Frederick M Ivey1, Steven J Prior2, Charlene E Hafer-Macko3, Leslie I Katzel2, Richard F Macko3, Alice S Ryan2. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Maryland Exercise and Robotics Center of Excellence (MERCE), Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Neurology. Electronic address: fivey@grecc.umaryland.edu. 2. Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Maryland Exercise and Robotics Center of Excellence (MERCE), Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Medicine, Division of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine. 3. Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Maryland Exercise and Robotics Center of Excellence (MERCE), Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Neurology.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Initial studies support the use of strength training (ST) as a safe and effective intervention after stroke. Our previous work shows that relatively aggressive, higher intensity ST translates into large effect sizes for paretic and non-paretic leg muscle volume, myostatin expression, and maximum strength post-stroke. An unanswered question pertains to how our unique ST model for stroke impacts skeletal muscle endurance (SME). Thus, we now report on ST-induced adaptation in the ability to sustain isotonic muscle contraction. METHODS: Following screening and baseline testing, hemiparetic stroke participants were randomized to either ST or an attention-matched stretch control group (SC). Those in the ST group trained each leg individually to muscle failure (20 repetition sets, 3× per week for 3 months) on each of three pneumatic resistance machines (leg press, leg extension, and leg curl). Our primary outcome measure was SME, quantified as the number of submaximal weight leg press repetitions possible at a specified cadence. The secondary measures included one-repetition maximum strength, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), 10-meter walk speeds, and peak aerobic capacity (VO2 peak). RESULTS: ST participants (N = 14) had significantly greater SME gains compared with SC participants (N = 16) in both the paretic (178% versus 12%, P < .01) and non-paretic legs (161% versus 12%, P < .01). These gains were accompanied by group differences for 6MWD (P < .05) and VO2 peak (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Our ST regimen had a large impact on the capacity to sustain submaximal muscle contraction, a metric that may carry more practical significance for stroke than the often reported measures of maximum strength. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Initial studies support the use of strength training (ST) as a safe and effective intervention after stroke. Our previous work shows that relatively aggressive, higher intensity ST translates into large effect sizes for paretic and non-paretic leg muscle volume, myostatin expression, and maximum strength post-stroke. An unanswered question pertains to how our unique ST model for stroke impacts skeletal muscle endurance (SME). Thus, we now report on ST-induced adaptation in the ability to sustain isotonic muscle contraction. METHODS: Following screening and baseline testing, hemiparetic strokeparticipants were randomized to either ST or an attention-matched stretch control group (SC). Those in the ST group trained each leg individually to muscle failure (20 repetition sets, 3× per week for 3 months) on each of three pneumatic resistance machines (leg press, leg extension, and leg curl). Our primary outcome measure was SME, quantified as the number of submaximal weight leg press repetitions possible at a specified cadence. The secondary measures included one-repetition maximum strength, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), 10-meter walk speeds, and peak aerobic capacity (VO2 peak). RESULTS: ST participants (N = 14) had significantly greater SME gains compared with SC participants (N = 16) in both the paretic (178% versus 12%, P < .01) and non-paretic legs (161% versus 12%, P < .01). These gains were accompanied by group differences for 6MWD (P < .05) and VO2 peak (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Our ST regimen had a large impact on the capacity to sustain submaximal muscle contraction, a metric that may carry more practical significance for stroke than the often reported measures of maximum strength. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: David B Reuben; Susan Magasi; Heather E McCreath; Richard W Bohannon; Ying-Chih Wang; Deborah J Bubela; William Z Rymer; Jennifer Beaumont; Rose Marie Rine; Jin-Shei Lai; Richard C Gershon Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Tessa R Hill; Tor Ivar Gjellesvik; Per Marius R Moen; Tom Tørhaug; Marius S Fimland; Jan Helgerud; Jan Hoff Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Mi-Joung Lee; Sharon L Kilbreath; Maria Fiatarone Singh; Brian Zeman; Glen M Davis Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Steven J Prior; Michael J McKenzie; Lyndon J Joseph; Frederick M Ivey; Richard F Macko; Charlene E Hafer-Macko; Alice S Ryan Journal: Microcirculation Date: 2009-02-16 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Stacey E Aaron; Jennifer L Hunnicutt; Aaron E Embry; Mark G Bowden; Chris M Gregory Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 2.119
Authors: Bruno Bavaresco Gambassi; Hélio José Coelho-Junior; Paulo Adriano Schwingel; Fabiano de Jesus Furtado Almeida; Tânia Maria Gaspar Novais; Paula de Lourdes Lauande Oliveira; Bismarck Ascar Sauaia; Cristiane Dominice Melo; Marco Carlos Uchida; Bruno Rodrigues Journal: Stroke Res Treat Date: 2017-12-20
Authors: Hélcio Kanegusuku; Tiago Peçanha; Carla Silva-Batista; Roberto Sanches Miyasato; Natan Daniel da Silva Júnior; Marco Túlio de Mello; Maria Elisa Pimentel Piemonte; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Cláudia Lúcia de Moraes Forjaz Journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo) Date: 2021-04-19