Effects of different doses of high-speed resistance training on physical performance and quality of life in older women: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of two frequencies of high-speed resistance training (HSRT) on physical performance and quality of life of older women. Methods: A total of 24 older women participated in a 12-week HSRT program composed of either two or three sessions/week (equated for volume and intensity). Women were randomized into three arms: a control group (CG, n=8), a resistance training group performing two sessions/week (RT2, n=8), and a resistance training group performing three sessions/week (RT3, n=8). The training program for both experimental groups included exercises that required high-speed concentric muscle actions. Results: No baseline differences were observed among groups. Compared with the CG, both training groups showed similar small to moderate improvements ( P <0.05) in muscle strength, power, functional performance, balance, and quality of life. Conclusion: These results suggest that equated for volume and intensity, two and three training sessions/week of HSRT are equally effective for improving physical performance and quality of life of older women. Keywords: aging, muscle strength, adaptation, frailty
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".