A randomised comparative effectiveness trial exploring two lower-dose resistance training modalities on quality of life, functional capacity and strength in healthy, untrained community-dwelling older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated whether a lower volume of once-weekly resistance training (RT) could elicit meaningful improvements in quality of life (QoL), functional capacity and strength in untrained older adults, aiming to determine if reduced training volume could yield meaningful adaptations. The study included 31 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 66.7 ± 4.9 years; 55% female) with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.2 kg/m². Participants were randomised into four groups to perform a leg press exercise using either maximal-intent (MI; defined as the purposeful intention to move as fast as possible regardless of resistance) or controlled-tempo (CT) RT across two volumes (3×5 or 5×5, sets × repetitions) at 60% one-repetition maximum (1RM) once weekly for six weeks. Body mass, BMI, QoL (assessed by the SF-36) were assessed, and a follow-up QoL survey conducted three months post-intervention. Functional capacity was evaluated using balance, six-minute walk (6MWT), timed-up-and-go (TUG), and 30-second sit-to-stand (30sSTS) tests. Strength was measured via leg press 1RM, knee extension maximum voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC), and strength-to-mass ratio. All assessments were conducted at baseline, mid-intervention (week 3) and post-intervention (week 6) to compare the effectiveness of both shorter (3-week) and full-length (6-week) training periods. Low-dose RT significantly enhanced QoL, functional capacity, and strength (p < 0.05) across all groups within the first three weeks. Both CT and MI modalities led to significant strength improvements ( p < 0.001), with no statistically significant difference between modalities ( p > 0.05). Despite the reduced volume, the 3×5 protocol achieved comparable outcomes to 5×5, suggesting that meaningful adaptations can be achieved with lower training volumes. These findings support the efficacy of short-term, lower-dose RT interventions for untrained 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".