Mark D Peterson1, Matthew R Rhea, Ananda Sen, Paul M Gordon. 1. Laboratory for Physical Activity and Exercise Intervention Research, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA. mdpeterz@med.umich.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effectiveness of resistance exercise for strength improvement among aging persons is inconsistent across investigations, and there is a lack of research synthesis for multiple strength outcomes. METHODS: The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effect of resistance exercise (RE) for multiple strength outcomes in aging adults. Randomized-controlled trials and randomized or non-randomized studies among adults > or = 50 years, were included. Data were pooled using random-effect models. Outcomes for 4 common strength tests were analyzed for main effects. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochran Q and I(2) statistics, and publication bias was evaluated through physical inspection of funnel plots as well as formal rank-correlation statistics. A linear mixed model regression was incorporated to examine differences between outcomes, as well as potential study-level predictor variables. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies were included, representing 1079 participants. A positive effect for each of the strength outcomes was determined however there was heterogeneity between studies. Regression revealed that higher intensity training was associated with greater improvement. Strength increases ranged from 9.8 to 31.6 kg, and percent changes were 29+/-2, 24+/-2, 33+/-3, and 25+/-2, respectively for leg press, chest press, knee extension, and lat pull. CONCLUSIONS: RE is effective for improving strength among older adults, particularly with higher intensity training. Findings therefore suggest that RE may be considered a viable strategy to prevent generalized muscular weakness associated with aging. 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: The effectiveness of resistance exercise for strength improvement among aging persons is inconsistent across investigations, and there is a lack of research synthesis for multiple strength outcomes. METHODS: The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effect of resistance exercise (RE) for multiple strength outcomes in aging adults. Randomized-controlled trials and randomized or non-randomized studies among adults > or = 50 years, were included. Data were pooled using random-effect models. Outcomes for 4 common strength tests were analyzed for main effects. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochran Q and I(2) statistics, and publication bias was evaluated through physical inspection of funnel plots as well as formal rank-correlation statistics. A linear mixed model regression was incorporated to examine differences between outcomes, as well as potential study-level predictor variables. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies were included, representing 1079 participants. A positive effect for each of the strength outcomes was determined however there was heterogeneity between studies. Regression revealed that higher intensity training was associated with greater improvement. Strength increases ranged from 9.8 to 31.6 kg, and percent changes were 29+/-2, 24+/-2, 33+/-3, and 25+/-2, respectively for leg press, chest press, knee extension, and lat pull. CONCLUSIONS: RE is effective for improving strength among older adults, particularly with higher intensity training. Findings therefore suggest that RE may be considered a viable strategy to prevent generalized muscular weakness associated with aging. 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Robert U Newton; Keijo Hakkinen; Arja Hakkinen; Matt McCormick; Jeff Volek; William J Kraemer Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Ethan M Balk; Peter A L Bonis; Harry Moskowitz; Christopher H Schmid; John P A Ioannidis; Chenchen Wang; Joseph Lau Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-06-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tanya A Miszko; M Elaine Cress; Jill M Slade; Carlton J Covey; Subodh K Agrawal; Christopher E Doerr Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Marjolein Visser; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Bret H Goodpaster; Anne B Newman; Michael Nevitt; Elizabeth Stamm; Tamara B Harris Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kevin R Vincent; Randy W Braith; Ross A Feldman; Pete M Magyari; Rachel B Cutler; Stephanie A Persin; Shannon L Lennon; Abdel H Gabr; David T Lowenthal Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Arturo Figueroa; Scott B Going; Laura A Milliken; Robert M Blew; Sarah Sharp; Pedro J Teixeira; Timothy G Lohman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: S Verschueren; E Gielen; T W O'Neill; S R Pye; J E Adams; K A Ward; F C Wu; P Szulc; M Laurent; F Claessens; D Vanderschueren; S Boonen Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: D Beckwée; A Delaere; S Aelbrecht; V Baert; C Beaudart; O Bruyere; M de Saint-Hubert; I Bautmans Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Kerry L Hildreth; Daniel W Barry; Kerrie L Moreau; Joseph Vande Griend; Randall B Meacham; Tammie Nakamura; Pamela Wolfe; Wendy M Kohrt; J Mark Ruscin; John Kittelson; M Elaine Cress; Robert Ballard; Robert S Schwartz Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 5.958