Effects of Maximal Isometric and Isokinetic Resistance Training on Strength and Functional Mobility in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare the changes in voluntary strength (isometric, concentric, and eccentric) and functional mobility in response to maximal isokinetic eccentric-only resistance training to those elicited by maximal isometric-only or maximal isokinetic concentric-only resistance training in older adults. METHODS: Twelve women (73 +/- 7 years) and 18 men (73 +/- 5 years) completed a 12-week training program (three times per week) using a Biodex System 3 dynamometer. Primary outcome measures included peak isometric and isokinetic (concentric and eccentric) knee extensor strength, concentric work, concentric power, stair ascent and descent, and gait speed. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three training groups: isometric-only, isokinetic concentric-only, or isokinetic eccentric-only. RESULTS: All three training groups demonstrated an increase in peak isometric and isokinetic concentric and eccentric strength following 12 weeks of training (p <.01). Step time was positively influenced (p <.03) by all three training modes; however, gait speed was unchanged following 12 weeks of training. All three training groups experienced a significant increase in peak concentric work and concentric power (p <.01) with the concentric training group demonstrating the largest increases in both peak concentric work and concentric power when compared to the isometric and eccentric training groups. CONCLUSIONS: It was clear that all three resistance training programs (isometric, concentric, and eccentric) in older adults were effective in increasing strength, concentric work, and concentric power over the 12-week training period. Furthermore, 12 weeks of resistance training resulted in improved stair ascent and descent performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".