No abstract

Fragala, MS, Cadore, EL, Dorgo, S, Izquierdo, M, Kraemer, WJ, Peterson, MD, and Ryan, ED. Resistance training for older adults: position statement from the national strength and conditioning association. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2019—Aging, even in the absence of chronic disease, is associated with a variety of biological changes that can contribute to decreases in skeletal muscle mass, strength, and function. Such losses decrease physiologic resilience and increase vulnerability to catastrophic events. As such, strategies for both prevention and treatment are necessary for the health and well-being of older adults. The purpose of this Position Statement is to provide an overview of the current and relevant literature and provide evidence-based recommendations for resistance training for older adults. As presented in this Position Statement, current research has demonstrated that countering muscle disuse through resistance training is a powerful intervention to combat the loss of muscle strength and muscle mass, physiological vulnerability, and their debilitating consequences on physical functioning, mobility, independence, chronic disease management, psychological well-being, quality of life, and healthy life expectancy. This Position Statement provides evidence to support recommendations for successful resistance training in older adults related to 4 parts: (a) program design variables, (b) physiological adaptations, (c) functional benefits, and (d) considerations for frailty, sarcopenia, and other chronic conditions. The goal of this Position Statement is to a) help foster a more unified and holistic approach to resistance training for older adults, b) promote the health and functional benefits of resistance training for older adults, and c) prevent or minimize fears and other barriers to implementation of resistance training programs for older adults.

Purpose-The effectiveness of resistance exercise for strength improvement among aging persons is inconsistent across investigations, and there is a lack of research synthesis for multiple strength outcomes.Methods-The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effect of resistance exercise (RE) for multiple strength outcomes in aging adults. Randomized controlled trials and randomized or non-randomized studies among adults ≥ 50 years, were included. Data were pooled using random effect models. Outcomes for 4 common strength tests were analyzed for main effects. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochran Q and I 2 statistics, and publication bias was evaluated through physical inspection of funnel plots as well as formal rankcorrelation statistics. A linear mixed model regression was incorporated to examine differences between outcomes, as well as potential study-level predictor variables.Results-Forty-seven studies were included, representing 1079 participants. A positive effect for each of the strength outcomes was determined however there was heterogeneity between studies. Regression revealed that higher intensity training was associated with greater improvement. Strength increases ranged from 9.8 -31.6 kg, and percent changes were 29 ± 2, 24 ± 2, 33 ± 3, and 25 ± 2, respectively for leg press, chest press, knee extension, and lat pull.Conclusions-RE is effective for improving strength among older adults, particularly with higher intensity training. Findings therefore suggest that RE may be considered a viable strategy to prevent generalized muscular weakness associated with ageing.

Purpose-Sarcopenia plays a principal role in the pathogenesis of frailty and functional impairment that occurs with aging. There are few published accounts which examine the overall benefit of resistance exercise (RE) for lean body mass (LBM), while considering a continuum of dosage schemes and/or age ranges. Therefore the purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the effects of RE on LBM in older men and women, while taking these factors into consideration.Methods-This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses recommendations. Randomized controlled trials and randomized or non-randomized studies among adults ≥ 50 years, were included. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochran Q and I 2 statistics, and publication bias was evaluated through physical inspection of funnel plots as well as formal rank-correlation statistics. Mixed-effects metaregression was incorporated to assess the relationship between RE dosage and changes in LBM.Results-Data from forty-nine studies, representing a total of 1328 participants were pooled using random-effect models. Results demonstrated a positive effect for lean body mass and there was no evidence of publication bias. The Cochran Q statistic for heterogeneity was 497.8, which was significant (p < 0.01). Likewise, I 2 was equal to 84%, representing rejection of the null hypothesis of homogeneity. The weighted pooled estimate of mean lean body mass change was 1.1 kg (95% CI, 0.9 kg to 1.2 kg). Meta-regression revealed that higher volume interventions were associated (β = 0.05, p < 0.01) with significantly greater increases in lean body mass, whereas older individuals experienced less increase (β = -0.03, p = 0.01).Conclusions-RE is effective for eliciting gains in lean body mass among aging adults, particularly with higher volume programs. Findings suggest that RE participation earlier in life may provide superior effectiveness.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of low- versus high-load resistance training (RT) on muscular adaptations in well-trained subjects. Eighteen young men experienced in RT were matched according to baseline strength and then randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups: a low-load RT routine (LL) where 25-35 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9) or a high-load RT routine (HL) where 8-12 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9). During each session, subjects in both groups performed 3 sets of 7 different exercises representing all major muscles. Training was performed 3 times per week on nonconsecutive days, for a total of 8 weeks. Both HL and LL conditions produced significant increases in thickness of the elbow flexors (5.3 vs. 8.6%, respectively), elbow extensors (6.0 vs. 5.2%, respectively), and quadriceps femoris (9.3 vs. 9.5%, respectively), with no significant differences noted between groups. Improvements in back squat strength were significantly greater for HL compared with LL (19.6 vs. 8.8%, respectively), and there was a trend for greater increases in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press (6.5 vs. 2.0%, respectively). Upper body muscle endurance (assessed by the bench press at 50% 1RM to failure) improved to a greater extent in LL compared with HL (16.6 vs. -1.2%, respectively). These findings indicate that both HL and LL training to failure can elicit significant increases in muscle hypertrophy among well-trained young men; however, HL training is superior for maximizing strength adaptations.