Resistance Training on an Outdoor Exercise Structure Improves Lower-Body Relative Strength in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving relative strength is important for maintaining functionality with age, and outdoor exercise structures could be useful to facilitate this. A total of 29 adults aged 65+ participated in a non-randomized crossover study with a 6-week control followed by a 6-week resistance training intervention on an outdoor exercise structure (3x/week). Relative strength (predicted maximal leg press/lower body lean mass [Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry]) and physical function variables were measured at baseline, post-control, and post-intervention. Represented as median (25th–75th), lower body relative strength improved from 7.91 (7.01–9.35) post-control to 8.50 (7.99–9.72) post-intervention ( p = .002) in study completers ( n = 17). Maximum leg press ( p = .002), 30-second chair stand ( p < .001), one-leg stance ( p = .011), and maximum chest press ( p = .009) also improved significantly during the intervention. There were no significant changes in aerobic activity, grip strength, lean mass, or muscle power. This study demonstrates that there could be potential relative strength benefits associated with the use of outdoor exercise structures in 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".