Exercise and cognition in older adults: is there a role for resistance training programmes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a strong interest in physical activity as a primary behavioural prevention strategy against cognitive decline. A number of large prospective cohort studies have highlighted the protective role of regular physical activity in lowering the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. Most prospective intervention studies of exercise and cognition to date have focused on aerobic-based exercise training. These studies highlight that aerobic-based exercise training enhances both brain structure and function. However, it has been suggested that other types of exercise training, such as resistance training, may also benefit cognition. The purpose of this brief review is to examine the evidence regarding resistance training and cognitive benefits. Three recent randomised exercise trials involving resistance training among seniors provide evidence that resistance training may have cognitive benefits. Resistance training may prevent cognitive decline among seniors via mechanisms involving insulin-like growth factor I and homocysteine. A side benefit of resistance training, albeit a very important one, is its established role in reducing morbidity among seniors. Resistance training specifically moderates the development of sarcopenia. The multifactorial deleterious sequelae of sarcopenia include increased falls and fracture risk as well as physical disability. Thus, clinicians should consider encouraging their clients to undertake both aerobic-based exercise training and resistance training not only for "physical health" but also because of the almost certain benefits for "brain health".
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".