EFFECTS OF INCREMENTAL RESISTANCE TRAINING PROGRAM ON QUALITY OF LIFE IN OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Majid M. Syed-Abdul Ɨ1,2, Chrissa L. McClellanǂ3, Elizabeth J. Parksǂ1, Stephen D. Ballǂ1,2 1Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology, 2MU-Extension, 3Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. With aging, quality of life (QOL) can be negatively affected due to changes in body weight (BW), body fat (BF), lean mass (LM), bone mineral density (BMD), nerve health, and cardiovascular health - all of which may result in frailty, poor diet, lack of sleep quality, and declining memory. Incremental resistance training (iRT), in which resistance is increased progressively through successive training events, may help to improve QOL in adults. However, the effects of iRT in older adults have not been studied. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test whether iRT will improve mental and physical characteristics that contribute to QOL in older adults. METHODS: Men and women (n=241) were screened over 2y to recruit 30 participants [age: 61.2 ± 4.2y, BMI: 31.4 ± 5.2 kg/m2] who underwent an 8-wk program of iRT. A subset [n=10, 64.9 ± 6.0y, BMI: 32.6 ± 5.7 kg/m2] also completed nerve conduction studies (NCS). Body composition, flexibility, balance, muscle strength, NCS, heart rate, blood pressure (BP), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2), pulse, and blood concentrations of aldolase, glucose and lipids were measured pre- and post-iRT. Additionally, food intake, sleep (Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index), memory (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA, and the Self-Administered Gerocognitive Evaluation, SAGE-1) and QOL surveys were administered. RESULTS: Although not the primary goal of the program, participants lost BW (mean ± SEM, 87.1 ± 4.0 to 86.0 ± 3.9 kg, P=0.001) and BF% (39.5 ± 1.3 to 38.6 ± 1.2, P=0.007) and increased LM% (57.8 ± 1.2 to 58.4 ± 1.1, P=0.04). All measurements of flexibility (P<0.01) and balance (P=0.04) improved significantly. Dominant-hand strength also tended to increase (P=0.06). Systolic BP (130 ± 3 to 125 ± 3 mmHg, P=0.02), blood glucose (117 ± 3 to 115 ± 3, P=0.05), and aldolase (6.7 ± 0.4 to 4.3 ± 0.5 U/L, P<0.001) improved significantly. BMD, lipid biochemistries and NCS did not change. Additionally, sleep (6.9 ± 1.0 to 5.9 ± 0.9, P=0.03), memory (MoCA: 26.3 ± 0.5 to 28.2 ± 0.4, P=0.001; SAGE: 19.4 ± 0.4 to 20.3 ± 0.4, P=0.04), and QOL (64.8 ± 1.7 to 69.9 ± 1.5, P=0.001) scores improved significantly. CONCLUSION: An 8-wk iRT program improves factors that contribute to QOL in older adults. Such programs should be advocated to support mental and physical function in adults as they age. Funding: MU Extension and Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".