Combined resistance training with aerobic training improves physical performance in patients with coronary artery diseaseKambič, Tim (Avtor) Šarabon, Nejc (Avtor) Lainščak, Mitja (Avtor) Hadžić, Vedran (Avtor) strength trainingcardiac rehabilitationmyocardial infarctionmuscle strengthmobilitybalanceBackground: The efficacy of combined resistance training (RT) and aerobic training (AT) compared with AT alone is well established in cardiac rehabilitation (CR); however, it remains to be elucidated whether RT load (high load [HL] vs. low load [LL]) modifies the outcomes. The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of HL-RT and LL-RT combined with AT in comparison to AT alone on body composition and physical performance in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) enrolled in phase II CR. Methods: We randomized 79 patients with a stable CAD to 12 weeks of lower limb LL-RT + AT (35–40% of one repetition maximum [1-RM]; n = 28), HLRT + AT (70–80% of 1-RM; n = 26), or AT (n = 25). Fifty-nine patients (75% men) with mean (standard deviation) age 61 (8) years and left ventricular ejection fraction 53 (9)% completed LL-RT (n = 19), HL-RT (n = 21) and AT (n = 19). Body composition and physical performance (upper and lower submaximal muscle strength, flexibility, balance, and mobility) were measured at baseline and post-training. Results: Training intervention had no significant impact on time × group interaction in the body composition measures. There was a significant time × group interaction for the gait speed test, chair sit-and-reach test, arm curl test, Stork balance test, up and go test, STS-5, and 6-min walk distance (p-values ≤ 0.001–0.04) following the training intervention. After the training intervention, HL-RT improved gait speed (+12%, p = 0.044), arm curl (+13%, p = 0.037), and time of Up and Go test (+9%, p < 0.001) to a greater extent compared with AT group, while there was a greater improvement in time of Up and Go test (+18%, p < 0.001) and time of five sit-to-stand tests (+14%, p = 0.016) following LL-RT when compared with AT. There were no differences between HL-RT and LL-RT in post-training improvement in any of the physical performance measures. Conclusion: The combination of AT with HL-RT or LL-RT promoted similar improvements in physical performance, which were superior to AT. Therefore, both types of combined AT and RT can be applied to patients with CAD.20222023-04-19 09:16:17Članek v reviji145360UDK: 616.1ISSN pri članku: 2297-055XDOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.909385COBISS_ID: 118989059sl