Refine
Language
- English (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (7)
Keywords
- resistance training (4)
- youth sports (4)
- adolescent (2)
- anthropometry (2)
- athletic performance (2)
- cardiorespiratory fitness (2)
- child (2)
- exercise intervention (2)
- exercise test (2)
- gait speed (2)
Institute
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.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of moderate intensity, low volume (MILV) vs. low intensity, high volume (LIHV) strength training on sport-specific performance, measures of muscular fitness, and skeletal muscle mass in young kayakers and canoeists.
Methods: Semi-elite young kayakers and canoeists (N = 40, 13 ± 0.8 years, 11 girls) performed either MILV (70–80% 1-RM, 6–12 repetitions per set) or LIHV (30–40% 1-RM, 60–120 repetitions per set) strength training for one season. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare effects of training condition on changes over time in 250 and 2,000 m time trials, handgrip strength, underhand shot throw, average bench pull power over 2 min, and skeletal muscle mass. Both between- and within-subject designs were used for analysis. An alpha of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.
Results: Between- and within-subject analyses showed that monthly changes were greater in LIHV vs. MILV for the 2,000 m time trial (between: 9.16 s, SE = 2.70, p < 0.01; within: 2,000 m: 13.90 s, SE = 5.02, p = 0.01) and bench pull average power (between: 0.021 W⋅kg–1, SE = 0.008, p = 0.02; within: 0.010 W⋅kg–1, SE = 0.009, p > 0.05). Training conditions did not affect other outcomes.
Conclusion: Young sprint kayakers and canoeists benefit from LIHV more than MILV strength training in terms of 2,000 m performance and muscular endurance (i.e., 2 min bench pull power).
Introduction/Purpose: Aging modifies neuromuscular activation of agonist and antagonist muscles during walking. Power training can evoke adaptations in neuromuscular activation that underlie gains in muscle strength and power but it is unknown if these adaptations transfer to dynamic tasks such as walking. We examined the effects of lower-extremity power training on neuromuscular activation during level gait in old adults. Methods: Twelve community-dwelling old adults (age >= 65 yr) completed a 10-wk lower-extremity power training program and 13 old adults completed a 10-wk control period. Before and after the interventions, we measured maximal isometric muscle strength and electromyographic (EMG) activation of the right knee flexor, knee extensor, and plantarflexor muscles on a dynamometer and we measured EMG amplitudes, activation onsets and offsets, and activation duration of the knee flexors, knee extensors, and plantarflexors during gait at habitual, fast, and standardized (1.25 +/- 0.6 m.s(-1)) speeds. Results: Power training-induced increases in EMG amplitude (similar to 41%; 0.47 <= d <= 1.47; P <= 0.05) explained 33% (P = 0.049) of increases in isometric muscle strength (similar to 43%; 0.34 <= d <= 0.80; P <= 0.05). Power training-induced gains in plantarflexor activation during push-off (+11%; d = 0.38; P = 0.045) explained 57% (P = 0.004) of the gains in fast gait velocity (+4%; d = 0.31; P = 0.059). Furthermore, power training increased knee extensor activation (similar to 18%; 0.26 <= d <= 0.29; P <= 0.05) and knee extensor coactivation during the main knee flexor burst (similar to 24%, 0.26 <= d <= 0.44; P <= 0.05) at habitual and fast speed but these adaptations did not correlate with changes in gait velocity. Conclusions: Power training increased neuromuscular activation during isometric contractions and level gait in old adults. The power training-induced neuromuscular adaptations were associated with increases in isometric muscle strength and partly with increases in fast gait velocity.
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.
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.
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.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of moderate intensity, low volume (MILV) vs. low intensity, high volume (LIHV) strength training on sport-specific performance, measures of muscular fitness, and skeletal muscle mass in young kayakers and canoeists.
Methods: Semi-elite young kayakers and canoeists (N = 40, 13 ± 0.8 years, 11 girls) performed either MILV (70–80% 1-RM, 6–12 repetitions per set) or LIHV (30–40% 1-RM, 60–120 repetitions per set) strength training for one season. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare effects of training condition on changes over time in 250 and 2,000 m time trials, handgrip strength, underhand shot throw, average bench pull power over 2 min, and skeletal muscle mass. Both between- and within-subject designs were used for analysis. An alpha of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.
Results: Between- and within-subject analyses showed that monthly changes were greater in LIHV vs. MILV for the 2,000 m time trial (between: 9.16 s, SE = 2.70, p < 0.01; within: 2,000 m: 13.90 s, SE = 5.02, p = 0.01) and bench pull average power (between: 0.021 W⋅kg–1, SE = 0.008, p = 0.02; within: 0.010 W⋅kg–1, SE = 0.009, p > 0.05). Training conditions did not affect other outcomes.
Conclusion: Young sprint kayakers and canoeists benefit from LIHV more than MILV strength training in terms of 2,000 m performance and muscular endurance (i.e., 2 min bench pull power).