Nicholas P Cherup1, Andrew N L Buskard1, Keri L Strand1, Kirk B Roberson1, Emma R Michiels1, Jessica E Kuhn1, Francisco A Lopez1, Joseph F Signorile2. 1. Laboratory of Neuromuscular Research and Active Aging, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, University of Miami, 1507 Levante Ave, Max Orovitz Building, Coral Gables 33146, FL, USA. 2. Laboratory of Neuromuscular Research and Active Aging, Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, University of Miami, 1507 Levante Ave, Max Orovitz Building, Coral Gables 33146, FL, USA; Miller School of Medicine, Center on Aging, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, USA. Electronic address: jsignorile@miami.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Declines in strength and power are cardinal symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD), a progressive neuromuscular disorder. Progressive resistance training (PRT) has been shown to reduce a wide variety of PD-related motor deficits; however, no study has examined differences between the two most common RT methodologies utilized in this population, high-load, low velocity strength training (ST) and low-load, high-velocity power training (PT). The primary purpose of this study was to compare the effects of ST and PT on measures of strength, power, balance and functional movement in persons with PD. METHOD: Thirty-five persons with mild to moderate PD (Hoehm and Yahr Stages = 1-3; UPDRS Part III = 30.6 ± 14.0) were randomized into either a ST or PT group involving 12 weeks of supervised PRT (2 visits per week). Leg press (LP) and chest press (CP) muscular strength (1RM) and muscular peak power (PP) were assessed before and after the twelve week training period as primary outcome measures. In addition, secondary measures of balance (Berg Balance Assessment (BBA), dynamic posturography (DMA), Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES)), functional movement (timed up-and-go), and quality of life (PDQ-39 summary index and Mobility subscore) were obtained at the same time points, given the impact of PD symptoms on fall probability and independence. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANCOVA revealed significant improvements in LP 1RM (Mdiff = 54.89 kg, 95% CI: 43.38, 66.40; p < .05; d = 3.38) and CP 1RM (Mdiff = 7.33 kg, 95% CI: 4.75, 9.91; p < .05; d = 2.02). Additionally, significant improvements were seen in LPPP (Mdiff = 112.27 W, 95% CI: 56.03, 168.51; p < .05; d = 1.42) and CPPP (Mdiff = 52.1 W, 95% CI: 23.38, 80.86; p = .001; d = 1.29). No significant improvements were seen for any secondary outcome measures, however BBA scores were shown to significantly decrease following the intervention (Mdiff = -1.686, 95% CI: -2.89, -0.482; p = .007 d = -0.96), although this change did not reach clinical significance (clinically meaningful change = ±4.0). In addition, the ST group demonstrated significantly poorer PDQ-39SI scores (Mdiff = 4.96, 95% CI: 0.54, 9.38; p = .029), whereas the entire sample showed significantly poorer PDQ-39MOB scores (Mdiff = 4.80, 95% CI: 0.17, 9.43; p = .043; d = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Both ST and PT appear to be effective at reducing the neuromuscular deficits associated with PD; however, the use of these interventions for improving functional performance was not supported.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Declines in strength and power are cardinal symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD), a progressive neuromuscular disorder. Progressive resistance training (PRT) has been shown to reduce a wide variety of PD-related motor deficits; however, no study has examined differences between the two most common RT methodologies utilized in this population, high-load, low velocity strength training (ST) and low-load, high-velocity power training (PT). The primary purpose of this study was to compare the effects of ST and PT on measures of strength, power, balance and functional movement in persons with PD. METHOD: Thirty-five persons with mild to moderate PD (Hoehm and Yahr Stages = 1-3; UPDRS Part III = 30.6 ± 14.0) were randomized into either a ST or PT group involving 12 weeks of supervised PRT (2 visits per week). Leg press (LP) and chest press (CP) muscular strength (1RM) and muscular peak power (PP) were assessed before and after the twelve week training period as primary outcome measures. In addition, secondary measures of balance (Berg Balance Assessment (BBA), dynamic posturography (DMA), Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES)), functional movement (timed up-and-go), and quality of life (PDQ-39 summary index and Mobility subscore) were obtained at the same time points, given the impact of PD symptoms on fall probability and independence. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANCOVA revealed significant improvements in LP 1RM (Mdiff = 54.89 kg, 95% CI: 43.38, 66.40; p < .05; d = 3.38) and CP 1RM (Mdiff = 7.33 kg, 95% CI: 4.75, 9.91; p < .05; d = 2.02). Additionally, significant improvements were seen in LPPP (Mdiff = 112.27 W, 95% CI: 56.03, 168.51; p < .05; d = 1.42) and CPPP (Mdiff = 52.1 W, 95% CI: 23.38, 80.86; p = .001; d = 1.29). No significant improvements were seen for any secondary outcome measures, however BBA scores were shown to significantly decrease following the intervention (Mdiff = -1.686, 95% CI: -2.89, -0.482; p = .007 d = -0.96), although this change did not reach clinical significance (clinically meaningful change = ±4.0). In addition, the ST group demonstrated significantly poorer PDQ-39SI scores (Mdiff = 4.96, 95% CI: 0.54, 9.38; p = .029), whereas the entire sample showed significantly poorer PDQ-39MOB scores (Mdiff = 4.80, 95% CI: 0.17, 9.43; p = .043; d = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Both ST and PT appear to be effective at reducing the neuromuscular deficits associated with PD; however, the use of these interventions for improving functional performance was not supported.
Authors: Natalie E Allen; Colleen G Canning; Lorena Rosa S Almeida; Bastiaan R Bloem; Samyra Hj Keus; Niklas Löfgren; Alice Nieuwboer; Geert Saf Verheyden; Tiê P Yamato; Catherine Sherrington Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-06-06
Authors: Jacqueline A Osborne; Rachel Botkin; Cristina Colon-Semenza; Tamara R DeAngelis; Oscar G Gallardo; Heidi Kosakowski; Justin Martello; Sujata Pradhan; Miriam Rafferty; Janet L Readinger; Abigail L Whitt; Terry D Ellis Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Claire Chrysanthi Karpodini; Petros C Dinas; Efthalia Angelopoulou; Matthew A Wyon; Aline Nogueira Haas; Maria Bougiesi; Sokratis G Papageorgiou; Yiannis Koutedakis Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Danielle Pessoa Lima; Samuel Brito de Almeida; Janine de Carvalho Bonfadini; Emmanuelle Silva Tavares Sobreira; Patrícia Gomes Damasceno; Antonio Brazil Viana Júnior; Madeleine Sales de Alencar; João Rafael Gomes de Luna; Pedro Gustavo Barros Rodrigues; Isabelle de Sousa Pereira; André Luis de Castro Gadelha; Liliane Maria de Oliveira; Érica Carneiro Barbosa Chaves; Vlademir Gomes Carneiro; Rayane Rodrigues Monteiro; Thatyara Almeida de Macedo Costa; Lucas Helal; Joseph Signorile; Lidiane Andréa Oliveira Lima; Manoel Alves Sobreira-Neto; Pedro Braga-Neto Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Youngwook Kim; Michael N Vakula; David A E Bolton; Christopher J Dakin; Brennan J Thompson; Timothy A Slocum; Masaru Teramoto; Eadric Bressel Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 5.750