Trunk exercise training improves muscle size, strength, and function in older adults: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a multimodal exercise program to increase trunk muscle morphology and strength in older individuals, and their associated changes in functional ability. Using a single‐blinded parallel‐group randomized controlled trial design, 64 older adults (≥60 years) were randomly allocated to a 12‐week exercise program comprising walking and balance exercises with or without trunk strengthening/motor control exercises; followed by a 6‐week walking‐only program (detraining; 32 per group). Trunk muscle morphology (ultrasound imaging), strength (isokinetic dynamometer), and functional ability and balance (6‐Minute Walk Test; 30 second Chair Stand Test; Sitting and Rising Test; Berg Balance Scale, Multi‐Directional Reach Test; Timed Up and Go; Four Step Square Test) were the primary outcome measures. Sixty‐four older adults (mean [SD]; age: 69.8 [7.5] years; 59.4% female) were randomized into two exercise groups. Trunk training relative to walking‐balance training increased (mean difference [95% CI]) the size of the rectus abdominis (2.08 [1.29, 2.89] cm 2 ), lumbar multifidus (L4/L5:0.39 [0.16, 0.61] cm; L5/S1:0.31 [0.07, 0.55] cm), and the lateral abdominal musculature (0.63 [0.40, 0.85] cm); and increased trunk flexion (29.8 [4.40, 55.31] N), extension (37.71 [15.17, 60.25] N), and lateral flexion (52.30 [36.57, 68.02] N) strength. Trunk training relative to walking‐balance training improved 30‐second Chair Stand Test (5.90 [3.39, 8.42] repetitions), Sitting and Rising Test (1.23 [0.24, 2.23] points), Forward Reach Test (4.20 [1.89, 6.51] cm), Backward Reach Test (2.42 [0.33, 4.52] cm), and Timed Up and Go Test (−0.76 [−1.40, −0.13] seconds). Detraining led to some declines but all outcomes remained significantly improved when compared to pre‐training. These findings support the inclusion of trunk strengthening/motor control exercises as part of a multimodal exercise program for older adults.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".