BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Studies that have aimed to compare different strategies to improve functional capacity have produced controversial results. Furthermore, such studies have focused solely on dependent individuals. In contrast, the present study aimed to compare traditional training to functional training for independent individuals. The purpose of this study was to compare traditional training to functional training in healthy and independent middle-aged adults (40-60 years old) and elderly subjects (older than 60 years old). METHODS:One hundred and one subjects (54.75 ± 8.84 years) were divided into two groups that each performed 24 sessions of a training protocol twice per week. The subjects were assessed using quantitative (Y-Balance Test) and qualitative methods (Functional Movement Screen™). The individuals were compared by observing changes between pretest and posttest according to their intervention group, sex and age. RESULTS: When the entire sample was considered, the results showed that there were no differences in improvement between the training protocols. However, when specific groups were analyzed, functional training was less effective for women compared to men in the same group (Z=-2.598; p=0.009; effect size=0.43) and compared to women in the conventional group (Z=-2.704; p=0.007; effect size=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between the two protocols in their ability to improve functional capacity as measured by the two chosen outcome measures. However, each subject's condition before the intervention must be considered. Some individuals may require additional basic training or specific training. In the current study, the women may have needed to improve their basic capabilities before practicing more specific training protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. This is a pre- and post-intervention analysis using within-group and between-groups comparisons.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Studies that have aimed to compare different strategies to improve functional capacity have produced controversial results. Furthermore, such studies have focused solely on dependent individuals. In contrast, the present study aimed to compare traditional training to functional training for independent individuals. The purpose of this study was to compare traditional training to functional training in healthy and independent middle-aged adults (40-60 years old) and elderly subjects (older than 60 years old). METHODS: One hundred and one subjects (54.75 ± 8.84 years) were divided into two groups that each performed 24 sessions of a training protocol twice per week. The subjects were assessed using quantitative (Y-Balance Test) and qualitative methods (Functional Movement Screen™). The individuals were compared by observing changes between pretest and posttest according to their intervention group, sex and age. RESULTS: When the entire sample was considered, the results showed that there were no differences in improvement between the training protocols. However, when specific groups were analyzed, functional training was less effective for women compared to men in the same group (Z=-2.598; p=0.009; effect size=0.43) and compared to women in the conventional group (Z=-2.704; p=0.007; effect size=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between the two protocols in their ability to improve functional capacity as measured by the two chosen outcome measures. However, each subject's condition before the intervention must be considered. Some individuals may require additional basic training or specific training. In the current study, the women may have needed to improve their basic capabilities before practicing more specific training protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. This is a pre- and post-intervention analysis using within-group and between-groups comparisons.
Entities:
Keywords:
Activities of daily living; adults; functionality; specificity
Authors: Tereza Etsuko da Costa Rosa; Maria Helena D'Aquino Benício; Maria do Rosário Dias de Oliveira Latorre; Luiz Roberto Ramos Journal: Rev Saude Publica Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Carol Ewing Garber; Bryan Blissmer; Michael R Deschenes; Barry A Franklin; Michael J Lamonte; I-Min Lee; David C Nieman; David P Swain Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Tatiane Hallage; Maressa P Krause; Luke Haile; Cristiane P Miculis; Elizabeth F Nagle; Rodrigo S Reis; Sergio G Da Silva Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Marianne P da C de Rezende Barbosa; Luiz C M Vanderlei; Lucas M Neves; Carolina Takahashi; Paula R Dos S Torquato; Ana Claúdia de S Fortaleza; Ismael F Freitas Júnior; Isabel C E Sorpreso; Luiz C Abreu; Andrés R Pérez Riera Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Cauê V La Scala Teixeira; Alexandre L Evangelista; Jefferson S Novaes; Marzo E Da Silva Grigoletto; David G Behm Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Antônio Gomes de Resende-Neto; José Carlos Aragão-Santos; Bruna Caroline Oliveira-Andrade; Alan Bruno Silva Vasconcelos; Clodoaldo Antônio De Sá; Felipe José Aidar; Josimari Melo DeSantana; Eduardo Lusa Cadore; Marzo Edir Da Silva-Grigoletto Journal: J Aging Res Date: 2019-11-21
Authors: N Turri-Silva; D M Garner; S H Moosavi; A L Ricci-Vitor; D G D Christofaro; J Netto Junior; L M Vanzella; L C M Vanderlei Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 2.590
Authors: Marianne P C de Rezende Barbosa; Jayme Netto Júnior; Bruna M Cassemiro; Aline Fernanda B Bernardo; Anne K França da Silva; Franciele M Vanderlei; Carlos Marcelo Pastre; Luiz Carlos M Vanderlei Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 7.179