Effects of Combined Balance and Strength Training on Measures of Balance and Muscle Strength in Older Women With a History of Falls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We investigated the effects of combined balance and strength training on measures of balance and muscle strength in older women with a history of falls. Methods Twenty-seven older women aged 70.4 ± 4.1 years (age range: 65 to 75 years) were randomly allocated to either an intervention (IG, n = 12) or an active control (CG, n = 15) group. The IG completed 8 weeks combined balance and strength training program with three sessions per week including visual biofeedback using force plates. The CG received physical therapy and gait training at a rehabilitation center. Training volumes were similar between the groups. Pre and post training, tests were applied for the assessment of muscle strength (weight-bearing squat [WBS] by measuring the percentage of body mass borne by each leg at different knee flexions [0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°], sit-to-stand test [STS]), and balance. Balance tests used the modified clinical test of sensory interaction (mCTSIB) with eyes closed (EC) and opened (EO), on stable (firm) and unstable (foam) surfaces as well as spatial parameters of gait such as step width and length (cm) and walking speed (cm/s). Results Significant group × time interactions were found for different degrees of knee flexion during WBS (0.0001 < p < 0.013, 0.441 < d < 0.762). Post hoc tests revealed significant pre-to-post improvements for both legs and for all degrees of flexion (0.0001 < p < 0.002, 0.697 < d < 1.875) for IG compared to CG. Significant group × time interactions were found for firm EO, foam EO, firm EC, and foam EC (0.006 < p < 0.029; 0.302 < d < 0.518). Post hoc tests showed significant pre-to-post improvements for both legs and for all degrees of oscillations (0.0001 < p < 0.004, 0.753 < d < 2.097) for IG compared to CG. This study indicates that combined balance and strength training improved percentage distribution of body weight between legs at different conditions of knee flexion (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°) and also decreased the sway oscillation on a firm surface with eyes closed, and on foam surface (with eyes opened or closed) in the IG. Conclusion The higher positive effects of training seen in standing balance tests, compared with dynamic tests, suggests that balance training exercises including lateral, forward, and backward exercises improved static balance to a greater extent in older women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".