Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (11)
- Postprint (8)
- Review (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (23)
Keywords
- resistance training (23) (remove)
Background: With increasing age neuromuscular deficits (e.g., sarcopenia) may result in impaired physical performance and an increased risk for falls. Prominent intrinsic fall-risk factors are age-related decreases in balance and strength / power performance as well as cognitive decline. Additional studies are needed to develop specifically tailored exercise programs for older adults that can easily be implemented into clinical practice. Thus, the objective of the present trial is to assess the effects of a fall prevention program that was developed by an interdisciplinary expert panel on measures of balance, strength / power, body composition, cognition, psychosocial well-being, and falls self-efficacy in healthy older adults. Additionally, the time-related effects of detraining are tested.
Methods/Design: Healthy old people (n = 54) between the age of 65 to 80 years will participate in this trial. The testing protocol comprises tests for the assessment of static / dynamic steady-state balance (i.e., Sharpened Romberg Test, instrumented gait analysis), proactive balance (i.e., Functional Reach Test; Timed Up and Go Test), reactive balance (i.e., perturbation test during bipedal stance; Push and Release Test), strength (i.e., hand grip strength test; Chair Stand Test), and power (i.e., Stair Climb Power Test; countermovement jump). Further, body composition will be analysed using a bioelectrical impedance analysis system. In addition, questionnaires for the assessment of psychosocial (i.e., World Health Organisation Quality of Life Assessment-Bref), cognitive (i.e., Mini Mental State Examination), and fall risk determinants (i.e., Fall Efficacy Scale -International) will be included in the study protocol. Participants will be randomized into two intervention groups or the control / waiting group. After baseline measures, participants in the intervention groups will conduct a 12-week balance and strength / power exercise intervention 3 times per week, with each training session lasting 30 min. (actual training time). One intervention group will complete an extensive supervised training program, while the other intervention group will complete a short version (` 3 times 3') that is home-based and controlled by weekly phone calls. Post-tests will be conducted right after the intervention period. Additionally, detraining effects will be measured 12 weeks after program cessation. The control group / waiting group will not participate in any specific intervention during the experimental period, but will receive the extensive supervised program after the experimental period.
Discussion: It is expected that particularly the supervised combination of balance and strength / power training will improve performance in variables of balance, strength / power, body composition, cognitive function, psychosocial well-being, and falls self-efficacy of older adults. In addition, information regarding fall risk assessment, dose-response-relations, detraining effects, and supervision of training will be provided. Further, training-induced health-relevant changes, such as improved performance in activities of daily living, cognitive function, and quality of life, as well as a reduced risk for falls may help to lower costs in the health care system. Finally, practitioners, therapists, and instructors will be provided with a scientifically evaluated feasible, safe, and easy-to-administer exercise program for fall prevention.
Background: Post-activation potentiation (PAP) can elicit acute performance enhancements in variables of strength, power, and speed. However, it is unresolved whether the frequent integration of PAP eliciting conditioning activities in training (i.e., complex training) results in long-term adaptations. In this regard, it is of interest to know whether complex training results in larger performance enhancements as compared to more traditional and isolated training regimens (e. g., resistance training). Thus, this systematic literature review summarises the current state of the art regarding the effects of complex training on measures of strength, power, and speed in recreational, subelite, and elite athletes. Further, it provides information on training volume and intensities that proved to be effective.
Methods: Our literature search included the electronic databases Pubmed, SportDiscus, and Web of Science (1995 to September 2013). In total, 17 studies met the inclusionary criteria for review. Ten studies examined alternating complex training and 7 studies sequenced complex training.
Results: Our findings indicated small to large effects for both alternating complex training (countermovement jump height: +7.4 % [ESd = -0.43]; squat jump height: +9.8 % [ESd = -0.66]; sprint time: -2.4% [ESd = 0.63]) and sequenced complex training (countermovement jump height: +6.0 % [ESd = -0.83]; squat jump height: +11.9% [ESd = -0.97], sprint time: -0.7% [ESd = 0.52]) in measures of power and speed. As compared to more traditional training regimens, alternating and sequenced complex training showed only small effects in measures of strength, power, and speed. A more detailed analysis of alternating complex training revealed larger effects in countermovement jump height in recreational athletes (+9.7% [ESd = -0.57]) as compared to subelite and elite athletes (+2.7% [ESd = -0.15]). Based on the relevant and currently available literature, missing data (e.g., time for rest interval) and diverse information regarding training volume and intensity do not allow us to establish evidence-based dose-response relations for complex training.
Conclusion: Complex training represents an effective training regimen for athletes if the goal is to enhance strength, power, and speed. Studies with high methodological quality have to be conducted in the future to elucidate whether complex training is less, similar, or even more effective compared to more traditional training regimens. Finally, it should be clarified whether alternated and/or sequenced conditioning activities implemented in complex training actually elicit acute PAP effects.
Background: Habitual walking speed predicts many clinical conditions later in life, but it declines with age. However, which particular exercise intervention can minimize the age-related gait speed loss is unclear.
Purpose: Our objective was to determine the effects of strength, power, coordination, and multimodal exercise training on healthy old adults' habitual and fast gait speed.
Methods: We performed a computerized systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Knowledge from January 1984 up to December 2014. Search terms included 'Resistance training', 'power training', 'coordination training', 'multimodal training', and 'gait speed (outcome term). Inclusion criteria were articles available in full text, publication period over past 30 years, human species, journal articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, English as publication language, and subject age C65 years. The methodological quality of all eligible intervention studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. We computed weighted average standardized mean differences of the intervention-induced adaptations in gait speed using a random-effects model and tested for overall and individual intervention effects relative to no-exercise controls.
Results: A total of 42 studies (mean PEDro score of 5.0 +/- 1.2) were included in the analyses (2495 healthy old adults; age 74.2 years [64.4-82.7]; body mass 69.9 +/- 4.9 kg, height 1.64 +/- 0.05 m, body mass index 26.4 +/- 1.9 kg/m(2), and gait speed 1.22 +/- 0.18 m/s). The search identified only one power training study, therefore the subsequent analyses focused only on the effects of resistance, coordination, and multimodal training on gait speed. The three types of intervention improved gait speed in the three experimental groups combined (n = 1297) by 0.10 m/s (+/- 0.12) or 8.4 % (+/- 9.7), with a large effect size (ES) of 0.84. Resistance (24 studies; n = 613; 0.11 m/s; 9.3 %; ES: 0.84), coordination (eight studies, n = 198; 0.09 m/s; 7.6 %; ES: 0.76), and multimodal training (19 studies; n = 486; 0.09 m/s; 8.4 %, ES: 0.86) increased gait speed statistically and similarly.
Conclusions: Commonly used exercise interventions can functionally and clinically increase habitual and fast gait speed and help slow the loss of gait speed or delay its onset.
Background: Habitual walking speed predicts many clinical conditions later in life, but it declines with age. However, which particular exercise intervention can minimize the age-related gait speed loss is unclear.
Purpose: Our objective was to determine the effects of strength, power, coordination, and multimodal exercise training on healthy old adults' habitual and fast gait speed.
Methods: We performed a computerized systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Knowledge from January 1984 up to December 2014. Search terms included 'Resistance training', 'power training', 'coordination training', 'multimodal training', and 'gait speed (outcome term). Inclusion criteria were articles available in full text, publication period over past 30 years, human species, journal articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, English as publication language, and subject age C65 years. The methodological quality of all eligible intervention studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. We computed weighted average standardized mean differences of the intervention-induced adaptations in gait speed using a random-effects model and tested for overall and individual intervention effects relative to no-exercise controls.
Results: A total of 42 studies (mean PEDro score of 5.0 +/- 1.2) were included in the analyses (2495 healthy old adults; age 74.2 years [64.4-82.7]; body mass 69.9 +/- 4.9 kg, height 1.64 +/- 0.05 m, body mass index 26.4 +/- 1.9 kg/m(2), and gait speed 1.22 +/- 0.18 m/s). The search identified only one power training study, therefore the subsequent analyses focused only on the effects of resistance, coordination, and multimodal training on gait speed. The three types of intervention improved gait speed in the three experimental groups combined (n = 1297) by 0.10 m/s (+/- 0.12) or 8.4 % (+/- 9.7), with a large effect size (ES) of 0.84. Resistance (24 studies; n = 613; 0.11 m/s; 9.3 %; ES: 0.84), coordination (eight studies, n = 198; 0.09 m/s; 7.6 %; ES: 0.76), and multimodal training (19 studies; n = 486; 0.09 m/s; 8.4 %, ES: 0.86) increased gait speed statistically and similarly.
Conclusions: Commonly used exercise interventions can functionally and clinically increase habitual and fast gait speed and help slow the loss of gait speed or delay its onset.
Numerous national associations and multiple reviews have documented the safety and efficacy of strength training for children and adolescents. The literature highlights the significant training-induced increases in strength associated with youth strength training. However, the effectiveness of youth strength training programs to improve power measures is not as clear. This discrepancy may be related to training and testing specificity. Most prior youth strength training programs emphasized lower intensity resistance with relatively slow movements. Since power activities typically involve higher intensity, explosive-like contractions with higher angular velocities (e.g., plyometrics), there is a conflict between the training medium and testing measures. This meta-analysis compared strength (e.g., training with resistance or body mass) and power training programs (e.g., plyometric training) on proxies of muscle strength, power, and speed. A systematic literature search using a Boolean Search Strategy was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, SPORT Discus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and revealed 652 hits. After perusal of title, abstract, and full text, 107 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed small to moderate magnitude changes for training specificity with jump measures. In other words, power training was more effective than strength training for improving youth jump height. For sprint measures, strength training was more effective than power training with youth. Furthermore, strength training exhibited consistently large magnitude changes to lower body strength measures, which contrasted with the generally trivial, small and moderate magnitude training improvements of power training upon lower body strength, sprint and jump measures, respectively. Maturity related inadequacies in eccentric strength and balance might influence the lack of training specificity with the unilateral landings and propulsions associated with sprinting. Based on this meta-analysis, strength training should be incorporated prior to power training in order to establish an adequate foundation of strength for power training activities.
Background and objectives: Age-related losses of lower extremity muscle strength/power and deficits in static and particularly dynamic balance are associated with impaired functional performance and the occurrence of falls. It has been shown that balance and resistance training have the potential to improve balance and muscle strength in healthy older adults. However, it is still open to debate how the effectiveness of balance and resistance training in older adults is influenced by different factors. This includes the role of trunk muscle strength, the comprehensive effects of combined balance and resistance training, and the role of exercise supervision. Therefore, the primary objectives of this doctoral thesis are to investigate the relationship between trunk muscle strength and balance performance and to examine the effects of an expert-based balance and resistance training protocol on various measures of balance and lower extremity muscle strength/power in older adults. Furthermore, the impact of supervised versus unsupervised balance and/or resistance training interventions in the elderly will be evaluated.
Methods: Healthy older adults aged 63-80 years were included in a cross-sectional study, a longitudinal study, and a meta-analysis (range group means meta-analysis: 65.3-81.1 years) registering balance and muscle strength/power performance. Different measures of balance (i.e., static/dynamic, proactive, reactive) were examined using clinical (e.g., Romberg test) and instrumented tests (e.g., 10 meter walking test on a sensor-equipped walkway). Isometric strength of the trunk muscles was assessed using instrumented trunk muscle strength apparatus and lower extremity dynamic muscle strength/power was examined using clinical tests (e.g., Chair Stand Test). Further, a combined balance and resistance training protocol was applied to examine training-induced effects on balance and muscle strength/power as well as the role of supervision in older adults.
Results: Findings revealed that measures of trunk muscle strength and static steady-state balance as well as specific measures of dynamic steady-state balance were significantly associated in the elderly (0.42 ≤ r ≤ 0.57). Combined balance and resistance training significantly improved older adults' static/dynamic steady-state (e.g., Romberg test; habitual gait speed), pro-active (e.g., Timed Up and Go Test), and reactive balance (e.g., Push and Release Test) as well as muscle strength/power (e.g., Chair Stand Test) (0.62 ≤ Cohen’s d ≤ 2.86; all p < 0.05). Supervised compared to unsupervised balance and/or resistance training was superior in enhancing older adults' balance and muscle strength/power performance regarding all observed outcome categories [longitudinal study: effects for the supervised group 0.26 ≤ d ≤ 2.86, effects for the unsupervised group 0.06 ≤ d ≤ 2.30; meta-analysis: all between-subject standardized mean differences (SMDbs) in favor of the supervised training programs 0.24-0.53]. The meta-analysis additionally showed larger effects in favor of supervised interventions when compared to completely unsupervised interventions (0.28 ≤ SMDbs ≤ 1.24). These effects in favor of the supervised programs faded when compared with studies that implemented a small amount of supervised sessions in their unsupervised interventions (−0.06 ≤ SMDbs ≤ 0.41).
Conclusions: Trunk muscle strength is associated with steady-state balance performance and may therefore be integrated in fall-preventive exercise interventions for older adults. The examined positive effects on a large number of important intrinsic fall risk factors (e.g., balance deficits, muscle weakness) imply that particularly the combination of balance and resistance training appears to be a feasible and effective exercise intervention for fall prevention. Owing to the beneficial effects of supervised compared to unsupervised interventions, supervised sessions should be integrated in fall-preventive balance and/or resistance training programs for older adults.
Combining training of muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness within a training cycle could increase athletic performance more than single-mode training. However, the physiological effects produced by each training modality could also interfere with each other, improving athletic performance less than single-mode training. Because anthropometric, physiological, and biomechanical differences between young and adult athletes can affect the responses to exercise training, young athletes might respond differently to concurrent training (CT) compared with adults. Thus, the aim of the present systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effects of concurrent strength and endurance training on selected physical fitness components and athletic performance in youth. A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science identified 886 records. The studies included in the analyses examined children (girls age 6-11 years, boys age 6-13 years) or adolescents (girls age 12-18 years, boys age 14-18 years), compared CT with single-mode endurance (ET) or strength training (ST), and reported at least one strength/power-(e.g., jump height), endurance-(e.g., peak. VO2, exercise economy), or performance-related (e.g., time trial) outcome. We calculated weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs). CT compared to ET produced small effects in favor of CT on athletic performance (n = 11 studies, SMD = 0.41, p = 0.04) and trivial effects on cardiorespiratory endurance (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.04, p = 0.86) and exercise economy (n = 5 studies, SMD = 0.16, p = 0.49) in young athletes. A sub-analysis of chronological age revealed a trend toward larger effects of CT vs. ET on athletic performance in adolescents (SMD = 0.52) compared with children (SMD = 0.17). CT compared with ST had small effects in favor of CT on muscle power (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.23, p = 0.04). In conclusion, CT is more effective than single-mode ET or ST in improving selected measures of physical fitness and athletic performance in youth. Specifically, CT compared with ET improved athletic performance in children and particularly adolescents. Finally, CT was more effective than ST in improving muscle power in youth.
It is well-documented that strength training (ST) improves measures of muscle strength in young athletes. Less is known on transfer effects of ST on proxies of muscle power and the underlying dose-response relationships. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to quantify the effects of ST on lower limb muscle power in young athletes and to provide dose-response relationships for ST modalities such as frequency, intensity, and volume. A systematic literature search of electronic databases identified 895 records. Studies were eligible for inclusion if (i) healthy trained children (girls aged 6–11 y, boys aged 6–13 y) or adolescents (girls aged 12–18 y, boys aged 14–18 y) were examined, (ii) ST was compared with an active control, and (iii) at least one proxy of muscle power [squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump height (CMJ)] was reported. Weighted mean standardized mean differences (SMDwm) between subjects were calculated. Based on the findings from 15 statistically aggregated studies, ST produced significant but small effects on CMJ height (SMDwm = 0.65; 95% CI 0.34–0.96) and moderate effects on SJ height (SMDwm = 0.80; 95% CI 0.23–1.37). The sub-analyses revealed that the moderating variable expertise level (CMJ height: p = 0.06; SJ height: N/A) did not significantly influence ST-related effects on proxies of muscle power. “Age” and “sex” moderated ST effects on SJ (p = 0.005) and CMJ height (p = 0.03), respectively. With regard to the dose-response relationships, findings from the meta-regression showed that none of the included training modalities predicted ST effects on CMJ height. For SJ height, the meta-regression indicated that the training modality “training duration” significantly predicted the observed gains (p = 0.02), with longer training durations (>8 weeks) showing larger improvements. This meta-analysis clearly proved the general effectiveness of ST on lower-limb muscle power in young athletes, irrespective of the moderating variables. Dose-response analyses revealed that longer training durations (>8 weeks) are more effective to improve SJ height. No such training modalities were found for CMJ height. Thus, there appear to be other training modalities besides the ones that were included in our analyses that may have an effect on SJ and particularly CMJ height. ST monitoring through rating of perceived exertion, movement velocity or force-velocity profile could be promising monitoring tools for lower-limb muscle power development in young athletes.
Combining training of muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness within a training cycle could increase athletic performance more than single-mode training. However, the physiological effects produced by each training modality could also interfere with each other, improving athletic performance less than single-mode training. Because anthropometric, physiological, and biomechanical differences between young and adult athletes can affect the responses to exercise training, young athletes might respond differently to concurrent training (CT) compared with adults. Thus, the aim of the present systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effects of concurrent strength and endurance training on selected physical fitness components and athletic performance in youth. A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science identified 886 records. The studies included in the analyses examined children (girls age 6–11 years, boys age 6–13 years) or adolescents (girls age 12–18 years, boys age 14–18 years), compared CT with single-mode endurance (ET) or strength training (ST), and reported at least one strength/power—(e.g., jump height), endurance—(e.g., peak V°O2, exercise economy), or performance-related (e.g., time trial) outcome. We calculated weighted standardized mean differences (SMDs). CT compared to ET produced small effects in favor of CT on athletic performance (n = 11 studies, SMD = 0.41, p = 0.04) and trivial effects on cardiorespiratory endurance (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.04, p = 0.86) and exercise economy (n = 5 studies, SMD = 0.16, p = 0.49) in young athletes. A sub-analysis of chronological age revealed a trend toward larger effects of CT vs. ET on athletic performance in adolescents (SMD = 0.52) compared with children (SMD = 0.17). CT compared with ST had small effects in favor of CT on muscle power (n = 4 studies, SMD = 0.23, p = 0.04). In conclusion, CT is more effective than single-mode ET or ST in improving selected measures of physical fitness and athletic performance in youth. Specifically, CT compared with ET improved athletic performance in children and particularly adolescents. Finally, CT was more effective than ST in improving muscle power in youth.
It is well-documented that strength training (ST) improves measures of muscle strength in young athletes. Less is known on transfer effects of ST on proxies of muscle power and the underlying dose-response relationships. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to quantify the effects of ST on lower limb muscle power in young athletes and to provide dose-response relationships for ST modalities such as frequency, intensity, and volume. A systematic literature search of electronic databases identified 895 records. Studies were eligible for inclusion if (i) healthy trained children (girls aged 6–11 y, boys aged 6–13 y) or adolescents (girls aged 12–18 y, boys aged 14–18 y) were examined, (ii) ST was compared with an active control, and (iii) at least one proxy of muscle power [squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump height (CMJ)] was reported. Weighted mean standardized mean differences (SMDwm) between subjects were calculated. Based on the findings from 15 statistically aggregated studies, ST produced significant but small effects on CMJ height (SMDwm = 0.65; 95% CI 0.34–0.96) and moderate effects on SJ height (SMDwm = 0.80; 95% CI 0.23–1.37). The sub-analyses revealed that the moderating variable expertise level (CMJ height: p = 0.06; SJ height: N/A) did not significantly influence ST-related effects on proxies of muscle power. “Age” and “sex” moderated ST effects on SJ (p = 0.005) and CMJ height (p = 0.03), respectively. With regard to the dose-response relationships, findings from the meta-regression showed that none of the included training modalities predicted ST effects on CMJ height. For SJ height, the meta-regression indicated that the training modality “training duration” significantly predicted the observed gains (p = 0.02), with longer training durations (>8 weeks) showing larger improvements. This meta-analysis clearly proved the general effectiveness of ST on lower-limb muscle power in young athletes, irrespective of the moderating variables. Dose-response analyses revealed that longer training durations (>8 weeks) are more effective to improve SJ height. No such training modalities were found for CMJ height. Thus, there appear to be other training modalities besides the ones that were included in our analyses that may have an effect on SJ and particularly CMJ height. ST monitoring through rating of perceived exertion, movement velocity or force-velocity profile could be promising monitoring tools for lower-limb muscle power development in young athletes.