Rebecca M Henderson1, Michael E Miller2, Roger A Fielding3, Thomas M Gill4, Nancy W Glynn5, Jack M Guralnik6, Abby King7, Anne B Newman5, Todd M Manini8, Anthony P Marsh9, Marco Pahor8, Mary M McDermott10, Jack Rejeski9, Catrine Tudor-Locke11, Stephen B Kritchevsky1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Sticht Center on Aging, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 2. Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 3. Nutrition, Exercise Physiology and Sarcopenia Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Center for Aging and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. 7. School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 8. Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville. 9. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 10. Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 11. Department of Kinesiology, University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
Abstract
Background: Structured physical activity interventions delay the onset of disability for at-risk older adults. However, it is not known if at-risk older adults continue to participate in physical activity or maintain mobility benefits after cessation of structured intervention. Methods: One thousand six hundred and thirty-five sedentary men and women aged 70-89 years with Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) scores of 9 or less and able to walk 400 m were randomized to a structured, moderate-intensity physical activity (PA) program consisting of center-based (twice/week) and home-based (three to four times per week) aerobic, resistance, and flexibility training or a health education (HE) program combined with upper extremity stretching. Results: Most of the participants (88% of HE and 87% of PA) returned for a follow-up visit (POST) 1 year after cessation of formal intervention. The HE group reported about 1-hour less activity per week than the PA group at end of intervention (LAST TRIAL; -68.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -86.5 to -51.3) but similar weekly activity at POST (-13.5; 95% CI = -29.5 to 2.47). SPPB did not differ between the two groups at LAST TRIAL (-0.06; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.19) nor POST (-0.18; 95% CI = -0.45 to 0.088). Conclusions: Although sedentary at-risk older adults increased their physical activity during a structured physical activity intervention, they did not continue at this level following the cessation of intervention. Future exercise interventions need to include novel methods to support older adults in continued physical activity following structured interventions.
RCT Entities:
Background: Structured physical activity interventions delay the onset of disability for at-risk older adults. However, it is not known if at-risk older adults continue to participate in physical activity or maintain mobility benefits after cessation of structured intervention. Methods: One thousand six hundred and thirty-five sedentary men and women aged 70-89 years with Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) scores of 9 or less and able to walk 400 m were randomized to a structured, moderate-intensity physical activity (PA) program consisting of center-based (twice/week) and home-based (three to four times per week) aerobic, resistance, and flexibility training or a health education (HE) program combined with upper extremity stretching. Results: Most of the participants (88% of HE and 87% of PA) returned for a follow-up visit (POST) 1 year after cessation of formal intervention. The HE group reported about 1-hour less activity per week than the PA group at end of intervention (LAST TRIAL; -68.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -86.5 to -51.3) but similar weekly activity at POST (-13.5; 95% CI = -29.5 to 2.47). SPPB did not differ between the two groups at LAST TRIAL (-0.06; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.19) nor POST (-0.18; 95% CI = -0.45 to 0.088). Conclusions: Although sedentary at-risk older adults increased their physical activity during a structured physical activity intervention, they did not continue at this level following the cessation of intervention. Future exercise interventions need to include novel methods to support older adults in continued physical activity following structured interventions.
Authors: Thomas R Wójcicki; Jason Fanning; Elizabeth A Awick; Erin A Olson; Robert W Motl; Edward McAuley Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Mélany Hars; François R Herrmann; Roger A Fielding; Kieran F Reid; René Rizzoli; Andrea Trombetti Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Anthony P Marsh; Laura C Lovato; Nancy W Glynn; Kimberly Kennedy; Cynthia Castro; Kathryn Domanchuk; Erica McDavitt; Ruben Rodate; Michael Marsiske; Joanne McGloin; Erik J Groessl; Marco Pahor; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Roger A Fielding; W Jack Rejeski; Steven Blair; Tim Church; Mark A Espeland; Thomas M Gill; Jack M Guralnik; Fang-Chi Hsu; Jeffrey Katula; Abby C King; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Mary M McDermott; Michael E Miller; Susan Nayfield; Anne B Newman; Jeff D Williamson; Denise Bonds; Sergei Romashkan; Evan Hadley; Marco Pahor Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2011-08-08 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Joshua D Brown; Ching-Yu Wang; Erik J Groessl; Marco Pahor; Todd M Manini Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: G Piastra; L Perasso; S Lucarini; F Monacelli; A Bisio; V Ferrando; M Gallamini; E Faelli; P Ruggeri Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Leocadio Rodriguez-Mañas; Olga Laosa; Bruno Vellas; Giuseppe Paolisso; Eva Topinkova; Juan Oliva-Moreno; Isabelle Bourdel-Marchasson; Mikel Izquierdo; Kerry Hood; Andrej Zeyfang; Giovanni Gambassi; Mirko Petrovic; Tim C Hardman; Mark J Kelson; Ivan Bautmans; Gabor Abellan; Michelangela Barbieri; Luz M Peña-Longobardo; Sophie C Regueme; Riccardo Calvani; Stefanie De Buyser; Alan J Sinclair Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Marco Pahor; Jack M Guralnik; Stephen D Anton; Walter T Ambrosius; Steven N Blair; Timothy S Church; Mark A Espeland; Roger A Fielding; Thomas M Gill; Nancy W Glynn; Erik J Groessl; Abby C King; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Todd M Manini; Mary M McDermott; Michael E Miller; Anne B Newman; Jeff D Williamson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Rod L Walker; Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman; John Bellettiere; Andrea Z LaCroix; David Wing; Michael Higgins; KatieRose Richmire; Eric B Larson; Paul K Crane; Dori E Rosenberg Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Marissa N Baranauskas; Cody A Altherr; Allison H Gruber; Andrew R Coggan; John S Raglin; Samir K Gupta; Stephen J Carter Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2020-12-25
Authors: Gohar Azhar; Jeanne Y Wei; Scott E Schutzler; Karen Coker; Regina V Gibson; Mitchell F Kirby; Arny A Ferrando; Robert R Wolfe Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 6.053