To compare the exercise loads and cognitive effects of a classical workplace program from that for a motor–cognitive coordination workplace intervention.Methods:
Twenty-eight (28) employed adults (women 19, men 9) participated in a motor–cognitive coordination and a classical workplace health promotion exercise intervention. Effects on attention and cognition (trail making test [TMT]) as well as exercise load (heart rate and rates of perceived exhaustion [RPE]) were assessed.Results:
The motor–cognitive intervention does not improve cognitive abilities (TMT-A: –4.6 ± 2.2 seconds; TMT-B: –8.5 ± 3.2 seconds) to a greater extent than the classical workplace health enhancement training (TMT-A: –4.6 ± 3.1 seconds; TMT-B: –7.4 ± 3.9 seconds) (P < 0.05). The exercise load was not different between the two interventions (maximal heart rate: 107 ± 8 vs 111 ± 6 bpm; RPE: 11.8 ± 1.7 vs 11.9 ± 1.2 points).Conclusions:
The motor–cognitive workplace intervention may be adopted as an additional/alternate enhancement in terms of varied activity, and not as a compensation intervention for workplace health. More research is needed to proof this assumption.