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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".