Effects of Ankle Power Training on Movement Time in Mobility-Impaired Older Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reduced abilities to generate power put older adults at risk in situations that demand rapid movements. Slower movement times are associated with greater risk of falling and of being involved in a motor vehicle crash. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of power training on foot movement time and, secondarily, on ankle strength and power in mobility-impaired older women. METHODS: Fifty mobility-impaired women (70-88 yr) trained twice per week for 12 wk in one of three groups (weights, elastic bands, or placebo control). All groups performed seated warm-up exercises, followed by either concentric dorsiflexion (DF) and plantarflexion (PF) resistance exercises (weights and bands) performed "as fast as possible" or upper body flexibility exercises (control). Foot reaction/movement time and ankle DF and PF peak torque (30 degrees x s(-1)) and peak power (90 degrees x s(-1)) were measured before and after training. RESULTS: Participants who trained with elastic bands demonstrated improvements in movement time (decreased by 24 ms or 12%, P = 0.003). All groups demonstrated improvements in DF and PF strength and power, which were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: High-velocity/low-load (elastic bands) training improved movement time, which may have important implications in circumstances when rapid generation of torque is required (e.g., to avoid a fall or prevent a vehicle crash). Elastic bands are relatively inexpensive and provide a practical form of training that could be considered in programs designed for older adults with mobility limitations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".