D A Bemben1, M G Bemben. 1. Bone Density Research Laboratory, Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA. dbemben@ou.edu
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Resistance training is becoming popular for maintaining bone health. Previous studies examined high intensity exercise; we compared high and low intensity resistance training performed 2 or 3 days per week in older adults. We found positive bone density responses for the hip and spine for all types of resistance training. INTRODUCTION: This study determined the dose-response effect of resistance training on lumbar spine, proximal femur, and total body bone mineral density (BMD) in older men and women (55-74 years). METHODS:Subjects included 45 men and 79 women who were assigned to one of the following training groups: 1-high intensity (80% 1RM), 2 days/week (2HI); 2-low intensity (40% 1RM), 2 days/week (2LI); 3-high intensity (80% 1RM), 3 days/week (3HI); and 4-low intensity (40% 1RM), 3 days/week (3LI). Bone scans (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) were performed at baseline and after 40 weeks of training. Muscular strength (1-repetition maximum) was assessed every 5 weeks. RESULTS: There were significant trial (p < 0.05) effects but no significant trial × training group interactions for the BMD sites. Spine, trochanter, and total hip BMD increased from baseline to 40 weeks; however, the total body BMD site decreased in the 3LI group. Men and women exhibited similar improvements for the trochanter and total hip sites but the percent change in the spine tended (p = 0.054) to be higher for men (1.8%) than women (0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The resistance training programs, regardless of intensity and frequency, were effective in improving BMD of the proximal femur and lumbar spine but not the total body. Both men and women responded similarly for the hip sites but men show a greater response at the lumbar spine than women.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Resistance training is becoming popular for maintaining bone health. Previous studies examined high intensity exercise; we compared high and low intensity resistance training performed 2 or 3 days per week in older adults. We found positive bone density responses for the hip and spine for all types of resistance training. INTRODUCTION: This study determined the dose-response effect of resistance training on lumbar spine, proximal femur, and total body bone mineral density (BMD) in older men and women (55-74 years). METHODS: Subjects included 45 men and 79 women who were assigned to one of the following training groups: 1-high intensity (80% 1RM), 2 days/week (2HI); 2-low intensity (40% 1RM), 2 days/week (2LI); 3-high intensity (80% 1RM), 3 days/week (3HI); and 4-low intensity (40% 1RM), 3 days/week (3LI). Bone scans (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) were performed at baseline and after 40 weeks of training. Muscular strength (1-repetition maximum) was assessed every 5 weeks. RESULTS: There were significant trial (p < 0.05) effects but no significant trial × training group interactions for the BMD sites. Spine, trochanter, and total hip BMD increased from baseline to 40 weeks; however, the total body BMD site decreased in the 3LI group. Men and women exhibited similar improvements for the trochanter and total hip sites but the percent change in the spine tended (p = 0.054) to be higher for men (1.8%) than women (0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The resistance training programs, regardless of intensity and frequency, were effective in improving BMD of the proximal femur and lumbar spine but not the total body. Both men and women responded similarly for the hip sites but men show a greater response at the lumbar spine than women.
Authors: Ellen C Cussler; Timothy G Lohman; Scott B Going; Linda B Houtkooper; Lauve L Metcalfe; Hilary G Flint-Wagner; Robin B Harris; Pedro J Teixeira Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Scott Going; Timothy Lohman; Linda Houtkooper; Lauve Metcalfe; Hilary Flint-Wagner; Robert Blew; Vanessa Stanford; Ellen Cussler; Jane Martin; Pedro Teixeira; Margaret Harris; Laura Milliken; Arturo Figueroa-Galvez; Judith Weber Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2003-07-03 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: A Menkes; S Mazel; R A Redmond; K Koffler; C R Libanati; C M Gundberg; T M Zizic; J M Hagberg; R E Pratley; B F Hurley Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 1993-05
Authors: Danilo A Massini; Flávio H Nedog; Thiago P de Oliveira; Tiago A F Almeida; Caroline A A Santana; Cassiano M Neiva; Anderson G Macedo; Eliane A Castro; Mário C Espada; Fernando J Santos; Dalton M Pessôa Filho Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-06-17
Authors: Daniel Courteix; João Valente-dos-Santos; Béatrice Ferry; Gérard Lac; Bruno Lesourd; Robert Chapier; Geraldine Naughton; Geoffroy Marceau; Manuel João Coelho-e-Silva; Agnès Vinet; Guillaume Walther; Philippe Obert; Frédéric Dutheil Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: M C Ashe; E Gorman; K M Khan; P M Brasher; D M L Cooper; H A McKay; T Liu-Ambrose Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 4.507