Physical Activity, Sports & Health Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Nov;94(11):2054-60. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.06.018. Epub 2013 Jul 2.
To evaluate the long-term preventive impact of strength training on muscle performance in older adults.
A 7-year follow-up on a 1-year randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of combined resistance training and aerobic training and whole-body vibration training on muscle performance.
University training center.
Men and women (N=83; control [CON] group, n=27; strength-training intervention [INT] group, n=56) between 60 and 80 years of age.
The INT group exercised 3 times weekly during 1 year, performing a combined resistance training and aerobic training program or a whole-body vibration training program. The former training program was designed according to American College of Sports Medicine guidelines. The whole-body vibration training program included unloaded static and dynamic leg exercises on a vibration platform. The CON group did not participate in any training program.
Static strength (STAT), dynamic strength at 60°/s (DYN60) and at 240°/s (DYN240), speed of movement at 20% (S20).
From baseline to postintervention, muscle performance did not change in the CON group, except for S20 (+6.55%±2.88%, P<.001). One year of strength training increased (P≤.001) STAT (+11.46%±1.86%), DYN60 (+6.96%±1.65%), DYN240 (+9.25%±1.68%), and S20 (+7.73%±2.19%) in the INT group. Between baseline and follow-up, muscle performance decreased (P<.001) in both groups. However, STAT and DYN60 showed a significantly lower loss in the INT group (-8.65%±2.35% and -7.10%±2.38%, respectively) compared with the CON group (-16.47%±2.69% and -15.08%±2.27%, respectively). This positive impact might be due to the preservation of the training-induced gains, given the similar annual decline rates in both groups from postintervention to follow-up. Additionally, in trained participants, aging seems to impact velocity-dependent strength and power more compared with basic strength, as the total losses in DYN240 (CON, -15.93%±2.64%; INT, -11.39%±1.95%) and S20 (CON, -14.39%±2.10%; INT, -13.16%±1.72%) did not differ significantly between the groups.
A 1-year strength-training intervention results in an improved muscle performance in older adults 7 years after their enrollment in the intervention. However, an extensive exercise program cannot attenuate the age-related decline once the intervention stops.
评估力量训练对老年人肌肉性能的长期预防作用。
一项为期 7 年的随访研究，对为期 1 年的随机对照试验进行了比较，比较了抗阻训练和有氧运动训练以及全身振动训练对肌肉性能的影响。
大学培训中心。
年龄在 60 至 80 岁之间的男性和女性（N=83；对照组[CON]组，n=27；力量训练干预[INT]组，n=56）。
INT 组每周锻炼 3 次，持续 1 年，进行抗阻训练和有氧运动训练或全身振动训练。前者的训练计划是根据美国运动医学学院的指南设计的。全身振动训练计划包括在振动平台上进行无负荷的静态和动态腿部运动。CON 组没有参加任何训练计划。
静态强度（STAT）、60°/s 时的动态强度（DYN60）和 240°/s 时的动态强度（DYN240）、20%速度（S20）。
从基线到干预后，CON 组的肌肉性能没有变化，只有 S20（+6.55%±2.88%，P<.001）。一年的力量训练增加（P≤.001）STAT（+11.46%±1.86%）、DYN60（+6.96%±1.65%）、DYN240（+9.25%±1.68%）和 S20（+7.73%±2.19%）。在基线和随访期间，两组的肌肉性能都有所下降（P<.001）。然而，与 CON 组相比，INT 组的 STAT 和 DYN60 的下降幅度明显较低（-8.65%±2.35%和-7.10%±2.38%）。这一积极影响可能是由于从干预后到随访期间，两组的训练效果保持不变。此外，在接受训练的参与者中，与基本力量相比，年龄似乎对速度依赖性力量和功率的影响更大，因为 DYN240 的总损失（CON，-15.93%±2.64%；INT，-11.39%±1.95%）和 S20（CON，-14.39%±2.10%；INT，-13.16%±1.72%）在两组之间没有显著差异。
1 年的力量训练干预可改善老年人 7 年后的肌肉性能。然而，一旦干预停止，广泛的运动方案无法减轻与年龄相关的下降。
