Singh Nalin A, Stavrinos Theodora M, Scarbek Yvonne, Galambos Garry, Liber Cas, Fiatarone Singh Maria A
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Central Sydney Health Service, New South Wales, Australia.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005 Jun;60(6):768-76. doi: 10.1093/gerona/60.6.768.
Although exercise has been shown to relieve depression, little is known about its mechanism or dose-response characteristics. We hypothesized that high intensity progressive resistance training (PRT) would be more effective than either low intensity PRT or standard care by a general practitioner (GP) in depressed elderly persons, and that high intensity PRT would provide superior benefits in quality of life, sleep quality, and self-efficacy.
Sixty community-dwelling adults >60 years with major or minor depression were randomized to supervised high intensity PRT (80% maximum load) or low intensity PRT (20% maximum load) 3 days per week for 8 weeks, or GP care.
A 50% reduction in the Hamilton Rating Scale of Depression score was achieved in 61% of the high intensity, 29% of the low intensity, and 21% of the GP care group (p =.03). Strength gain was directly associated with reduction in depressive symptoms (r = 0.40, p =.004), as was baseline social support network type (F = 3.52, p =.015), whereas personality type, self-efficacy, and locus of control were unrelated to the antidepressant effect. Vitality quality-of-life scale improved more in the high intensity group than in the others (p =.04). Sleep quality improved significantly in all participants (p <.0001), with the greatest relative change in high intensity PRT (p =.05).
High intensity PRT is more effective than is low intensity PRT or GP care for the treatment of older depressed patients.
尽管运动已被证明可缓解抑郁,但其机制或剂量反应特征却鲜为人知。我们假设,高强度渐进性抗阻训练(PRT)对老年抑郁症患者的疗效优于低强度PRT或全科医生(GP)提供的标准护理,且高强度PRT在生活质量、睡眠质量和自我效能方面能带来更显著的益处。
60名年龄大于60岁、患有轻度或重度抑郁症的社区居民被随机分为三组,分别接受每周3天、共8周的高强度PRT(最大负荷的80%)监督训练、低强度PRT(最大负荷的20%)监督训练或GP护理。
高强度组中61%、低强度组中29%、GP护理组中21%的患者汉密尔顿抑郁量表评分降低了50%(p = 0.03)。力量增加与抑郁症状减轻直接相关(r = 0.40,p = 0.004),基线社会支持网络类型也是如此(F = 3.52,p = 0.015),而人格类型、自我效能和控制点与抗抑郁效果无关。高强度组的活力生活质量量表改善程度高于其他组(p = 0.04)。所有参与者的睡眠质量均显著改善(p < 0.0001),高强度PRT组的相对变化最大(p = 0.05)。
对于老年抑郁症患者的治疗,高强度PRT比低强度PRT或GP护理更有效。