12 weeks of strength training improves fluid cognition in older adults: A nonrandomized pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Resistance training (RT) is a promising strategy to slow or prevent fluid cognitive decline during aging. However, the effects of strength-specific RT programs have received little attention. The purpose of this single-group proof of concept clinical trial was to determine whether a 12-week strength training (ST) program could improve fluid cognition in healthy older adults 60 to 80 years of age, and to explore concomitant physiological and psychological changes. METHODS: Twenty participants (69.1 ± 5.8 years, 14 women) completed this study with no drop-outs or severe adverse events. Baseline assessments were completed before an initial 12-week control period, then participants were re-tested at pre-intervention and after the 12-week ST intervention. The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery and standard physical and psychological measures were administered at all three time points. During the 36 sessions of periodized ST (3 sessions per week), participants were supervised by an exercise specialist and challenged via autoregulatory load progression. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability over the control period was good for fluid cognition and excellent for crystallized cognition. Fluid composite scores significantly increased from pre- to post-intervention (8.2 ± 6.1%, p < 0.01, d = 1.27), while crystallized composite scores did not (-0.5 ± 2.8%, p = 0.46, d = -0.34). Performance on individual fluid instruments, including executive function, attention, working memory, and processing speed, also significantly improved. Surprisingly, changes in fluid composite scores had small negative correlations with changes in muscular strength and sleep quality, but a small positive correlation with changes in muscular power. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, improvements in fluid cognition can be safely achieved in older adults using a 12-week high-intensity ST program, but further controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Furthermore, the relationship with other widespread physiological and psychological benefits remains unclear.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".