Effects and feasibility of exercise therapy combined with branched-chain amino acid supplementation on muscle strengthening in frail and pre-frail elderly people requiring long-term care: a crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects and feasibility of a twice-weekly combined therapy of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) and exercise on physical function improvement in frail and pre-frail elderly people requiring long-term care. We used a crossover design in which the combination of exercise and nutritional interventions was carried out twice a week during cycles A (3 months) and B (3 months) and the exercise intervention alone was performed during the washout period. The exercise intervention entailed the following 5 training sets: 3 sets of muscle training at 30% of maximum voluntary contraction, 1 set of aerobic exercise, and 1 set of balance training. For the nutritional intervention, 6 g of BCAAs or 6 g of maltodextrin was consumed 10 min before starting the exercise. We determined upper and lower limb isometric strength, performance on the Functional Reach Test (FRT) and the Timed Up and Go test, and activity level. In the comparison between the BCAA group and the control group after crossover, the improvement rates in gross lower limb muscle strength (leg press, knee extension) and FRT performance were significantly greater (by approximately 10%) in the BCAA group. In the comparison between different orders of BCAA administration, significant effects were shown for the leg press in both groups only when BCAAs were given. The combination of BCAA intake and exercise therapy yielded significant improvements in gross lower limb muscle strength and dynamic balance ability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".