> Details

Richardson, Darren L.; Duncan, Michael J.; Jimenez, Alfonso; Juris, Paul M.; Clarke, Neil D.

Effects of movement velocity and training frequency of resistance exercise on functional performance in older adults: a randomised controlled trial

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Effects of movement velocity and training frequency of resistance exercise on functional performance in older adults: a randomised controlled trial
  • Contributor: Richardson, Darren L.; Duncan, Michael J.; Jimenez, Alfonso; Juris, Paul M.; Clarke, Neil D.
  • imprint: Wiley, 2019
  • Published in: European Journal of Sport Science
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2018.1497709
  • ISSN: 1746-1391; 1536-7290
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p><jats:bold>Objectives:</jats:bold> To investigate the effects that high‐velocity, low‐load (HVLL) and low‐velocity, high‐load (LVHL) resistance exercise, performed once or twice‐weekly, have on indices of functional performance (primary outcome), maximal strength, and body composition (secondary outcomes) in older adults.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Methods:</jats:bold> In a randomised, controlled, multi‐armed, parallel design, 54 moderately‐highly active, but resistance exercise naïve older adults (aged 60–79 years), attended baseline and post‐10‐week intervention assessment sessions. Physical and functional assessments were completed, and predicted one‐repetition maximums (1‐RM) were obtained for eight exercises. Participants were then randomised into one of five conditions: HVLL once‐weekly (HVLL1: <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 11) or twice‐weekly (HVLL2: <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 11), LVHL once‐weekly (LVHL1: <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 10) or twice‐weekly (LVHL2: <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 11), no‐exercise control condition (CON: <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 11). The HVLL conditions completed 3 sets of 14 repetitions at 40% 1‐RM and the LVHL conditions, 3 sets of 7 repetitions at 80% 1‐RM. In total, 50 participants completed all testing and were included in analyses.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Results:</jats:bold> Only LVHL2 improved 30‐sec chair stand performance (<jats:italic>p =</jats:italic> .035; <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.89), arm curls (<jats:italic>p =</jats:italic> .011; <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 1.65) and grip‐strength (<jats:italic>p =</jats:italic> .015; <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.34) compared to CON. LVHL2 improved maximal strength compared to CON for 7/8 exercises (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; .05). Whereas, LVHL1 and HVLL2 only improved seated row and chest press compared to CON (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; .05).</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Conclusion:</jats:bold> Possibly due to the lower intensity nature of the HVLL conditions, LVHL, twice‐weekly was most beneficial for improving functional performance and strength in moderately‐highly active older adults. Therefore, we recommend that exercise professionals ensure resistance exercise sessions have sufficient intensity of effort and volume, in order to maximise functional performance and strength gains in older adults. </jats:p>