The effect off A resistance Exercise Program On Strength And Cognitive Performance On Older Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging is associated with various physiological and metabolic changes, which often are dynapenia and a decreased cognitive performance, thus the search for strategies which prevent or retard that type of physiological and cognitive disorders are important to maintain the independence and the life quality on older woman’s. PURPOSE: Verify the effect of twelve weeks of a resistance exercise program on physical aptitude and at the cognitive performance on older and sedentary women’s. METHODS: The sample of the present study were 30 older women, aged between 60 and 85 years. The group was subjected to a resistive exercise program, with machines and dumbbells (12 exercises; 3x10 repetitions; with 1 minute interval between each repetition and 2 minutes of rest between each exercise) 3 times a week during 12 weeks.The intensity of loads has been established between 60 and 70% of the estimated 1RM which was obtained by the test of 10 maximum repetition. For the evaluation of the strength of upper body the direct curl test was realized for 30 seconds with dumbbells of 2.27 Kg, and the number of maximal repetitions was collected.At the strength of lower body was used the chair test, where the person must sit down and get up the greatest amount of times in 30 seconds. The analyze of cognitive performance was made using the questionnaire Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).The statistical analysis was descriptive and the comparison between pre and post results was realized using a T test with a significant level p<0.05. RESULTS: A significant difference was reported on strength of upper body (12,52±3,03 to 19,83±4,59 with p=0.01) and lower body (16,03±2,78 to 27,00±5,04 withp=0.01). A significant difference was found on strength of upper body (12,52±3,03 to 19,83±4,59 with p=0.01). Beyond an improvement on strength we also found an improvement on cognitive performance, MoCA test (16,55±4,24 to 19,76±4,24 with p=0.01). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that resistance exercise program provides significant improvement on strength of the upper and lower body in addition to provide an improvement on cognitive performance in elder woman.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".