Training for Muscle Power in Older Adults: Effects on Functional Abilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of simple, progressive lower body exercise training, focusing on strength and power, on functional abilities in frail older adults. Twenty-five residents of a long-term care facility (75-94 yrs) participated in this randomized controlled trial of 10-wks duration. The exercise group (Ex, n = 18) underwent simple, progressive lower body resistance exercises, specifically aimed at improving muscle power, 3 times/wk; the control subjects (Con, n = 7) maintained their usual daily activities. Knee extensor strength and power were measured on an isokinetic dynamometer (180 degrees/s), and functional performance was assessed from a 6-m walk timed test, a 30-s chair stand, and an 8-ft up-and-go timed test, before and after the 10-wk intervention period. Significant increases were found in the Ex group for eccentric (44%) and concentric (60%) average power (p < 0.05), and improvements were seen on each functional test: the 8-foot up-and-go, chair stand, and walk time improved by 31%, 66%, and 33%, respectively (p < 0.05). No significant change occurred in the Con group. In conclusion, simple progressive exercise training, even in the 10th decade, increases muscle power and is associated with an improved performance of functional activities using the trained muscles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".