Age-Related Differences in Adaptation of Lean Body Mass, Muscle Strength, and Performance Following 6 Weeks of Blood Flow Restriction Training in Young and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The primary objective was to test the influence of age on lean body mass (LBM), muscle strength, and isokinetic performance adaptation following a 6-week blood-flow restriction training (BFRT) intervention. Methods: A total of 38 young adults (23.5±3.1) and 34 older adults (72.7±5.5) completed a 6-week BFRT program. Exercises were performed three times per week at 30% of 1-repetition maximums (1-RMs) and 60% of each limb's arterial occlusion pressure. Body composition was assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, muscle strength was measured using 1-RMs, and muscular performance was measured using an isokinetic dynamometer. Results: A significant increase in LBM was observed in young adults (0.9±1.5kg; p<0.001) but not in older adults (0.3±1.3kg; p>0.05) following the intervention. Both age groups significantly improved 1-RMs for knee extension, knee flexion, and chest press, with the young group displaying greater improvements (all ps<0.001). A significant increase in knee flexion torque and power was observed in young adults (all ps<0.001) but not in older adults, while a significant difference between groups was observed (p<0.05). Conclusions: The results from our study suggest that young adults improve LBM and muscle performance following 6-weeks of BFRT, while older adults enhance performance, despite a lack of improvement in LBM. Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05615831.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".