| Literature DB >> 26865872 |
Walid Bouaziz1, Elise Schmitt1, Georges Kaltenbach2, Bernard Geny3, Thomas Vogel1.
Abstract
As the number of older adults continues to increase worldwide, more attention is being paid to geriatric health care needs, and successful ageing is becoming an important topic in the medical literature. A preventive approach to the care of older adults is thus a priority in our aging societies. The purpose of this study was to update evidence for the health benefits of cycle ergometer training for older adults over 70. We searched online electronic databases up to September 2014 for original observational and intervention studies on the relationship between cycle ergometer training and health among older patients over 70. Twenty-five studies examined interventions aimed specifically at promoting cycling for older adults over 70. These studies reported a positive effect on the prevention of cardiovascular disease, and a significant improvement in metabolic responses. Improving functional status, muscle strength and cognitive performance are also well established. Overall, this review demonstrates a positive effect of cycle ergometer training with functional benefits and positive health outcomes for older adults over 70. Based on this evidence, clinicians can now encourage older adults to profit from the health benefits of cycle ergometer training to be able to pursue their daily activities independently.Entities:
Keywords: Cycle ergometer training; Health benefits; Older adults; Over 70
Year: 2015 PMID: 26865872 PMCID: PMC4748329 DOI: 10.1186/s11556-015-0152-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Rev Aging Phys Act ISSN: 1813-7253 Impact factor: 3.878
Fig. 1Flow chart of the literature search
Summary of studies that analyze the effects of cycle ergometer training on cardiovascular function
| Outcomes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cardiovascular function | |||||
| Author, year | Mean age (years) | Protocol type | Cardio-respiratory fitness | Blood pressure values | Endurance parameters |
| Lovell et al. (2010) [ | 75.2 ± 0.8 | CET | Training group: | ||
| Vogel et al. (2011) [ | 70.8 ± 5.2 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max (from 16.9 ± 3.6 to 19.7 ± 3.6 ml/min/kg) and (from 21.4 ± 5.8 to 23.3 ± 6.4 ml/min/kg), in older women and men, respectively. | ↑ in the VT1 (from 50.1 ± 11.5 to 64.1 ± 14.4 W) and (from 79.3 ± 25.1 to 96.1 ± 29.2 W) in older men and women respectively. | |
| Lovell et al. (2012) [ | 75.2 ± 3.0 | CET | Training group: | ||
| Buchner et al. (2009) [ | 75 | CET | Training group: | ||
| Babcock et al. (1994) [ | 72 ± 4.4 | CET | Training group: | ↑ in VO2 at VT1 (from 1.2 ± 0.1 to 1.5 ± 0.2 L/min). | |
| Malbut et al. (2002) [ | 81 ± 2.28 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max of the women’s group (from 14.5 ± 2.5 to 16.2 ± 3.1 ml/kg/min). ↔ in the men’s group. | ↓ in HR at VO210 in the women’s group (from 108 ± 21 to 92 ± 15 bpm). | |
| Coker et al. (2006) [ | 74 ± 1 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max for both the HI and MI groups (from 1.4 ± 0.3 to 1.6 ± 0.1 L/min). | ||
| Coker et al. (2009) [ | 71 ± 1 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max for both the HI and MI groups (from 1.4 ± 0.3 to 1.6 ± 0.1 L/min). | ||
| Mangione et al. (1999) [ | 71 ± 6.9 | CET | ↔ in the VO2max in both high and low intensity groups. | ||
| Harber et al. (2009) [ | 71.1 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max (from 1623 ± 423 to 1856 ± 480 ml/min). | ||
| Perini et al. (2002) [ | 73.9 ± 3.5 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max (from 19.3 ± 5.2 to 22.7 ± 4.9 ml/min/kg). | ↓ in resting SBP (from 167 to 140 mmHg for men and from 148 to 130 mmHg for women). | |
| Haber et al. (1984) [ | 71.1 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max (from 1623 ± 423 to 1856 ± 480 ml/min). | ↑ in the maximum work load (from 111 ± 36 to 129 ± 29 W). | |
| Temfemo et al. (2011) [ | 73 ± 5 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max (from 13.2 ± 1.7 to 15.3 ± 2.1 ml/min/kg). | ↑ in the VT1 (from 9.2 ± 1.8 to 10.8 ± 2.2 ml/min/kg). | |
| Charifi et al. (2003) [ | 73 ± 3 | CET | ? in the VO2max (from 28.8 ± 5.9 to 32.7 ± 5.4 ml/min/kg). | ||
| Charifi et al. (2004) [ | 73 ± 3 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max (from 28.8 ± 5.9 to 32.7 ± 5.4 ml/min/kg). | ||
| Sial et al. (1998) [ | 74 ± 2 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max (from 1.5 ± 0.2 to 1.8 ± 0.3 l/min). | ||
| Pichot et al. (2005) [ | 73.5 ± 4.2 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max (from 26.8 ± 4.4 to 31.8 ± 5.1 ml/min/kg). | ↔ in SBP and DBP. | |
| Bell et al. (2001) [ | 77 ± 7 | CET | ↑ in the VO2max (1.05 ± 0.17 l/min to 1.22 ± 0.22 l/min) in trained leg. | ||
| Nickel et al. (2011) [ | 71 ± 7 | CET | ↓ in the SBP, 15 min after exercise compared to the non-exercise day (121 ± 12 vs. 131 ± 16 mmHg; | ||
| Schocken et al. (1983) [ | 72 | CET | ↔ in SBP and DBP after training program. | ↑ in the maximum work load (from 690 ± 151 to 758 ± 141 Kpm/min). | |
| Finucane et al. (2010) [ | 71.4 | CET | ↔ in SBP and DBP in training and control group. | ↑ in the maximum work load (from 143.9 ± 48.9 to 167.7 ± 49.7 W). | |
| Morris et al. (2003) [ | 70.4 ± 1.2 | CET | ↓ in HR and oxygen uptake after IEx compared to CEx at the same relative intensity ( | ||
CET cycle ergometer training, VO maximum volume of oxygen, VT first ventilatory threshold, MTP maximal tolerated power, HR heart rate, HRR heart rate reserve, VT second ventilatory threshold, RPE rate of perceived effort,, VO 10 oxygen consumption of 10 ml/kg/min, P maximal workload, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP systolic blood pressure, IEx intermittent exercise, CEx continuous exercise, ↑ significant improvement within group, ↓ significant decrease within group, ↔ no change within group
Summary of studies that analyze the effects of cycle ergometer training on metabolic outcomes
| Outcomes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metabolic outcomes | |||||
| Author, year | Mean age (years) | Protocol type | Body composition | Metabolic disorders | Endocrine function |
| Lovell et al. (2010) [ | 75.2 ± 0.8 | CET | Training group: | ||
| Finucane et al. (2010) [ | 71.4 | CET | Training group: | ↓ in fasting glucose, oral glucose insulin sensitivity and HbA1c in both groups. | |
| Harber et al. (2009) [ | 71.1 | CET | ↓ in fat mass (from 27.6 ± 4.3 to 26.4 ± 4.1 kg). | ||
| Coker et al. (2006) [ | 74 ± 1 | CET | ↔ in body weight and in % of body in MI and HI groups. | ↑ in ISGD (5.0 ± 0.6 to 6.4 ± 0.5 mg/kg FFM/min) in HI group. | |
| Coker et al. (2009) [ | 71 ± 1 | CET | ↔ in body weight, BMI, and % of fat in MI and HI groups. | ↔ in plasma adiponectin in MI and HI groups. | |
| Lovell et al. (2012) [ | 75.2 ± 3.0 | CET | Training group: | ||
| Sial et al. (1998) [ | 74 ± 2 | CET | ↑ in fat free mass (from 49.4 ± 4.1 to 50.4 ± 4.6 kg). | ↑ in the average rate of fat oxidation (from 1.6 ± 17 to 2.21 ± 28 µmol/min). | |
| Zmuda et al. (1996) [ | 70 ± 4 | CET | ↑ in the serum testosterone, SHBG and total serum protein (39 %, 19 %, and 13 %, respectively; | ||
| Perini et al. (2002) [ | 73.9 ± 3.5 | CET | ↔ in body weight and fat mass. | ||
CET cycle ergometer training, VO maximum volume of oxygen, P maximal workload, HRR heart rate reserve, BMI body mass index, MI moderate intensity, HI high intensity, ISGD insulin-stimulated glucose disposal, FT free testosterone, GH growth hormone, IGF-1 insulin like growth factor-1, SHBG sex hormone-binding globulin, LH luteinizing hormone, R glycerol rate of appearance, FFA free fatty acid, ↑ significant improvement within group, ↓ significant decrease within group, ↔ no change within group
Summary of studies that analyze the effects of cycle ergometer training on functional status
| Outcomes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional status | ||||
| Author, year | Mean age (years) | Protocol type | Muscle strength | Physical performance |
| Lovell et al. (2010) [ | 75.2 ± 0.8 | CET | ↑ in leg strength (from 45.8 ± 7.9 to 54.0 ± 8.0 kg). | |
| Lovell et al. (2012) [ | 75.2 ± 3.0 | CET | ↑ in peak power (148 ± 5 to 168 ± 6 W). | |
| Harber et al. (2009) [ | 71.1 | CET | ↑ in the quadriceps muscle volume (from 587 ± 55 to 654 ± 60 cm3). | |
| Buchner et al. (2009) [ | 75 | CET | ↑ in strength at the knee extension (from 88 ± 30 to 97 ± 13 Nm). | ↔ in gait and balance test. |
| Perini et al. (2002) [ | 73.9 ± 3.5 | CET | ↔ in the maximal isometric quadriceps muscle strength, and the maximal isometric quadriceps endurance. | |
| Denison et al. (2013) | 71.4 | CET | ↔ in maximum grip strength in training and control groups. | Training group: |
| Malbut et al. (2002) [ | 81 ± 2.28 | CET | ↔ in isometric knee extensor strength, isometric elbow flexor strength and lower limb extensor power. | |
| Mangione et al. (1999) [ | 71 ± 6.9 | CET | ↓ in the chair rise time (from 23.3 ± 9.1 to 19.1 ± 6.6 s). | |
CET cycle ergometer training, VO maximum volume of oxygen, P maximal workload, HR maximal heart rate, RPE rate of perceived effort, HRR heart rate reserve, TUG Timed Up and Go test, ↑ significant improvement within group, ↓ significant decrease within group, ↔ no change within group
Summary of study that analyze the effects of cycle ergometer training on cognition function
| Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Author, year | Mean age (years) | Protocol type | Cognition function |
| Palleschi et al. (1996) [ | 74.0 ± 1.5 | CET | ↑ in the test of attentional matrix (35.9 ± 3.8 to 43.9 ± 6.3). |
CET cycle ergometer training, HR maximal heart rate, MMSEP mini mental state examination, ? significant improvement within group