Home-Based Resistance Training for Older Subjects during the COVID-19 Outbreak in Italy: Preliminary Results of a Six-Months RCT

Abstract

Background. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a six-month home-based resistance-training program on muscle health and physical performance in healthy older subjects during the unique condition of home confinement caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. This was a randomized-controlled study that enrolled older participants that were allocated to either an experimental group performing the six-months exercise prescription (EXE) or a control group (CON). At the beginning (PRE), and after 6 months (POST), participants were assessed for muscle strength, balance, gait assessment and body composition by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and magnetic resonance imaging. Normality distribution of data was checked with the D’Agostino and Pearson test and changes between PRE and POST were assessed by paired Student’s t-test while percentage and absolute changes between groups at POST were tested by unpaired t-test. Results. Nine participants were included for the final analysis: EXE, n = 5 (age: 66 ± 4; BMI: 27.5 ± 3.7) and CON, n = 4 (age: 71 ± 9; BMI: 24.2 ± 4.1). Significant PRE-to-POST changes were observed in the EXE group only in the chair-stand test (+19.8%, p = 0.048 and ES:1.0, moderate) and in total fat mass (+5.0%, p = 0.035 and ES:1.4, large) with no between-group differences. Moreover, EXE had significantly higher absolute thigh CSA values than CON at POST (14.138 ± 2977 vs. 9039 ± 1015, p = 0.0178, ES = 1.7). No other within- and between-group differences were detected. Conclusions. The home-based resistance-training program during the lockdown period, caused by the COVID-19 outbreak, determined only within-group improvement in lower limb muscle strength but not in muscle mass and composition in older subjects. Home confinement may partially explain the increase in total body fat due to a reduced daily PA regime and altered diet pattern.

Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training and Moderate-Intensity Training on Stress, Depression, Anxiety, and Resilience in Healthy Adults During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Confinement: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Nevertheless, our study has some strong points that should be also highlighted. In this regard, only one previous article conducted a randomized controlled trial to study the effects of home-based interventions (Vitale et al, 2020 ), and this is the first that studies the effectiveness of two interventions (HIIT and MIT) on symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and resilience. Moreover, the intervention was conducted under an ecological context, with any sports material and associated cost, and therefore anyone could participate.…”

“…To date, there is no study comparing the effects of HIIT and moderate-intensity exercises (MIT) on the mental health of adult people during the COVID-19 confinement. Only one article analyzed the effects of physical training during the confinement (Vitale et al, 2020 ). This article studied the effects of home-based resistance training on physical fitness (measured by the chair-stand test).…”

Four Weeks of Detraining Induced by COVID-19 Reverse Cardiac Improvements from Eight Weeks of Fitness-Dance Training in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment

“…Consequently, to maintain these cardiac benefits, physical training should be continued and a detraining period should be kept to a minimum duration (e.g., two weeks, [ 63 ]). In case of strict social-distancing regulations during a pandemic, a home-based intervention may provide an effective way to carry out physical training in older adults to preserve not only their physical but also their mental health [ 38 , 108 ].…”

Home-based exercise programmes improve physical fitness of healthy older adults: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis with relevance for COVID-19

“…The number of participants across the included studies ranged from 9 to 388 with a total of 1,477 (Table 3). One study solely enrolled male participants (Ema et al, 2017), two studies solely enrolled female participants (Niemelä et al, 2011;Vestergaard et al, 2008), and 11 studies included both, males and females (Dondzila et al, 2016;Hinman, 2002;Kahle and Tevald, 2014;Kobayashi et al, 2006;Lacroix et al, 2016;Liu-Ambrose et al, 2008;Maruya et al, 2016;Nelson et al, 2004;Perkin et al, 2019;Tsekoura et al, 2018;Vitale et al, 2020). In three studies, the sex of participants was not specified (Dadgari et al, 2016;Hsieh et al, 2019;Iliffe et al, 2015).…”

“…Based on findings from 7 studies, between 6 and 17 % of the total number of exercise sessions were supervised (i.e., direct visits) (Dadgari et al, 2016;Ema et al, 2017;Kahle and Tevald, 2014;Kobayashi et al, 2006;Liu-Ambrose et al, 2008;Nelson et al, 2004;Tsekoura et al, 2018). Seven studies used phone calls and/or training diaries (Dondzila et al, 2016;Hsieh et al, 2019;Iliffe et al, 2015;Lacroix et al, 2016;Maruya et al, 2016;Vestergaard et al, 2008;Vitale et al, 2020). Three studies did not provide information on how training was supervised (Hinman, 2002;Niemelä et al, 2011;Perkin et al, 2019).…”