IJCS | Volume 31, Nº6, November / December 2018

624 Table 2 - Body composition and waist circumference of the conventional and virtual reality rehabilitation groups (CRG and VRG, respectively) at baseline and study end, expressed as mean ± standard deviation BIA / WC CRG p value VRG p value Baseline Final Baseline Final Fat (%) 33.66 ± 4.83 33.25 ± 5.53 0.5271 28.34 ± 4.59 30.02 ± 4.28 0.0117* Fat weight (kg) 26.27 ± 6.09 25.95 ± 6.9 0.5654 20.43 ± 4.1 21.79 ± 3.95 0.0191* Lean weight (kg) 52.22 ± 12.62 52.33 ± 12.29 0.8512 51.87 ± 8.92 51.79 ± 9.08 0.9269 BMR (Kcal) 1605 ± 378.4 1591 ± 373.9 0.6638 1579 ± 269.4 1553 ± 276.6 0.0407 Water (%) 76.06 ± 1.50 72.99 ± 8.67 0.0664 76.16 ± 1.97 76.13 ± 1.83 0.8504 Total water (L) 39.73 ± 9.84 41.99 ± 14 0.3601 39.57 ± 7 38.61 ± 7.37 0.0241* WC (cm) 102.2 ± 11.70 103.3 ± 12.64 0.3115 95.36 ± 8.758 96.64 ± 9.018 0.0823 BIA: bioimpedance; WC: waist circumference; BMR: basal metabolic rate; * significant difference between study end and baseline. Statistical tests: paired Student t test or Wilcoxon test according to data normality. Table 3 - Comparison of the variations in body composition and waist circumference between the conventional and virtual reality rehabilitation groups (CRG and VRG, respectively) expressed as median and interquartile range (25%-75%) BIA / WC CRG 95% CI LL 95% CI UL VRG 95% CI LL 95% CI UL p value ∆ Fat (%) 0.10 [-1.87 - 1.32] -1.784 0.9676 2.05 [ 0.75 - 3.00] 0.4408 2.916 0.0213* ∆ Fat weight (kg) -0.30 [-1.70 - 1.30] -1.493 0.8592 1.20 [0.50 - 2.37] 0.2621 2.466 0.0325* ∆ Lean weight (kg) -0.25 [-1.12 - 1.12] -1.133 1.35 -0.9 [-1.70 - (-0.15)] -2.066 1.895 0.2683 ∆ BMR (Kcal) -6 [-47.00 - 49.25] -83.98 55.65 -29.00 [-52.00 - (-4.00)] -50.3 -1.269 0.2367 ∆ Water (%) -0.1500 [-1.75 - 0.0] -8.648 2.515 0.05 [-0.62 - 0.62] -0.4368 0.3653 0.1219 ∆ Total water (L) -0.2 [-0.67 - 1.45] -2.947 7.463 -1.05 [-1.70 - (-0.37)] -1.768 -0.1467 0.0371* ∆ WC (cm) 1.50 [-1.00 - 2.00] -1.254 3.587 1.50 [-1.00 - 3.00] -0.1894 2.761 0.9253 BIA: bioimpedance; WC: waist circumference; ∆: amplitude; CI: confidence interval; LL: lower limit; UL: upper limit; BMR: basal metabolic rate; * significant difference between study end and baseline. Statistical tests: nonpaired Student t test or Mann Whitney test according to data normality. Silva et al. Virtual rehabilitation for individuals with heart disease Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2018;31(6)619-629 Original Article of body fat percentage between groups was considered high (d = 0.96), as was the effect size of fat weight (d = 0.89). The effect size of lean weight was small (d = 0.06). Food frequency Regarding food frequency, the paired analysis showed no significant difference in most food groups (p > 0.05), but a significant increase in the intake of sweets and desserts was observed in the CRG (p = 0.0425), while the VRG showed a significant increase in the intake of vegetables (p = 0.0455), sauces and seasonings (p = 0.0245). Table 4 compares the food frequency variation between the two groups, showing a significantly higher intake of vegetables, sauces and seasonings in the VRG as compared to that of the CRG. No significant difference was observed in the consumption of other food groups. Functional capacity and blood glucose level Figure 2 shows the functional capacity values of the individuals assessed. The distance covered increased significantly in both groups after undergoing the training protocols. Figure 3 depicts the blood glucose levels during the training sessions and the significant differences found,