| Literature DB >> 20976096 |
Brian K Schilling1, Ronald F Pfeiffer, Mark S Ledoux, Robyn E Karlage, Richard J Bloomer, Michael J Falvo.
Abstract
Background. Resistance training research has demonstrated positive effects for persons with Parkinson's disease (PD), but the number of acute training variables that can be manipulated makes it difficult to determine the optimal resistance training program. Objective. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of an 8-week resistance training intervention on strength and function in persons with PD. Methods. Eighteen men and women were randomized to training or standard care for the 8-week intervention. The training group performed 3 sets of 5-8 repetitions of the leg press, leg curl, and calf press twice weekly. Tests included leg press strength relative to body mass, timed up-and-go, six-minute walk, and Activities-specific Balance Confidence questionnaire. Results. There was a significant group-by-time effect for maximum leg press strength relative to body mass, with the training group significantly increasing their maximum relative strength (P < .05). No other significant interactions were noted (P > .05). Conclusions. Moderate volume, high-load weight training is effective for increasing lower-body strength in persons with PD.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20976096 PMCID: PMC2957327 DOI: 10.4061/2010/824734
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parkinsons Dis ISSN: 2042-0080
Figure 1Leg Press 1-RM adjusted for body mass (kg/kg) for TRN (Pre = 4.7 ± 1.4, Post 5.9 ± 1.6) and CNTL (Pre = 4.4 ± 1.5, Post 4.4 ± 1.4). A significant interaction effect was noted (P = .001). Post hoc analysis indicates a significant increase over time for TRN (P = .001).
Descriptive subject data (mean ±SD).
| Variable | Training Men = 5, Women = 3 | Control Men = 4, Women = 3 |
|---|---|---|
| UPDRS Total | 19.1 ± 7.0 | 23.3 ± 18.0 |
| Hoehn and Yahr (on) | Stage 2, | Stage 1.5, |
| Age (y) | 61.3 ± 8.6 | 57.0 ± 7.1 |
| Weight (kg) | 76.0 ± 24.5 | 79.2 ± 27.6 |
Figure 2TUG (s) for TRN (Pre = 5.8 ± 0.50, Post 5.7 ± 0.80) and CNTL (Pre = 7.5 ± 1.18, Post 6.75 ± 1.21). No significant interaction (P = .223) or time effect (P = .069) was noted.
Figure 3Six minute walk distance (m) for TRN (Pre = 537.7 ± 88.1, Post 586.9 ± 51.0) and CNTL (Pre = 468.8 ± 83.3, Post 493.9 ± 64.3). No significant interaction was noted (P = .296), but a significant time effect was noted (P = .005).
Figure 4ABC scores (%) for TRN (Pre = 86.2 ± 7.5, Post 89.5 ± 9.0) and CNTL (Pre = 83.9 ± 13.4, Post 82.8 ± 17.5). No significant interaction was noted (P = .381).