King A C, Haskell W L, Taylor C B, Kraemer H C, DeBusk R F
Department of Medicine, Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention, CA.
JAMA. 1991 Sep 18;266(11):1535-42.
--To determine the effectiveness of group- vs home-based exercise training of higher and lower intensities among healthy, sedentary older adults.
--Year-long randomized, controlled trial comparing (1) higher-intensity group-based exercise training; (2) higher-intensity home-based exercise training; (3) lower-intensity home-based exercise training; or (4) assessment-only control.
--General community located in northern California.
--One hundred sixty women and 197 men 50 to 65 years of age who were sedentary and free of cardiovascular disease. One out of nine persons contacted through a community random-digit-dial telephone survey and citywide promotion were randomized.
--For higher-intensity exercise training, three 40-minute endurance training sessions per week were prescribed at 73% to 88% of peak treadmill heart rate. For lower-intensity exercise training, five 30-minute endurance training sessions per week were prescribed at 60% to 73% of peak treadmill heart rate.
--Treadmill exercise test performance, exercise participation rates, and heart disease risk factors.
--Compared with controls, subjects in all three exercise training conditions showed significant improvements in treadmill exercise test performance at 6 and 12 months (P less than .03). Lower-intensity exercise training achieved changes comparable with those of higher-intensity exercise training. Twelve-month exercise adherence rates were better for the two home-based exercise training conditions relative to the group-based exercise training condition (P less than .0005). There were no significant training-induced changes in lipid levels, weight, or blood pressure.
--We conclude that (1) this community-based exercise training program improved fitness but not heart disease risk factors among sedentary, healthy older adults; (2) home-based exercise was as effective as group exercise in producing these changes; (3) lower-intensity exercise training was as effective as higher-intensity exercise training in the home setting; and (4) the exercise programs were relatively safe.
确定在健康、久坐不动的老年人中,高强度和低强度的团体运动训练与居家运动训练的效果。
为期一年的随机对照试验,比较(1)高强度团体运动训练;(2)高强度居家运动训练;(3)低强度居家运动训练;或(4)仅进行评估的对照组。
位于加利福尼亚州北部的普通社区。
160名女性和197名年龄在50至65岁之间、久坐不动且无心血管疾病的男性。通过社区随机数字拨号电话调查和全市范围宣传联系的九人中,有一人被随机分组。
对于高强度运动训练,规定每周进行三次40分钟的耐力训练,强度为跑步机峰值心率的73%至88%。对于低强度运动训练,规定每周进行五次30分钟的耐力训练,强度为跑步机峰值心率的60%至73%。
跑步机运动测试表现、运动参与率和心脏病风险因素。
与对照组相比,在所有三种运动训练条件下的受试者在6个月和12个月时跑步机运动测试表现均有显著改善(P小于0.03)。低强度运动训练取得的变化与高强度运动训练相当。相对于团体运动训练条件,两种居家运动训练条件下的12个月运动坚持率更高(P小于0.0005)。在血脂水平、体重或血压方面,没有因训练引起的显著变化。
我们得出以下结论:(1)这个基于社区的运动训练项目改善了久坐不动的健康老年人的体能,但未改善心脏病风险因素;(2)居家运动在产生这些变化方面与团体运动一样有效;(3)在居家环境中,低强度运动训练与高强度运动训练一样有效;(4)这些运动项目相对安全。