Aerobic training alone or combined with strength training affects fitness in elderly: Randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate if combined strength and aerobic training can enhance aerobic capacity in the elderly to a similar extent as aerobic training alone when training duration is matched. METHODS: Elderly men and women (age 63.2 ± 4.7) were randomized into two intervention groups: an aerobic group (AG, n = 17) and a combined group (CG, n = 16). Subjects trained 40 minutes three times a week for 12 weeks. Both groups trained 20 minutes at 65% of heart rate reserve on ergometer cycles followed by another 20 minutes on the ergometer cycles for AG and 20-minute strength training for the lower body for CG. The primary outcome was VO2max. Secondary outcomes were maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in isometric knee extension, 1 repetition maximum in three leg exercises, body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, blood pressure and score on the Health Survey Short Form 36 (SF-36). RESULTS: Both groups improved VO2max (p < .01) and MVC (p < .001). VO2max increased 17% confidence interval (CI) [7.4-26] in CG and 26% CI [14.1-38.2] in AG, with no significant difference between groups. MVC increased 22% CI [16.3-27.7] in CG and 9% CI [4.6-13.5] in AG with CG improving MVC more than AG (p < .01). CG's score on the general health dimension on the SF-36 health survey improved more than AG's score. CONCLUSION: Elderly can substitute a part of their aerobic training with strength training and still improve VO2max to a clinically significant degree when strength training is performed with large muscle groups subsequently to the aerobic training. Combined training additionally improves strength and self-assessed general health more than aerobic training alone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".