Dataset Information

Comparison of low-dose maximal-intent versus controlled-tempo resistance training on quality-of-life, functional capacity, and strength in untrained healthy adults: a comparative effectiveness study.

ABSTRACT: Lack of physical activity is a global issue for adults that can lead to sedentary behaviour and a higher prevalence of health complications and chronic diseases, resulting in reduced quality-of-life (QoL) and functional capacity (FC). A potential strategy to mitigate this inactivity is low-dose resistance training (RT); however, physiological, and psychological responses are limited in evidence. Twenty untrained participants aged 30-60 years old (mean ± SD age 42 ± 7 years, mass 77 ± 13 kg, stature 166 ± 8 cm; 18 females and two males) were recruited and randomly assigned to maximal velocity-intent (MI, n = 10) or controlled-tempo (CT, n = 10) RT according to CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Participants attended one training session per week for 6 weeks, consisting of five sets of five repetitions at 60% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) leg press. The interventions differed only during the concentric phase, with MI group pushing with maximal intent, and CT group pushing in a time-controlled manner (3 s). Outcome measures assessed pre- and post-RT included body mass, body mass index (BMI), strength-to-mass ratio, bipedal balance, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), 30-second sit-to-stand (30s-STS), timed up and go (TUG), and leg press 1RM. Time effects were observed for all demographics and FC-related outcomes, such as identical reductions in mass and BMI (- 2%), improvements in strength-to-mass ratio (25%) leg press 1RM (22%), 6MWT (3%), and 30s-STS (14%), as well as a 9% improvement in both TUG-clockwise and anticlockwise. Results show low-dose once-weekly RT is effective in improving QoL, FC, and strength in untrained healthy adults, regardless of modality. Positive responses from participants suggest an increased likelihood of consistent participation for low-dose once-weekly RT over more intense modalities. Retrospective ClinicalTrials.gov ID (TRN): NCT06107855, 24/10/2023.

SUBMITTER: Pearson LT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10961002 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of low-dose maximal-intent versus controlled-tempo resistance training on quality-of-life, functional capacity, and strength in untrained healthy adults: a comparative effectiveness study.

Pearson Liam T LT Fox Kai T KT Keenan Ashleigh A Behm David G DG Stuart Sam S Goodall Stuart S Barry Gill G

BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation 20240323 1

Lack of physical activity is a global issue for adults that can lead to sedentary behaviour and a higher prevalence of health complications and chronic diseases, resulting in reduced quality-of-life (QoL) and functional capacity (FC). A potential strategy to mitigate this inactivity is low-dose resistance training (RT); however, physiological, and psychological responses are limited in evidence. Twenty untrained participants aged 30-60 years old (mean ± SD age 42 ± 7 years, mass 77 ± 13 kg, stat ...[more]

PMID: 38521946

Similar Datasets

Project description:The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of different methods of resistance training (RT) on functional capacity in older adults. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov databases, from inception to December 2021. Eligibility criteria consisted of randomised control trials (RCT’s) involving maximal-intent resistance training (MIRT), where participants (aged 60+) had specific instruction to move ‘as fast as possible’ during the concentric phase of the exercise. Twelve studies were included within the meta-analysis. Divided into functional capacity and strength-related outcomes; Improvements were evident for timed-up-and-go (p = 0.001, SMD: − 1.74 [95% CI − 2.79, − 0.69]) and knee extension one-repetition maximum (1RM) (p = 0.01, SMD: − 1.21, [95% CI − 2.17, − 0.25]), both in favour of MIRT, as well as in 30 s sit-to-stand in favour of T-STR (p = 0.04, SMD: 3.10 [95% CI 0.07, 6.14]). No statistical significance was found for combined functional capacity outcomes (p = 0.17, SMD: − 0.84, [95% CI − 2.04, 0.37]), with near-significance observed in strength-related outcomes (p = 0.06. SMD: − 0.57, [95% CI − 1.16, 0.02]) favouring MIRT. Heterogeneity for FC-outcomes was observed as Tau2 = 4.83; Chi = 276.19, df = 14, I2 = 95%, and for strength-outcomes Tau2 = 1.290; Chi = 109.65, df = 115, I2 = 86%. Additionally, MIRT elicited substantial clinically meaningful improvements (CMI) in Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) scores but fell short of CMI in 400 m walk test by 0.6 s. In conclusion, this systematic review highlights the lack of sufficient and quality evidence for maximal- versus submaximal-intent resistance training on functional capacity and strength in community-dwelling older adults. Study limitations revolved around lack of research, low quality (“low” PEDro score), and largely due to the fact many comparison studies did not match their loads lifted (1500 kg vs. 500 kg), making comparisons not possible. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13102-022-00526-x.

Project description:Accommodation resistance is a training technique that may improve strength and power gains beyond those achieved by traditional free weights. In this method, chains are either added on a free-weight bar and combined with traditional plates or added to the bar as the entire load. Purpose. The aim of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of accommodation and constant resistance training methods during a four-week period on maximal strength and power in trained athletes. Methods. This study was comprised of 24 trained athletes, including 16 trained males [8 Wushu athletes (Kung-Fu) and 8 wrestlers, age: 20.5 ± 2.00 yrs. old]. Participants were initially tested on weight, body circumference, fat percent, upper and lower body maximal strength, determined by the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test, which determines the greatest amount of weight a person can successfully lift, and upper and lower body power. Participants were equally randomized to either accommodation or constant resistance training groups. Both groups underwent resistance training for a four-week period that consisted of three sessions per week. Multivariate repeated-measures analyses of variance of the data were used to verify significant differences in strength and power between groups. The modified Bonferroni post hoc test was used to compare the obtained results in pre-, mid-, and post test. Results. In the accommodation resistance group, there was a significant difference in lower body maximal strength compared to the constant group (163.12 ± 18.82 kg in the accommodation group vs. 142.25 ± 20.04 kg in the constant group, P = 0.04). No significant differences were found in upper body power, lower body power, and upper body maximal strength between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion. Although there was only a significant difference in lower body maximal strength between groups, accommodation resistance training may induce a physiological training response by improving the strength and power of stabilizing muscle groups required to balance the bar if consistently used over time.

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of concurrent training on the development of maximal strength is unclear, especially in individuals with different training statuses.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to compare the effect of concurrent resistance and endurance training with that of resistance training only on the development of maximal dynamic strength in untrained, moderately trained, and trained individuals.MethodsOn the basis of the predetermined criteria, 27 studies that compared effects between concurrent and resistance training only on lower-body 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength were included. The effect size (ES), calculated as the standardised difference in mean, was extracted from each study, pooled, and analysed with a random-effects model.ResultsThe 1RM for leg press and squat exercises was negatively affected by concurrent training in trained individuals (ES = - 0.35, p < 0.01), but not in moderately trained ( - 0.20, p = 0.08) or untrained individuals (ES = 0.03, p = 0.87) as compared to resistance training only. A subgroup analysis revealed that the negative effect observed in trained individuals occurred only when resistance and endurance training were conducted within the same training session (ES same session = - 0.66, p < 0.01 vs. ES different sessions = - 0.10, p = 0.55).ConclusionThis study demonstrated the novel and quantifiable effects of training status on lower-body strength development and shows that the addition of endurance training to a resistance training programme may have a negative impact on lower-body strength development in trained, but not in moderately trained or untrained individuals. This impairment seems to be more pronounced when training is performed within the same session than in different sessions. Trained individuals should therefore consider separating endurance from resistance training during periods where the development of dynamic maximal strength is prioritised.

Project description:The load in resistance training is considered to be a critical variable for neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, it is important to assess the effects of applying different loads on the development of maximal strength and muscular hypertrophy. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and compare the effects of resistance training that was performed with low loads versus moderate and high loads in untrained and trained healthy adult males on the development of maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy during randomized experimental designs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (2021) were followed with the eligibility criteria defined according to participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS): (P) healthy males between 18 and 40 years old, (I) interventions performed with low loads, (C) interventions performed with moderate or high loads, (O) development of maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and (S) randomized experimental studies with between- or within-subject parallel designs. The literature search strategy was performed in three electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) on 22 August 2021. Results: Twenty-three studies with a total of 563 participants (80.6% untrained and 19.4% trained) were selected. The studies included both relative and absolute loads. All studies were classified as being moderate-to-high methodological quality, although only two studies had a score higher than six points. The main findings indicated that the load magnitude that was used during resistance training influenced the dynamic strength and isometric strength gains. In general, comparisons between the groups (i.e., low, moderate, and high loads) showed higher gains in 1RM and maximal voluntary isometric contraction when moderate and high loads were used. In contrast, regarding muscle hypertrophy, most studies showed that when resistance training was performed to muscle failure, the load used had less influence on muscle hypertrophy. The current literature shows that gains in maximal strength are more pronounced with high and moderate loads compared to low loads in healthy adult male populations. However, for muscle hypertrophy, studies indicate that a wide spectrum of loads (i.e., 30 to 90% 1RM) may be used for healthy adult male populations.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigates whether transcranial direct current stimulation applied during physical training increases muscle strength in comparison with sham tDCS combined with physical training.MethodsRandomized controlled trials of the effects of tDCS combined physical training intervention on muscle strength and cortical excitability were collected by searching Web of Science, Pubmed, EBSCO, CNKI. The retrieval date ends in April 2024. 11 randomized controlled trials are finally included. The total sample size of the study is 338. The experimental group was subjected to tDCS combined with physical training intervention, and the control group was physical training combined with sham tDCS intervention.ResultsThere is a significant increase in maximal strength (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.67; p = 0.01) and lower limb explosive strength (MD = 2.90; 95% CI: 1.06, 4.74; p = 0.002) when physical training was performed with tDCS, but not following physical training combined with sham tDCS. Subgroup analysis of the subject population showed an increase in muscle strength in those with training experience following tDCS combined with physical training (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.70; p = 0.01), but not for those without training experience (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI: -0.06, 0.63; p = 0.10). Motor evoked potential (MEP) wave amplitude increased significantly following physical training with tDCS (SMD = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.24; p = 0.008), but was not different between groups (SMD = 0.16; 95% CI: -0.33, 0.65; p = 0.52).ConclusionstDCS combined with physical training intervention can improve muscle strength, lower limb explosive strength and cerebral cortex excitability. Compared to tDCS combined with training of small muscle groups, tDCS combined with training of large muscle groups was more effective in improving muscle strength. Muscle strength was more likely to improve after tDCS combined with physical training in people with physical training experience compared with people without physical training experience. The combination of tDCS with physical training intervention and the sham-tDCS with physical training intervention both increased cortical excitability.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO, identifier (CRD42024550454).

Dataset Information

Comparison of low-dose maximal-intent versus controlled-tempo resistance training on quality-of-life, functional capacity, and strength in untrained healthy adults: a comparative effectiveness study.

Publications

Comparison of low-dose maximal-intent versus controlled-tempo resistance training on quality-of-life, functional capacity, and strength in untrained healthy adults: a comparative effectiveness study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets