 6.6) or to the same exercise dose, but in different order group of RT plus HIIT group (RT + HIIT; n = 7; BMI 47.5 ± 8.4). Both groups undertook two sessions/week. When COVID-19 confinement at home started, a post-test was applied in January 2020 (Post1) and after 20 months (Post2). The main outcomes were waist circumference (WC), systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), high-density lipids (HDL-c), triglycerides (Tg), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Results: In the HIIT + RT group, the WC showed significant increases from Post1 to Post2 (Δ + 3.1 cm, p = 0.035); in the RT + HIIT group, it decreased from Post1 to Post2 (Δ − 4.8 cm, p = 0.028). In the HIIT + RT group, SBP showed significant increases from Post1 to Post2 (Δ + 6.2 mmHg, p = 0.041); the RT + HIIT group decreased SBP from Pre0 to Post1 (Δ − 7.2 mmHg, p = 0.026) and increased DBP from Pre0 to Post1 (Δ + 8.1 mmHg, p = 0.015). Tg in the HIIT + RT group decreased from Pre0 to Post1 (Δ − 40.1 mg/dL, p = 0.023) but increased from Post1 to Post2 (Δ + 86.3 mg/dL, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The COVID-19 social confinement worsened metabolic syndrome (MetS) outcomes that had improved from 20 weeks’ RT + HIIT during the training period, such as WC, SBP, and Tg from HIIT + RT, when, worryingly, SBP increased to another more serious clinical classification in both groups.

1. Introduction

Physical inactivity (defined as not adhering to international physical activity (PA) guidelines [1]) is the fourth-largest cause of mortality in the world [2]. Likewise, the global burden related to physical inactivity is significant (7.2% of all causes of death are attributed to the effects of physical inactivity) [3]. Other habits, such as sedentary behaviour [4] and unhealthy nutrition [5], are major modifiable lifestyle behaviours that promote obesity, a disease that was known in the past as the first global pandemic [6]. However, from the start of the pandemic due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing of the called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), humans have been suffering multiple consequences at the level of their ‘physical’ and ‘mental’ health [7]; the social distance actions such as ‘at-home confinement’ have, on one hand, favoured the virus’s control [8] but, unfortunately, on the other hand, have exacerbated sedentary behaviour [9] and thus the prevalence of physical inactivity among children, adolescents, adults, and older persons [10,11,12]. Moreover, more risk factors for metabolic syndrome (MetS) have been reported during at-home confinement, during which members of the population have additionally increased their energy consumption [13]. These habits have been promoted, for example, by several increases in food delivery services through mobile APPs during the COVID-19 pandemic [14,15] but combined with low possibilities for energy expenditure at home. The above confinement situations have caused a worsening of the population’s overall cardiometabolic health and increased the risk of suffering MetS in at-risk populations. For example, it has been reported that members of the adult population increased their screen time (6.79 versus 5.06 h/day) from the pre-pandemic situation, and they have been strongly recommended to recover and increase their PA patterns [16]. Other detrimental reports during the COVID-19 pandemic include an increase in body mass (79.7 kg to 81.4 kg) [17] and the body mass index (BMI) (+0.15 (kg/m2)) due to COVID-19 [18]. Similarly, another study showed an incremented fasting plasma glucose (+8.5 mg/dL), being also glucose control affected during confinement at home [17]. Furthermore, Laffin et al., reported a rise in blood pressure in the adult population during the COVID-19 pandemic [19]. Another study conducted with adults showed that their 24 h systolic/diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher during the COVID-19 pandemic than in the pre-pandemic stage [20]. Other studies have revealed sharp high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) decreases [21] as well as increases in triglycerides [22], thus exacerbating the prevalence of MetS [23]. In addition, around the world, it has been reported a sharp decrease in the PA patterns globally. However, worryingly early evidence from the start of the pandemic reported that these reductions in PA were more pronounced in Latin America compared with European countries [10,24,25]. Thus, considering that Latin America is a region characterized by several countries with wide social inequalities, poor healthcare access, and a high prevalence of cardiometabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension [26], reporting information from those populations that are more affected by COVID-19 and face higher MetS risk could increase the possibilities of implementing preventive strategies in a future post-pandemic state/scenarios. In this sense, Polero et al., reported that the population reduced their PA levels which evidently increased their cardiometabolic risk or disease [27]. Likewise, a systematic literature review indicated that PA levels decreased as a result of COVID-19 confinement [28].
A lifestyle change program is characterized by the inclusion of regular exercise, and additionally other specific behaviours such as nutrition, and sleep patterns, among others (tobacco, and alcohol consumption) [29,30]. Regular exercise plays a critical role for some populations, such as morbidly obese candidates for bariatric surgery [31]. Thus, in addition to improving cardiometabolic risk factors for MetS, exercise training, such as concurrent training (CT, a combination of the same exercise session of resistance plus other endurance/aerobic or high-intensity interval training methodologies), promotes several other benefits, including better and healthier conditions for bariatric surgery and preparation for post-surgery challenges in the recovery period, with major success [32,33]. Unfortunately, little is known regarding the impact of the COVID-19 confinement on the cardiometabolic health benefits acquired before the pandemic through exercise training programmes such as CT in populations with morbid obesity. Along this line, it is relevant to mention that several countries and their health/sports systems were developing different exercise training programmes and training regimes at different levels (i.e., recreational, competitive, and professional) when the COVID-19 pandemic and confinement actions abruptly started. This situation meant that several exercise training programmes ceased and thus a high number of participants lost the exercise benefits that they had acquired before confinement. Hence, we hypothesized that 20 months of social distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic affected the benefit of a concurrent training programme in morbidly obese patients. We aimed to describe the effects of the imposed COVID-19 social confinement on the cardiometabolic health benefits acquired through a CT programme started before the pandemic in populations with morbid obesity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study was a randomized controlled trial in which (n = 34) women with morbid obesity from the Morbid Obesity Association of Temuco City, Chile, were invited to participate by a public call and contacted by phone directly to all those interested. The participants were invited to participate in the interventions since they were part of a previous recommended lifestyle exercise programme in the same institution [32]. All the participants were informed of the pre–post procedures and of the possible risks/benefits potentially involved in participation in the study, after which they signed an informed consent form. The study was undertaken in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2013) and has been approved by the Ethical Committee of the Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile (ACTA No 080_21).
The sample size was calculated using the G*Power version 3.1.9.7, and the observed delta changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) after previous CT exercise interventions of −4.0 mg/dL and a standard deviation of 1.0 mg/dL were obtained. Thus, a sample with a minimum of four cases per group (minimum sample of n = 8) gave us an alpha error of α = 0.05 and statistical power of β = 0.80. A total of n = 34 morbid obesity patients were recruited from the enrolment stage.
The eligibility criteria were as follows: (i) to be aged between 18 and 60 years, (ii) to be medically authorized to participate in the exercise programme, and (iii) to have a BMI ≥40 kg/m2, or BMI ≥35 kg/m2, with an associated comorbidities (i.e., diabetes, hypertension, or insulin resistance).The exclusion criteria were the following: (i) to have physical limitations that could restrict the performance of exercise (e.g., injuries to the musculoskeletal system), (ii) to have exercise-related dyspnoea or respiratory alterations, (iii) to have chronic heart disease with any worsening in the last month, and (iv) to show an adherence <80% to the total session interventions in the 12 months originally expected.
After enrolment (before the COVID-19 confinement), the participants were 1:1 randomly allocated to the following CT groups: HIIT + RT (started n = 17, dropouts n = 3 during training, analysed n = 14 until 20 weeks of intervention, and final analysed sample n = 7 until 20 months of physical inactivity due to the COVID-19 confinement), and to the RT + HIIT (started n = 17, dropouts n = 5 during training, analysed n = 12 until 20 weeks of intervention, and final analysed sample n = 11 until 20 months of physical inactivity due to COVID-19 confinement) (Figure 1). The clinical trial number registration is NCT04932642.

2.2. Metabolic Syndrome Outcomes

The MetS markers were screened using standard criteria [34]. All the participants were instructed to arrive at the laboratory following overnight fasting of 8 to 10 h, being measured between 08:00 and 9:00 in the morning. These conditions were taken at the baseline (Pre0) and post-intervention (Post1 and Post2). Blood samples of ~5 mL were taken to determine the MetS outcomes: FPG, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), and triglycerides (Tg); additional markers, total cholesterol (Tc) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), were taken.
Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure measurements were carried out according to the standard criteria [35]. Blood pressure was measured in the sitting position after 5 min of rest. Two recordings were made using an OMRONTM digital electronic BP monitor (model HEM 7114, OMRON, Chicago, IL, USA), and the mean of these measurements was used for statistical analysis. Before taking these measurements, we informed the participants that they must not smoke or drink caffeine for at least 2 h prior to measurement. Additionally, we registered the heart rate at rest with the same equipment as secondary outcome.
The participants’ waist circumference (WC) was assessed with a tape in centimetres (Adult SECATM, CA, USA) at the upper hipbone and the top of the right iliac crest, with a non-elastic measuring tape in a horizontal plane around the abdomen at the level of the iliac crest. The tape was snug but did not compress the skin and was parallel to the floor. The measurement was made at the end of a normal expiration [36].

2.3. Body Composition and Anthropometric Parameters

The body composition and anthropometric parameters were measured after fasting (>8 h). Body mass (kg), body fat (% and kg), skeletal muscle mass (kg), and lean mass (kg) were measured using a digital bio-impedance BIA scale (TANITATM, model 331, Tokyo, Japan), and height (m) was measured using a SECATM stadiometer (model 214, Hamburg, Germany), with subjects in light clothing and without shoes. The BMI was calculated as the body mass divided by the square of the height (kg/m2). The BMI was determined to estimate the degree of obesity (kg/m2) using the standard criteria for the obesity and severe/morbid obesity classification [37]. Additionally, as the BIA equipment give us the information, we also reported the outcomes of bone mass, total body water and basal metabolic rate as secondary outcomes.

2.4. Six-Minute Walking Test

The day after the metabolic measurements, the physical condition of the participants in both groups was measured through endurance and muscle strength testing. First, a six-minute walking test (6 Mwt) was used to estimate cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). The test was performed in an indoor court on a flat surface (30 m long), with two reflective cones placed at the ends to indicate the distance. During the test, an exercise physiologist assisted the participants with instructions [38].

2.5. Handgrip Strength

Handgrip strength (HGS) was assessed using a digital dynamometer (BaselineTM Hydraulic Hand Dynamometers, NY, USA), which has been used in previous studies [39]. Two attempts were made, measuring each dominant and non-dominant arm, and the best result from each was selected and registered, as previously reported [39].

2.6. Concurrent Training Intervention

The CT programme had two sections of HIIT and RT, which were applied in different orders to the two experimental groups HIIT + RT and RT + HIIT. The two groups were proposed originally to test several unknown physiological adaptations from the ‘order’ configurations on MetS outcomes, until the COVID-19 pandemic started along with social confinement at home. Before the start of each exercise group, both HIIT + RT and RT + HIIT participants were involved in four familiarization sessions. In the HIIT + RT group, the HIIT section consisted of 60 s of maximum-intensity exercise using a magnetic resistance static bicycle (OxfordTM Fitness, model BE-2701, Santiago, Chile), followed by 60–120 s of passive recovery over the bicycle, and it was repeated four to seven times according to the weekly schedule [40]. The intensity of the exercise was measured on the Borg scale of 1 to 10 for perceived exertion, and the participants worked at a level between 6 and 9 points.
Second, in the RT section, three out of four RT exercises were developed (according to the planning week), targeting the following different muscle groups: (1) forearm, (2) knee flexors and extensors, (3) trunk, (4) chest, (5) shoulder elevators, (6) horizontal shoulder flexors, (7) extensors, and, finally, (8) plantar flexors. The exercises alternated muscle groups for each session; for example, session 1 contained exercises for the 1, 3, and 5 muscle groups and session 2 involved exercises for the 4, 6, and 8 muscle groups. These exercises were performed in three sets of as many repetitions (continuous concentric/eccentric voluntary contraction) as possible in 60 s, followed by 60 to 120 s of passive recovery, as previously reported [41]. To estimate the intensity of work in the different RT exercises, the maximum dynamic muscular strength (1 RM) was estimated indirectly through the Brzycki formula [42], with fewer than 12 maximum repetitions. The RT + HIIT group performed the same training programme as the HIIT + RT group (described above) but the order of the HIIT and RT exercises was reversed (i.e., first RT and then HIIT).

2.7. Statistical Analyses

The data are presented as the mean and (±) standard deviation (SD). The normality and assumptions for all the data were checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Wilcoxon’s test was used for non-parametric data. The two-way ANOVA (groups × time) test was performed to test for differences between groups, comparing the baseline (Pre0), the final of the 20-week intervention in HIIT + RT, and T + HIIT (Post1) as well as after 20 months of COVID-19 confinement time (Post2). To identify the time difference, Sidak’s post hoc test was used. These analyses were carried out using the statistical Graph Pad Prism 8.0 software (Graph Pad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Anthropometry and Body Composition (Secondary Outcomes)

There were no significant differences in anthropometric (body mass, BMI) and body composition (body fat in % and kg, lean mass, skeletal muscle mass, bone mass, total body water, and basal metabolic rate) outcomes between groups at the baseline (Table 1).

3.2. Training-Induced Effects on Anthropometrics, Body Composition, Cardiovascular, Metabolic, and Physical Fitness (Secondary Outcomes)

As training-induced effects, both the HIIT + RT and the RT + HIIT group did not elicit significant changes from Pre0 to Post1 in all the outcomes, with the exception of the RT + HIIT group for the outcome body mass (120.1 ± 21.8 vs. 115.1 ± 20.8 kg, p < 0.05). On the other hand, from the Post1 to the Post2 measurement, the HIIT + RT group showed significant changes in body fat as a percentage (48.0 ± 3.8 to 49.7 ± 3.2%, p < 0.05) and body fat in kg (49.9 ± 13.5 to 54.8 ± 12.9 kg, p < 0.05) (Table 1). In the same group, from Pre0 to Post2, there were significant changes in the outcomes of body mass (104.4 ± 20.3 to 109.2 ± 19.3 kg), body fat as a percentage (48.2 ± 4.2 to 49.7 ± 3.2%) and in kg (50.8 ± 13.6 to 54.3 ± 6.7 kg), lean mass (53.2 ± 7.1 to 54.3 ± 6.7 kg), SMM (50.5 ± 6.8 to 51.5 ± 6.4 kg), and basal metabolic rate (1688.0 ± 251.0 to 1727.0 ± 237.8 kcal), all p < 0.05 (Table 1). From the Post1 to the Post2 measurements, the RT + HIIT group showed significant changes in body mass (115.1 ± 20.8 to 121.8 ± 26.6 kg), lean mass (56.2 ± 4.2 to 62.0 ± 10.3 kg), SMM (53.3 ± 4.0 to 58.8 ± 9.8 kg), bone mass (2.8 ± 0.1 to 3.1 ± 0.4), total body water (40.2 ± 4.4 to 46.5 ± 9.4), and basal metabolic rate (1818.0 ± 175.8 to 1985.0 ± 349.0 kcal), all p < 0.05 (Table 1).
In the HIIT + RT group, there were significant differences from Post1 to Post2 in 6 Mwt (660.9 ± 104.3 to 504.5 ± 119.9 m, p < 0.05) (Table 2). From Pre0 to Post1, there were significant changes in 6 Mwt (540.9 ± 117.1 to 504.5 ± 119.9 m) (Table 2). In the RT + HIIT group, significant differences were found from Pre0 to Post1 in the heart rate at rest (78.6 ± 10.1 to 92.9 ± 17.8 beats/min), and, from Pre0 to Post2, there were significant changes in handgrip strength (29.5 ± 9.3 to 35.2 ± 9.2 kg) in participants’ non-dominant hand (Table 2).

3.3. Training-Induced Effects on Metabolic Syndrome Outcomes (Main Outcomes)

In the HIIT + RT group, WC showed significant changes from Pre1 to Post2 (115.0 to 118.1 cm, p = 0.035) (Figure 2, panel A), whereas, in the RT + HIIT group, WC showed significant changes from Pre0 to Post1 (126.4 to 121.6 cm, p = 0.028) (Figure 2, panel B). SBP showed significant changes from Post1 to Post2 (126.6 to 132.8 mmHg, p = 0.041) (Figure 2, panel C), whereas, in the RT + HIIT group, SBP showed significant changes from Pre0 to Post1 (142.2 to 135.0 mmHg, p = 0.026) (Figure 2, panel D). For DBP, the RT + HIIT group showed significant changes from Pre0 to Post1 (85.0 to 93.1 mmHg, p = 0.015) (Figure 2, panel F).
Tg in the HIIT + RT group showed significant changes from Pre0 to Post1 (131.1 to 91.0 mg/dL, p = 0.023) and from Post1 to Post2 (Figure 3, panel C), whereas Tg in the RT + HIIT group showed significant changes from Pre1 to Post2 (118.4 to 204.7 mg/dL, p < 0.0001) (Figure 3, panel F). There were no significant differences in HDL-c (Figure 3, panels A and B) and FGP in both groups (Figure 3, panels E and F) (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to describe the effects of the imposed COVID-19 confinement on the cardiometabolic health benefits acquired through an exercise training programme that started before the COVID-19 pandemic in populations with morbid obesity but that was sharply interrupted at 20 weeks due to social confinement. The main results of this study are that (i) 20 months of COVID-19 social confinement worsened MetS outcomes, which improved with the 20-week training period of RT + HIIT, such as WC, SBP, and Tg in the RT + HIIT group, and (ii) there was a reduction in the endurance performance capacity in the HIIT + RT group after 20 months of obligated confinement.
Unfortunately, as HIIT + RT showed worse MetS outcomes during the 20 months of COVID-19 (i.e., WC, SBP (Figure 2), and Tg (Figure 3)), this does not mean that RT + HIIT has a better residual capacity to maintain or retain the beneficial exercise adaptations during the COVID-19 confinement due to this group’s increased (although non-significantly) WC, SBP, MAP, Tc, and LDL-c and decreased HDL-c and its performance in the 6 Mwt, the social confinement thus affecting both main MetS and secondary outcomes in this sample of participants with high cardiometabolic risk (Table 1).
Previous evidence has shown that pathologies derived from lockdown, isolations, and social distancing have similarly worsened cardiometabolic health [43,44]. This obligatory social confinement due to COVID-19, at present almost worldwide as a preventive measure, produces per se more sedentary behaviour, more opportunities for energy consumption, and other psychological impacts that promote stress, anxiety, and overeating, the subsequent modification of anthropometrics (i.e., increased body weight) and clinical health parameters (i.e., increased FPG, Tc, LDL-c, and others) being no more that the collateral/secondary effect [45,46]. The previously described increase in sedentary behaviour has also been associated with muscle mass loss and systemic inflammation, leading to higher cardiometabolic risk [47]. For example, in the present study (only considering significant training-induced changes from Pre0 to Post1), the RT + HIIT group members reduced WC (Δ − 4.8 cm) and SBP (Δ − 7.2 mmHg) but, after 20 months of confinement, they had increased results (Δ + 5.4 cm and Δ + 6.8 mmHg, respectively, for WC and SBP) (Figure 2). In other reports, after 12 weeks of supervised exercise training (i.e., endurance, RT, or CT), Timmons et al. [48] reported that, 12 months after exercise cessation, older adult participants (n = 53; 70.8 y) had an increased body fat percentage (Δ + 4.3%) and decreased lean mass (Δ − 0.6%), strength (leg press Δ − 5.6%; chest press Δ − 11.0%), and cognitive function (Δ − 3.7%), some of these results being different from those in the present study considering our maintenance of body fat percentage and lean mass, as can be seen in Table 1.
Interesting, Timmons et al. [48] did not find decreases in the handgrip muscle strength as well as in other specific outcomes related to functionality in older adults, such as gait velocity, sit to stand, and timed up-and-go tests. After 9 months of the exercise training programme in older adults (endurance exercise 15–25 min, RT 15–20 min), followed by 12 months of no exercise/detraining, Leitão et al. [49] reported that older adults with a significant loss in body weight of Δ − 1.9% during training recovered Δ + 0.64%, those with a decrease of Δ − 2.4% in body fat recovered Δ + 1.1%, those with a decrease of Δ − 5.1/− 5.2% in SBP/DBP recovered Δ + 7.8% in SBP/DBP, respectively, during the detraining period, those with a Δ − 16.4% decrease in Tg recovered Δ + 7.2%, and those with a Δ − 15.2% decrease in FPG after training had recovered Δ + 19.3% after the detraining period. Additionally, both upper- and lower-body muscle strength increased after the training period (Δ + 30.3/+ 30.6%); unfortunately, after 12 months of exercise cessation, both had worsened, participants losing Δ − 12.7/ − 11.6% of muscle strength in each upper- and lower-body compound, respectively.
Thus, the inactivity of the skeletal muscle was shown to be highly affected in some outcomes of the MetS, such as SBP/DBP, body fat percentage, and Tg, including muscle strength; however, some of these outcomes, in the present study, such as body fat percentage, could show more residual capacity (i.e., the capacity not to increase or change in line with being altered), together with the bone mass, total body water, and basal metabolic rate. In this contrast from our present study, we speculate that, due to those lean mass and skeletal muscle mass increases during the exercise period, the COVID-19 social confinement influenced all those participants who affectively reported better skeletal muscle progress to a lower degree, and thus this tissue could play a protective factor in the imposed condition of a sedentary state and physical inactivity.
The increased body weight and therefore BMI were a consequence of the dietary habits and sedentary behaviour during the lockdown period [50,51,52]. An increased fat mass percentage, WC, and abdominal perimeter were also observed [52,53,54]. According to the increases in the ratio of waist to hip circumferences, these effects were associated with increased central obesity [55]. Biochemical parameters were also affected: the lipid profile showed an increase in total cholesterol levels, which corresponded to an additional increase in LDL cholesterol levels and a decrease in HDL cholesterol levels, with statistically significant differences [45,56,57]. Plasma glucose levels deteriorated [56], probably in connection with the increased rate of obesity and being overweight and the decrease in physical exercise [58].
The present lockdown adversely affected multiple risk factors related to MetS. The plasma concentrations for LDL and HDL cholesterol increased and decreased, respectively. Concurrently, the blood glucose concentrations and blood pressure increased [56]. In patients with blood glucose levels in the range of diabetes mellitus, a statistically significant decrease in LDL cholesterol levels was detected, although this was not statistically significant in patients with prediabetes values, for whom there was no clear relationship with changes in LDL cholesterol values [56].
Regarding blood pressure levels, the lockdown also caused a deterioration in people who were not previously hypertensive, probably due to their lifestyle during these months and the worsening of the population’s health status owing to a change in dietary habits and physical activity [56]. Other studies have referred to these changes in blood pressure during the lockdown due to COVID-19 [45,59]. The social confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an increase in severe arterial hypertension, independently of biological factors such as age or sex. In addition, people with hypertension have a more unfavourable evolutionary course of the disease when they contract COVID-19 [60,61]. Notably, since low HDL cholesterol, a larger WC, hyperglycaemia, hypertension, and hypertriglyceridemia are considered as global measures for cardiovascular disease risk and developing type 2 diabetes mellitus, it is relevant to increase the possibilities to extend the exercise training programmes from in-person to online platforms, of which technological/internet support for participants and exercise professionals can be key elements [62].
In general, until the training period in the present study, the HIIT + RT order of CT improved 1 out of 5 and worsened 3 out of 5 MetS outcomes after the COVID-19 confinement, whereas, in contrast, the RT + HIIT order of CT improved 2 out of 5 and worsened 1 out of 5 MetS outcomes after the 20 months of COVID-19 social confinement. This summary of the results from both orders of CT shows that it is difficult to examine the potential advantages or disadvantages of both training-induced capacity changes from one to the other order during the training period (i.e., from Pre0 to Post1 in 20 weeks (5 months)) as well as after the 20 months of the COVID-19 confinement due to this unexpected pandemic state, which sharply interrupted the exercise programme, increasing the possibilities from the environment to acquire unhealthy habits. In a recent report by Durão et al. [57], patients (n = 75) with morbid obesity who were exposed similarly to the COVID-19 confinement reported an increase in energy-dense, micronutrient-poor foods and thus a threefold increase in the odds ratio for an increased BMI (+0.8 kg/m2); additionally, the participants showed increased depression and anxiety symptoms. These results are in coherence with previous reports of changes in the physical activity practice in the Chilean population, in which ‘moderate-intensity’ physical activity decreased from 103.7 to 56.7 min/week, respectively, and ‘vigorous-intensity’ physical activity decreased from 49.9 to 26.7 min/week, respectively), this situation being, by contrast, reported with an increase in sitting time from 314 min/week before the COVID-19 confinement to 471.9 min/week and finally with increased screen time from 246.5 to 455.6 min/week [58]. In addition, despite the beneficial effects of both CT orders of HIIT + RT and RT + HIIT on morbidly obese patients, as well as previous literature that has reported the COVID-19 confinement in several populations [58,59]. In the present study, one of the major novel results is the confirmed hypothesis that 20 months of COVID-19 social confinement worsened several MetS outcomes, previously improved through a 20-week CT training period, in each CT order group and promoted detrimental effects on this cohort.

Strengths and Limitations

The first strength of the present study is that we were conducting a normal exercise training programme with morbidly obese populations involved in two different CT orders when, at 20 weeks of intervention, the COVID-19 social confinement actions started, Post1 being rapidly applied. (i) We obtained information about a population with high cardiometabolic risk that started social confinement, and (ii) after another 20 months during the COVID-19 period, we obtained Post2 measurements, having the opportunity to report the detrimental effect of COVID-19 at the level of an exercise training programme applied to a particularly at-risk population. Furthermore, (iii) we included other additional anthropometric, body composition, and physical fitness tests to complement the CT order and COVID-19 effects. As the main limitation, unfortunately, the final sample size was reduced from the start of the social confinement for 20 months until the Post2 measurement.

5. Conclusions

The 20 months of social confinement due to COVID-19 worsened MetS outcomes that had improved from 20 weeks for RT + HIIT during the training period, such as WC, SBP, and Tg, and for HIIT + RT; worryingly, SBP increased to another more serious clinical diagnosis in both groups. These results revealed the practical need to promote and maintain physical activity or exercise training strategies in future at-home social confinement imposed due to pandemic viruses in populations with high cardiometabolic risk, such as patients with morbid obesity.
New and Noteworthy: The effects of concurrent training applied in different orders, such as high-intensity interval training plus resistance (HIIT + RT) or in reverse order (RT + HIIT), have provided relevant information for improving cardiometabolic health independent of their order of application in morbidly obese patients who are candidates for bariatric surgery. The uniqueness of the present study is the finding that COVID-19 social confinement worsened the previous concurrent training benefits acquired before the pandemic state in metabolic syndrome outcomes such as systolic blood pressure and plasma triglycerides. These findings claim for a need of a major capacity for translating exercise training programs from in person to an ‘online’ follow-up in order to maintain population health benefits if future social distance or confinement state.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.D.-F., C.A. and I.P.G.-G.; methodology, P.D.-F.; software, F.C.-N.; validation, L.C-R., F.C.-N., F.G.-R., I.P.G.-G. and C.A.V.; formal analysis and investigation, C.A.; resources, P.D.-F.; data curation, K.S.-A.; writing—original draft preparation, C.A.V., K.S.-A., F.C.-N. and P.D.-F.; writing—review and editing, L.C.-R. and F.C.-N.; visualization, K.S.-A.; supervision, P.D.-F.; project administration, P.D.-F.; funding acquisition, P.D.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University de La Frontera, Chile Project DI21-0030 and Project FRO1895. The postdoctoral researcher Pedro Delgado-Floody has a contract through the programme “Recualificación del Profesorado Universitario. Modalidad María Zambrano”, Universidad de Granada/Ministerio de Universidades y Fondos Next Generation de la Unión Europea.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The research process complied with the Helsinki Declaration (2013) and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidad de La Frontera, Chile (ACTA No. 080_21).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the patients for their commitment to the programme and the undergraduate students Valentina Canales, Daniel Aniñir, Alan Liempi, Fabian Higuera and SICAVD organization for their support in the application of exercise protocols.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Booth, F.W.; Roberts, C.K.; Laye, M.J. Lack of exercise is a major cause of chronic diseases. Compr. Physiol. 2012, 2, 1143. [Google Scholar]
  2. WHO. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Friedenreich, C.; Shiroma, E.J.; Lee, I.-M. Physical inactivity and non-communicable disease burden in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries. Br. J. Sports Med. 2022, 56, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Reyes-Olavarría, D.; Latorre-Román, P.Á.; Guzmán-Guzmán, I.P.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Caamaño-Navarrete, F.; Delgado-Floody, P. Positive and negative changes in food habits, physical activity patterns, and weight status during COVID-19 confinement: Associated factors in the Chilean population. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Caprara, G. Mediterranean-Type Dietary Pattern and Physical Activity: The Winning Combination to Counteract the Rising Burden of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). Nutrients 2021, 13, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Katsoulis, M.; Pasea, L.; Lai, A.G.; Dobson, R.J.; Denaxas, S.; Hemingway, H.; Banerjee, A. Obesity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Both cause of high risk and potential effect of lockdown? A population-based electronic health record study. Public Health 2021, 191, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Melamed, O.C.; Selby, P.; Taylor, V.H. Mental Health and Obesity During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2022, 11, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Rodríguez-Fernández, P.; González-Santos, J.; Santamaría-Peláez, M.; Soto-Cámara, R.; Sánchez-González, E.; González-Bernal, J.J. Psychological Effects of Home Confinement and Social Distancing Derived from COVID-19 in the General Population—A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Stockwell, S.; Trott, M.; Tully, M.; Shin, J.; Barnett, Y.; Butler, L.; McDermott, D.; Schuch, F.; Smith, L. Changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviours from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: A systematic review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2021, 7, e000960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ruíz-Roso, M.B.; de Carvalho Padilha, P.; Matilla-Escalante, D.C.; Brun, P.; Ulloa, N.; Acevedo-Correa, D.; Arantes Ferreira Peres, W.; Martorell, M.; Rangel Bousquet Carrilho, T.; de Oliveira Cardoso, L.; et al. Changes of Physical Activity and Ultra-Processed Food Consumption in Adolescents from Different Countries during COVID-19 Pandemic: An Observational Study. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Mattioli, A.V.; Sciomer, S.; Cocchi, C.; Maffei, S.; Gallina, S. Quarantine during COVID-19 outbreak: Changes in diet and physical activity increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2020, 30, 1409–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Joseph, R.P.; Pituch, K.A.; Guest, M.A.; Maxfield, M.; Peckham, A.; Coon, D.W.; Kim, W.; Langer, S.L. Physical activity among predominantly white middle-aged and older US adults during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Results from a national longitudinal survey. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Janssen, M.; Chang, B.P.; Hristov, H.; Pravst, I.; Profeta, A.; Millard, J. Changes in food consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of consumer survey data from the first lockdown period in Denmark, Germany, and Slovenia. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hobbs, J.E. Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. D’Agroecon. 2020, 68, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Strotmann, C.; Baur, V.; Börnert, N.; Gerwin, P. Generation and prevention of food waste in the German food service sector in the COVID-19 pandemic—Digital approaches to encounter the pandemic related crisis. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2021, 82, 101104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, L.; Li, J.; Xia, T.; Matthews, T.A.; Tseng, T.-S.; Shi, L.; Zhang, D.; Chen, Z.; Han, X.; Li, Y.; et al. Changes of Exercise, Screen Time, Fast Food Consumption, Alcohol, and Cigarette Smoking during the COVID-19 Pandemic among Adults in the United States. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Biamonte, E.; Pegoraro, F.; Carrone, F.; Facchi, I.; Favacchio, G.; Lania, A.G.; Mazziotti, G.; Mirani, M. Weight change and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients during COVID-19 pandemic: The lockdown effect. Endocrine 2021, 72, 604–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Maffoni, S.; Brazzo, S.; De Giuseppe, R.; Biino, G.; Vietti, I.; Pallavicini, C.; Cena, H. Lifestyle Changes and Body Mass Index during COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown: An Italian Online-Survey. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Laffin, L.J.; Kaufman, H.W.; Chen, Z.; Niles, J.K.; Arellano, A.R.; Bare, L.A.; Hazen, S.L. Rise in Blood Pressure Observed Among US Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Circulation 2022, 145, 235–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Celik, M.; Yilmaz, Y.; Karagoz, A.; Kahyaoglu, M.; Cakmak, E.O.; Kup, A.; Celik, F.B.; Karaduman, A.; Kulahcioglu, S.; Izci, S. Anxiety disorder associated with the COVID-19 pandemic causes deterioration of blood pressure control in primary hypertensive patients. Medeni. Med. J. 2021, 36, 83. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rezaei, A.; Neshat, S.; Heshmat-Ghahdarijani, K. Alterations of lipid profile in COVID-19: A narrative review. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 2021, 47, 100907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Biancalana, E.; Parolini, F.; Mengozzi, A.; Solini, A. Short-term impact of COVID-19 lockdown on metabolic control of patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes: A single-centre observational study. Acta Diabetol. 2021, 58, 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Auriemma, R.S.; Pirchio, R.; Liccardi, A.; Scairati, R.; Del Vecchio, G.; Pivonello, R.; Colao, A. Metabolic syndrome in the era of COVID-19 outbreak: Impact of lockdown on cardiometabolic health. J. Endocrinol. Investig. 2021, 44, 2845–2847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gjaka, M.; Feka, K.; Bianco, A.; Tishukaj, F.; Giustino, V.; Parroco, A.M.; Palma, A.; Battaglia, G. The effect of COVID-19 lockdown measures on physical activity levels and sedentary behaviour in a relatively young population living in Kosovo. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mauro, M.; Toselli, S.; Bonazzi, S.; Grigoletto, A.; Cataldi, S.; Greco, G.; Latessa, P.M. Effects of quarantine on Physical Activity prevalence in Italian Adults: A pilot study. PeerJ 2022, 10, e14123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Halpern, B.; Louzada, M.L.d.C.; Aschner, P.; Gerchman, F.; Brajkovich, I.; Faria-Neto, J.R.; Polanco, F.E.; Montero, J.; Juliá, S.M.M.; Lotufo, P.A. Obesity and COVID-19 in Latin America: A tragedy of two pandemics—Official document of the Latin American Federation of Obesity Societies. Obes. Rev. 2021, 22, e13165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Polero, P.; Rebollo-Seco, C.; Adsuar, J.C.; Pérez-Gómez, J.; Rojo-Ramos, J.; Manzano-Redondo, F.; Garcia-Gordillo, M.Á.; Carlos-Vivas, J. Physical Activity Recommendations during COVID-19, Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bentlage, E.; Ammar, A.; How, D.; Ahmed, M.; Trabelsi, K.; Chtourou, H.; Brach, M. Practical Recommendations for Maintaining Active Lifestyle during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, Y.; Ma, L.; Ma, Y.; Wang, H.; Luo, J.; Zhang, X.; Luo, C.; Wang, H.; Zhao, H.; Pan, D.; et al. A national school-based health lifestyles interventions among Chinese children and adolescents against obesity: Rationale, design and methodology of a randomized controlled trial in China. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Arena, R.; Lavie, C.J.; Hivert, M.-F.; Williams, M.A.; Briggs, P.D.; Guazzi, M. Who will deliver comprehensive healthy lifestyle interventions to combat non-communicable disease? Introducing the healthy lifestyle practitioner discipline. Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 2016, 14, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Marcon, E.R.; Baglioni, S.; Bittencourt, L.; Lopes, C.; Neumann, C.; Trindade, M. What is the best treatment before bariatric surgery? Exercise, exercise and group therapy, or conventional waiting: A randomized controlled trial. Obes. Surg. 2017, 27, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Delgado-Floody, P.; Soriano-Maldonado, A.; Rodríguez-Pérez, M.A.; Latorre-Román, P.Á.; Martínez-Salazar, C.; Vargas, C.A.; Caamaño-Navarrete, F.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Álvarez, C. The Effects of Two Different Concurrent Training Configurations on Markers of Metabolic Syndrome and Fitness in Women with Severe/Morbid Obesity: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Front. Physiol. 2021, 12, 1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Delgado-Floody, P.; Latorre-Román, P.Á.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Caamaño-Navarrete, F.; Cano-Montoya, J.; Laredo-Aguilera, J.A.; Carmona-Torres, J.M.; Cobo-Cuenca, A.I.; Pozuelo-Carrascosa, D.P.; Álvarez, C. Poor sleep quality decreases concurrent training benefits in markers of metabolic syndrome and quality of life of morbidly obese patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Alberti, K.; Eckel, R.H.; Grundy, S.M.; Zimmet, P.Z.; Cleeman, J.I.; Donato, K.A.; Fruchart, J.-C.; James, W.P.T.; Loria, C.M.; Smith, S.C., Jr. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: A joint interim statement of the international diabetes federation task force on epidemiology and prevention; national heart, lung, and blood institute; American heart association; world heart federation; international atherosclerosis society; and international association for the study of obesity. Circulation 2009, 120, 1640–1645. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Mancia, G.; Fagard, R.; Narkiewicz, K.; Redon, J.; Zanchetti, A.; Böhm, M.; Christiaens, T.; Cifkova, R.; De Backer, G.; Dominiczak, A. 2013 ESH/ESC practice guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: ESH-ESC the task force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Blood Press. 2014, 23, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. North American Association for the Study of Obesity, National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute; NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative. The Practical Guide: Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults; National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative, North American Association for the Study of Obesity: Bethesda, MA, USA, 2000.
  37. Sturm, R. Increases in morbid obesity in the USA. 2000–2005. Public Health 2007, 121, 492–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. De Souza, S.A.F.; Faintuch, J.; Fabris, S.M.; Nampo, F.K.; Luz, C.; Fabio, T.L.; Sitta, I.S.; de Batista Fonseca, I.C. Six-minute walk test: Functional capacity of severely obese before and after bariatric surgery. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 2009, 5, 540–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Norman, K.; Stobäus, N.; Gonzalez, M.C.; Schulzke, J.-D.; Pirlich, M. Hand grip strength: Outcome predictor and marker of nutritional status. Clin. Nutr. 2011, 30, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Delgado-Floody, P.; Alvarez, C.; Lusa Cadore, E.; Flores-Opazo, M.; Caamano-Navarrete, F.; Izquierdo, M. Preventing metabolic syndrome in morbid obesity with resistance training: Reporting interindividual variability. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2019, 29, 1368–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Álvarez, C.; Ramírez-Campillo, R.; Lucia, A.; Ramírez-Vélez, R.; Izquierdo, M. Concurrent exercise training on hyperglycemia and comorbidities associated: Non-responders using clinical cutoff points. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2019, 29, 952–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brzycki, M. Strength testing—Predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Danc. 1993, 64, 88–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Guzik, T.J.; Mohiddin, S.A.; Dimarco, A.; Patel, V.; Savvatis, K.; Marelli-Berg, F.M.; Madhur, M.S.; Tomaszewski, M.; Maffia, P.; D’acquisto, F. COVID-19 and the cardiovascular system: Implications for risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment options. Cardiovasc. Res. 2020, 116, 1666–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Martínez-Quintana, E.; del Carmen Vega-Acedo, L.; Santana-Herrera, D.; Pérez-Acosta, C.; Medina-Gil, J.M.; Muñoz-Díaz, E.; Rodríguez-González, F. Mental well-being among patients with congenital heart disease and heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am. J. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2021, 11, 618. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Sohn, M.; Koo, B.K.; Yoon, H.I.; Song, K.-H.; Kim, E.S.; Kim, H.B.; Lim, S. Impact of COVID-19 and Associated Preventive Measures on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in South Korea. J. Obes. Metab. Syndr. 2021, 30, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kaufman-Shriqui, V.; Navarro, D.A.; Raz, O.; Boaz, M. Multinational dietary changes and anxiety during the coronavirus pandemic-findings from Israel. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 2021, 10, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Narici, M.; Vito, G.D.; Franchi, M.; Paoli, A.; Moro, T.; Marcolin, G.; Grassi, B.; Baldassarre, G.; Zuccarelli, L.; Biolo, G. Impact of sedentarism due to the COVID-19 home confinement on neuromuscular, cardiovascular and metabolic health: Physiological and pathophysiological implications and recommendations for physical and nutritional countermeasures. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2021, 21, 614–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Timmons, J.F.; Griffin, C.; Cogan, K.E.; Matthews, J.; Egan, B. Exercise maintenance in older adults 1 year after completion of a supervised training intervention. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2020, 68, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Leitão, L.; Marocolo, M.; de Souza, H.L.; Arriel, R.A.; Campos, Y.; Mazini, M.; Junior, R.P.; Figueiredo, T.; Louro, H.; Pereira, A. Three-Month vs. One-Year Detraining Effects after Multicomponent Exercise Program in Hypertensive Older Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Flanagan, E.W.; Beyl, R.A.; Fearnbach, S.N.; Altazan, A.D.; Martin, C.K.; Redman, L.M. The impact of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders on health behaviors in adults. Obesity 2021, 29, 438–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bakaloudi, D.R.; Barazzoni, R.; Bischoff, S.C.; Breda, J.; Wickramasinghe, K.; Chourdakis, M. Impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown on body weight: A combined systematic review and a meta-analysis. Clin. Nutr. 2021; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ammar, A.; Brach, M.; Trabelsi, K.; Chtourou, H.; Boukhris, O.; Masmoudi, L.; Bouaziz, B.; Bentlage, E.; How, D.; Ahmed, M. Effects of COVID-19 home confinement on eating behaviour and physical activity: Results of the ECLB-COVID19 international online survey. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kriaucioniene, V.; Bagdonaviciene, L.; Rodríguez-Pérez, C.; Petkeviciene, J. Associations between changes in health behaviours and body weight during the COVID-19 quarantine in Lithuania: The Lithuanian COVIDiet study. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Robinson, E.; Boyland, E.; Chisholm, A.; Harrold, J.; Maloney, N.G.; Marty, L.; Mead, B.R.; Noonan, R.; Hardman, C.A. Obesity, eating behavior and physical activity during COVID-19 lockdown: A study of UK adults. Appetite 2021, 156, 104853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wu, Y.; Li, H.; Tao, X.; Fan, Y.; Gao, Q.; Yang, J. Optimised anthropometric indices as predictive screening tools for metabolic syndrome in adults: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e043952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ramírez Manent, J.I.; Altisench Jané, B.; Sanchís Cortés, P.; Busquets-Cortés, C.; Arroyo Bote, S.; Masmiquel Comas, L.; López González, Á.A. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on anthropometric variables, blood pressure, and glucose and lipid profile in healthy adults: A before and after pandemic lockdown longitudinal study. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bogataj Jontez, N.; Novak, K.; Kenig, S.; Petelin, A.; Jenko Pražnikar, Z.; Mohorko, N. The Impact of COVID-19-Related Lockdown on Diet and Serum Markers in Healthy Adults. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Martinez-Ferran, M.; de la Guía-Galipienso, F.; Sanchis-Gomar, F.; Pareja-Galeano, H. Metabolic impacts of confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic due to modified diet and physical activity habits. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Aajal, A.; El Boussaadani, B.; Hara, L.; Benajiba, C.; Boukouk, O.; Benali, M.; Ouadfel, O.; Bendoudouch, H.; Zergoune, N.; Alkattan, D. The consequences of the lockdown on cardiovascular diseases. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 77, 3136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fosco, M.J.; Silva, P.; Taborda, G.A.; Ahumada, L. Asociación entre aislamiento social preventivo obligatorio por COVID-19 e Hipertensión Arterial Grave. MEDICINA 2020, 80, 25–29. [Google Scholar]
  61. Giralt-Herrera, A.; Rojas-Velázquez, J.M.; Leiva-Enríquez, J. Relación entre COVID-19 e hipertensión arterial. Rev. Habanera De Cienc. Méd. 2020, 19, e_3246. [Google Scholar]
  62. Saklayen, M.G. The global epidemic of the metabolic syndrome. Curr. Hypertens. Rep. 2018, 20, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 13408 g001 550
Figure 1. Study protocols.
Figure 1. Study protocols.
Ijerph 19 13408 g001
Ijerph 19 13408 g002 550
Figure 2. Metabolic syndrome outcomes (WC [panels A, B], SBP [panels C, D]/DBP [panels E, F]) after 20 weeks of different CT orders and after 20 months of COVID-19 confinement. (*) Denotes significant differences at level p < 0.05. (**) Denotes significant differences at level p < 0.001. (ns) Non-significant changes.
Figure 2. Metabolic syndrome outcomes (WC [panels A, B], SBP [panels C, D]/DBP [panels E, F]) after 20 weeks of different CT orders and after 20 months of COVID-19 confinement. (*) Denotes significant differences at level p < 0.05. (**) Denotes significant differences at level p < 0.001. (ns) Non-significant changes.
Ijerph 19 13408 g002
Ijerph 19 13408 g003 550
Figure 3. Metabolic syndrome outcomes (HDL-c [panels A, B], Tg [panels C, D], and FPG [panels E, F]) after 20 weeks of different CT orders and after 20 months of COVID-19 confinement. (*) Denotes significant differences at level p < 0.05. (**) Denotes significant differences at level p < 0.001. (ns) Non-significant changes.
Figure 3. Metabolic syndrome outcomes (HDL-c [panels A, B], Tg [panels C, D], and FPG [panels E, F]) after 20 weeks of different CT orders and after 20 months of COVID-19 confinement. (*) Denotes significant differences at level p < 0.05. (**) Denotes significant differences at level p < 0.001. (ns) Non-significant changes.
Ijerph 19 13408 g003
Table
Table 1. Comparison between groups according to anthropometric and body composition variables.
Table 1. Comparison between groups according to anthropometric and body composition variables.
TimeHIIT + RTRT + HIITBaseline
p-Value
Age (y) 45.0 ± 8.935.5 ± 14.7p = 0.108
Anthropometric
Body mass (kg)Pre0104.4 ± 20.3120.1 ± 21.8p = 0.132
Post1102.7 ± 20.6115.1 ± 20.8 ¥
Post2109.2 ± 19.3 †121.8 ± 266 *†
BMI (kg/m2)Pre042.1 ± 6.647.5 ± 8.4p = 0.153
Post141.4 ± 6.445.6 ± 8.3
Post244.1 ± 6.547.6 ± 10.3 †
Body composition
Body fat (%)Pre048.2 ± 4.250.6 ± 3.7p = 0.222
Post148.0 ± 3.850.7 ± 4.8
Post249.7 ± 3.2 *†48.4 ± 4.3
Body fat (kg)Pre050.8 ± 13.661.4 ± 15.9p = 0.164
Post149.9 ± 13.559.3 ± 16.3
Post254.8 ± 12.9 *†59.7 ± 18
Lean mass (kg)Pre053.2 ± 7.158.5 ± 6.6p = 0.0.47
Post152.6 ± 7.356.2 ± 4.2
Post254.3 ± 6.7 †62.0 ± 10.3 *†
Skeletal muscle mass (kg)Pre050.5 ± 6.855.6 ± 6.2p = 0.129
Post150.0 ± 6.953.3 ± 4.0
Post251.5 ± 6.4 †58.8 ± 9.8 *†
Bone mass (kg)Pre02.7 ± 0.32.9 ± 0.3p = 0.157
Post12.6 ± 0.32.8 ± 0.1
Post22.7 ± 0.33.1 ± 0.4 *†
Total body water (%)Pre038.7 ± 5.941.8 ± 4.5p = 0.259
Post137.3 ± 5.440.2 ± 4.4
Post239.7 ± 5.646.5 ± 9.4 *†
Basal metabolic rate (kcal)Pre01688.0 ± 251.01897.0 ± 230.0p = 0.094
Post11670.0 ± 255.11818.0 ± 175.8
Post21727.0 ± 237.8 †1985.0 ± 349.0 *†
Data are shown in mean and ± standard deviation. Times are described as follows: Pre0 is the baseline measurements; Post1 is the post-20 weeks of concurrent training intervention; Post2 is the post-20 months of physical inactivity due to COVID-19 confinement measures. Groups are described as follows: HIIT + RT is the high-intensity interval training plus resistance training group; RT + HIIT is the resistance training plus high-intensity interval training group. Outcomes are described as follows: BMI is the body mass index. Within-group analyses were tested using two-way ANOVA (groups–time). ¥ denotes significant differences between Pre0 and Post1 at p < 0.05 according to the Sidak post hoc test. * denotes significant differences between Pre0 and Post2 at p < 0.05 according to the Sidak post hoc test. † denotes significant differences between Post1 and Post2 at p < 0.05 according to the Sidak post hoc test.
Table
Table 2. Comparison between groups according to anthropometric cardiovascular, metabolic, and fitness parameters.
Table 2. Comparison between groups according to anthropometric cardiovascular, metabolic, and fitness parameters.
TimeHIIT + RTRT + HIITp-Value
Cardiovascular
Heart rate resting (beats/min)Pre085.2 ± 17.878.6 ± 10.1p = 0.257
Post186.9 ± 16.992.9 ± 17.8 ¥
Post285.2 ± 10.884.2 ± 16.1
Metabolic
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)Pre0177.6 ± 33.7191.6 ± 23.5p = 0.356
Post1180.6 ± 34.2170.5 ± 26.9
Post2180.5 ± 38.6178.3 ± 19.6
LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)Pre0116.8 ± 39.1124.6 ± 17.2p = 0.630
Post1116.6 ± 20.9112.7 ± 22.8
Post2123.5 ± 35.8125.0 ± 20.1
Physical fitness
6 Mwt (m)Pre0540.9 ± 117.1531.4 ± 51.7p = 0.843
Post1660.9 ± 104.3585.0 ± 65.9
Post2504.5 ± 119.9 *†541.4 ± 94.0
Handgrip strength dominant (kg)Pre029.1 ± 6.532.2 ± 9.6p = 0.425
Post131.6 ± 6.433.5 ± 4.9
Post228.5 ± 7.133.8 ± 7.3
Handgrip strength non-dominant (kg)Pre026.5 ± 6.329.5 ± 9.3p = 0.425
Post129.8 ± 6.731.2 ± 5.9
Post227.7 ± 7.235.2 ± 9.2 *
Data are shown in mean and ± standard deviation. Times are described as follows: Pre0 is the baseline measurements with HIIT + RT n = 17 and RT + HIIT n = 17; Post1 is the post-20 weeks of concurrent training intervention measurements with HIIT + RT n = 14 and RT + HIIT n = 12; Post2 is the post-20 months of physical inactivity due to COVID-19 confinement measures with HIIT + RT n = 11 and RT + HIIT n = 7. Groups are described as follows: HIIT + RT is the high-intensity interval training plus resistance training group; RT + HIIT is the resistance training plus high-intensity interval training group. Outcomes are described as follows: LDL-c is low-density lipids; 6 Mwt is the six-minute walking test. † indicates an analysis using one-way ANOVA at p < 0.05. Within-group analyses were tested by two-way ANOVA (groups–time). ¥ denotes significant differences between Pre0 and Post1 at p < 0.05 according to the Sidak post hoc test. * denotes significant differences between Pre0 and Post2 at p < 0.05 according to the Sidak post hoc test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Delgado-Floody, P.; Chirosa-Ríos, L.; Guzmán-Guzmán, I.P.; Vargas, C.A.; Sandoval-Aguilera, K.; Caamaño-Navarrete, F.; Guede-Rojas, F.; Alvarez, C. The Social Distance Impacts from COVID-19 Pandemic on the Development of Two Orders of a Concurrent Training Programme for Morbidly Obese Patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13408. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013408

AMA Style

Delgado-Floody P, Chirosa-Ríos L, Guzmán-Guzmán IP, Vargas CA, Sandoval-Aguilera K, Caamaño-Navarrete F, Guede-Rojas F, Alvarez C. The Social Distance Impacts from COVID-19 Pandemic on the Development of Two Orders of a Concurrent Training Programme for Morbidly Obese Patients. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(20):13408. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013408

Chicago/Turabian Style

Delgado-Floody, Pedro, Luis Chirosa-Ríos, Iris Paola Guzmán-Guzmán, Claudia Andrea Vargas, Karina Sandoval-Aguilera, Felipe Caamaño-Navarrete, Francisco Guede-Rojas, and Cristian Alvarez. 2022. "The Social Distance Impacts from COVID-19 Pandemic on the Development of Two Orders of a Concurrent Training Programme for Morbidly Obese Patients" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 20: 13408. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013408

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop