Michael J Stec1, Anna Thalacker-Mercer1, David L Mayhew1, Neil A Kelly1, S Craig Tuggle1, Edward K Merritt1, Cynthia J Brown2, Samuel T Windham3, Louis J Dell'Italia4, C Scott Bickel5, Brandon M Roberts1, Kristina M Vaughn1, Irina Isakova-Donahue1, Gina M Many1, Marcas M Bamman6. 1. UAB Center for Exercise Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States; Department of Cell, Developmental, and Integrative Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States. 2. UAB Center for Exercise Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States; Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Veterans' Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, AL 35233, United States. 3. UAB Center for Exercise Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States; Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States. 4. UAB Center for Exercise Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States; Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States; Research Service, Veterans' Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, AL 35233, United States. 5. UAB Center for Exercise Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States. 6. UAB Center for Exercise Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States; Department of Cell, Developmental, and Integrative Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Veterans' Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, AL 35233, United States. Electronic address: mbamman@uab.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The myriad consequences of age-related muscle atrophy include reduced muscular strength, power, and mobility; increased risk of falls, disability, and metabolic disease; and compromised immune function. At its root, aging muscle atrophy results from a loss of myofibers and atrophy of the remaining type II myofibers. The purpose of this trial (NCT02442479) was to titrate the dose of resistance training (RT) in older adults in an effort to maximize muscle regrowth and gains in muscle function. METHODS: A randomized, four-arm efficacy trial in which four, distinct exercise prescriptions varying in intensity, frequency, and contraction mode/rate were evaluated: (1) high-resistance concentric-eccentric training (H) 3d/week (HHH); (2) H training 2d/week (HH); (3) 3d/week mixed model consisting of H training 2d/week separated by 1 bout of low-resistance, high-velocity, concentric only (L) training (HLH); and (4) 2d/week mixed model consisting of H training 1d/week and L training 1d/week (HL). Sixty-four randomized subjects (65.5±3.6y) completed the trial. All participants completed the same 4weeks of pre-training consisting of 3d/week followed by 30weeks of randomized RT. RESULTS: The HLH prescription maximized gains in thigh muscle mass (TMM, primary outcome) and total body lean mass. HLH also showed the greatest gains in knee extension maximum isometric strength, and reduced cardiorespiratory demand during steady-state walking. HHH was the only prescription that led to increased muscle expression of pro-inflammatory cytokine receptors and this was associated with a lesser gain in TMM and total body lean mass compared to HLH. The HL prescription induced minimal muscle regrowth and generally lesser gains in muscle performance vs. the other prescriptions. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: The HLH prescription offers distinct advantages over the other doses, while the HL program is subpar. Although limited by a relatively small sample size, we conclude from this randomized dose-response trial that older adults benefit greatly from 2d/week high-intensity RT, and may further benefit from inserting an additional weekly bout of low-load, explosive RT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02442479. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The myriad consequences of age-related muscle atrophy include reduced muscular strength, power, and mobility; increased risk of falls, disability, and metabolic disease; and compromised immune function. At its root, aging muscle atrophy results from a loss of myofibers and atrophy of the remaining type II myofibers. The purpose of this trial (NCT02442479) was to titrate the dose of resistance training (RT) in older adults in an effort to maximize muscle regrowth and gains in muscle function. METHODS: A randomized, four-arm efficacy trial in which four, distinct exercise prescriptions varying in intensity, frequency, and contraction mode/rate were evaluated: (1) high-resistance concentric-eccentric training (H) 3d/week (HHH); (2) H training 2d/week (HH); (3) 3d/week mixed model consisting of H training 2d/week separated by 1 bout of low-resistance, high-velocity, concentric only (L) training (HLH); and (4) 2d/week mixed model consisting of H training 1d/week and L training 1d/week (HL). Sixty-four randomized subjects (65.5±3.6y) completed the trial. All participants completed the same 4weeks of pre-training consisting of 3d/week followed by 30weeks of randomized RT. RESULTS: The HLH prescription maximized gains in thigh muscle mass (TMM, primary outcome) and total body lean mass. HLH also showed the greatest gains in knee extension maximum isometric strength, and reduced cardiorespiratory demand during steady-state walking. HHH was the only prescription that led to increased muscle expression of pro-inflammatory cytokine receptors and this was associated with a lesser gain in TMM and total body lean mass compared to HLH. The HL prescription induced minimal muscle regrowth and generally lesser gains in muscle performance vs. the other prescriptions. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: The HLH prescription offers distinct advantages over the other doses, while the HL program is subpar. Although limited by a relatively small sample size, we conclude from this randomized dose-response trial that older adults benefit greatly from 2d/week high-intensity RT, and may further benefit from inserting an additional weekly bout of low-load, explosive RT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02442479. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: R S Hikida; R S Staron; F C Hagerman; S Walsh; E Kaiser; S Shell; S Hervey Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Michael J Stec; Neil A Kelly; Gina M Many; Samuel T Windham; S Craig Tuggle; Marcas M Bamman Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Hans C Dreyer; Satoshi Fujita; Jerson G Cadenas; David L Chinkes; Elena Volpi; Blake B Rasmussen Journal: J Physiol Date: 2006-07-27 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Edward K Merritt; Michael J Stec; Anna Thalacker-Mercer; Samuel T Windham; James M Cross; David P Shelley; S Craig Tuggle; David J Kosek; Jeong-Su Kim; Marcas M Bamman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2013-05-16
Authors: Marcas M Bamman; Ronald C Ragan; Jeong-Su Kim; James M Cross; Vernishia J Hill; S Craig Tuggle; Richard M Allman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2004-05-21
Authors: Kaleen M Lavin; Brandon M Roberts; Christopher S Fry; Tatiana Moro; Blake B Rasmussen; Marcas M Bamman Journal: Physiology (Bethesda) Date: 2019-03-01
Authors: Neil A Kelly; Kelley G Hammond; C Scott Bickel; Samuel T Windham; S Craig Tuggle; Marcas M Bamman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2017-12-21
Authors: Devin J Drummer; Jeremy S McAdam; Regina Seay; Inmaculada Aban; Kaleen M Lavin; Derek Wiggins; Gabriel Touliatos; Sufen Yang; Christian Kelley; S Craig Tuggle; Brandon Peoples; Herrick Siegel; Elie Ghanem; Jasvinder A Singh; Scott Schutzler; C Lowry Barnes; Arny A Ferrando; S Louis Bridges; Marcas M Bamman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2022-03-03
Authors: Melissa L Erickson; Jacob M Allen; Daniel P Beavers; Linda M Collins; Karina W Davidson; Kirk I Erickson; Karyn A Esser; Matthijs K C Hesselink; Kerrie L Moreau; Eric B Laber; Charlotte A Peterson; Courtney M Peterson; Jane E Reusch; John P Thyfault; Shawn D Youngstedt; Juleen R Zierath; Bret H Goodpaster; Nathan K LeBrasseur; Thomas W Buford; Lauren M Sparks Journal: Geroscience Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 7.581
Authors: Kaleen M Lavin; Paul M Coen; Liliana C Baptista; Margaret B Bell; Devin Drummer; Sara A Harper; Manoel E Lixandrão; Jeremy S McAdam; Samia M O'Bryan; Sofhia Ramos; Lisa M Roberts; Rick B Vega; Bret H Goodpaster; Marcas M Bamman; Thomas W Buford Journal: Compr Physiol Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 8.915
Authors: Brandon M Roberts; Kaleen M Lavin; Gina M Many; Anna Thalacker-Mercer; Edward K Merritt; C Scott Bickel; David L Mayhew; S Craig Tuggle; James M Cross; David J Kosek; John K Petrella; Cynthia J Brown; Gary R Hunter; Samuel T Windham; Richard M Allman; Marcas M Bamman Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Kaleen M Lavin; Margaret B Bell; Jeremy S McAdam; Bailey D Peck; R Grace Walton; Samuel T Windham; S Craig Tuggle; Douglas E Long; Philip A Kern; Charlotte A Peterson; Marcas M Bamman Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Amy W Amara; Kimberly H Wood; Allen Joop; Raima A Memon; Jennifer Pilkington; S Craig Tuggle; John Reams; Matthew J Barrett; David A Edwards; Arthur L Weltman; Christopher P Hurt; Gary Cutter; Marcas M Bamman Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 10.338