Matheus de Siqueira Mendes Barbalho1, Paulo Gentil2, Mikel Izquierdo3, James Fisher4, James Steele4, Rodolfo de Azevedo Raiol5. 1. Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade da Amazônia, Belém, PA, Brazil. 2. Faculdade de Educação Física e Dança, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Gôiania, GO, Brazil. Electronic address: paulogentil@gmail.com. 3. Department of Health Sciences, Public University of Navarre, CIBER de Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable (CB16/10/00315), Tudela, Navarre, Spain. 4. School of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Southampton Solent University, United Kingdom. 5. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia, Centro Universitário do Estado do Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of non-responders to different tests and to compare the effects of different resistance training (RT) volumes on muscle strength, anthropometric and functional performance of older women. METHODS:Three hundred seventy six women performed 12weeks of RT with either low or high volume (LV, 71.29±5.77years and HV 69.73±5.88years, respectively). Both groups performed the same exercises, and all parameters were held constant except for the number of sets performed per week. LV performed 8-12 for upper and 4-6 for lower body, while HV performed 16-20 and 8-10, respectively. Before and after the training period, the participants were tested for bench press and leg press 1RM, 30-s chair stand, 30-s arm curl, six-minute walk test, sit and reach, body weight and waist circumference. RESULTS: Both groups significantly improved in all strength and functional tests and reduced their body weight and waist circumference. ANOVA revealed higher gains in the leg press 1RM, 30-s arm curls and 6-min walk test for the HV group and higher increases in the results of the sit and reach test for the LV group. However, the differences were negligible and may be attributable to a type I error due to the large sample size. Non-responsiveness was not apparent in any subject, as a positive response on at least one outcome was present in every participant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that RT, even at low volume, improves waist circumference, muscle strength and physical function in the older population, with no evidence of non-responsiveness. Therefore, we should not be restrictive in prescribing this type of exercise to this population.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of non-responders to different tests and to compare the effects of different resistance training (RT) volumes on muscle strength, anthropometric and functional performance of older women. METHODS: Three hundred seventy six women performed 12weeks of RT with either low or high volume (LV, 71.29±5.77years and HV 69.73±5.88years, respectively). Both groups performed the same exercises, and all parameters were held constant except for the number of sets performed per week. LV performed 8-12 for upper and 4-6 for lower body, while HV performed 16-20 and 8-10, respectively. Before and after the training period, the participants were tested for bench press and leg press 1RM, 30-s chair stand, 30-s arm curl, six-minute walk test, sit and reach, body weight and waist circumference. RESULTS: Both groups significantly improved in all strength and functional tests and reduced their body weight and waist circumference. ANOVA revealed higher gains in the leg press 1RM, 30-s arm curls and 6-min walk test for the HV group and higher increases in the results of the sit and reach test for the LV group. However, the differences were negligible and may be attributable to a type I error due to the large sample size. Non-responsiveness was not apparent in any subject, as a positive response on at least one outcome was present in every participant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that RT, even at low volume, improves waist circumference, muscle strength and physical function in the older population, with no evidence of non-responsiveness. Therefore, we should not be restrictive in prescribing this type of exercise to this population.
Authors: Daniel C Souza; Ricardo B Viana; Victor S Coswig; James P Fisher; James Steele; Paulo Gentil Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: E Dent; J E Morley; A J Cruz-Jentoft; H Arai; S B Kritchevsky; J Guralnik; J M Bauer; M Pahor; B C Clark; M Cesari; J Ruiz; C C Sieber; M Aubertin-Leheudre; D L Waters; R Visvanathan; F Landi; D T Villareal; R Fielding; C W Won; O Theou; F C Martin; B Dong; J Woo; L Flicker; L Ferrucci; R A Merchant; L Cao; T Cederholm; S M L Ribeiro; L Rodríguez-Mañas; S D Anker; J Lundy; L M Gutiérrez Robledo; I Bautmans; I Aprahamian; J M G A Schols; M Izquierdo; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Johny N Almeida; Wagner L Prado; Caio M Terra; Matheus G Oliveira; Renato A Garcia; Carlos E Pinfildi; João P Botero Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Lynda B Ransdell; Heidi A Wayment; Nanette Lopez; Cori Lorts; Anna L Schwartz; Karen Pugliesi; Patricia S Pohl; Dierdra Bycura; Ricky Camplain Journal: Women (Basel) Date: 2021-09-14
Authors: Jozo Grgic; Brad J Schoenfeld; Timothy B Davies; Bruno Lazinica; James W Krieger; Zeljko Pedisic Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Paulo Gentil; James Fisher; James Steele; Mario H Campos; Marcelo H Silva; Antonio Paoli; Jurgen Giessing; Martim Bottaro Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 2.984