From Weight Training to ADL Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1937 An inherent assumption of traditional weight-training (WT) programs is that a direct relationship exists between strength gains derived from WT and increased perceptions of ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) requiring strength. This approach assumes that exercisers implicitly “make the connection” between WT and ADL (i.e., participants generalize their mastery experiences). However, the inconsistent effects of WT on ADL self-efficacy suggest that older adults may not make this connection. PURPOSE: Our intervention compared the effects of WT alone versus WT plus education about training-related strength gains and the use of that strength when performing ADL (WT+ED) on ADL self-efficacy. METHOD: We conducted a two-arm randomized trial in which 23 men and 41 women (M age = 74.4 + 3.7) were randomly assigned to WT or WT+ED. Both groups performed 12 weeks (2 sessions/week) of WT targeting 8 major muscle groups. WT+ED received individualized behavioral training and associated written materials emphasizing the link between WT and ADL. WT received a parallel intervention on proper WT technique only. Self-efficacy for performing 8 valued ADL tasks in our lab (e.g., climbing stairs, carrying groceries, opening heavy doors) was measured at habituation baseline and post-intervention, along with self-efficacy for performing ADL at home. RESULTS: ANCOVAs controlling for baseline efficacy showed that WT+ED had greater postintervention self-efficacy than WT for performing 5/8 ADL lab tasks (ps < .08, ES ranged from .36 to .49). Greater self-efficacy for the 8 ADL tasks was associated with greater self-efficacy for performing ADL at home (R2adj = .18, p < .01). CONCLUSION: The WT+ED treatment lead to greater gains in ADL self-efficacy than WT alone. These findings emphasize the need for interventionist collaboration and behavior change practice to help older adults generalize the benefits and confidence obtained through WT to the performance of valued ADL. Supported by SSHRC grant 410–00–1380
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".