Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Physiotherapy, University College Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Jan 23;2019:3081029. doi: 10.1155/2019/3081029. eCollection 2019.
There is strong evidence that considerable health benefits can be achieved even with small amounts of physical activity. However, getting people to exercise regularly is a major challenge not least in the elderly population. This study investigated the feasibility and physiological health effects of a pragmatic 15-week exercise programme for sedentary elderly. In a single-blind randomised controlled trial, 45 sedentary 60-83-year-olds (25 women, 20 men) were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to a training group (TG, n=30) or a control group (CG, n=15). The training in TG consisted of a combination of exercise modalities (i.e., strength, aerobic fitness, stability, and flexibility training) performed once a week as supervised group-based training and a weekly home-based training for 15 weeks. Feasibility outcomes were exercise intensity, adherence, and adverse events. The primary outcome was change in aerobic fitness (VO/kg). Adherence was high (81%) for the supervised exercise and low (0%) for the home-based exercise. No acute injuries occurred in TG, but 4 subjects (13%) reported considerable joint pain related to training. Average heart rate (HR) during the supervised training was 104±12 beats/min (69.3±8.0%HR), with 3.9±7.3% of training time >90%HR. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed no between-group differences for aerobic fitness (P=0.790) or any secondary cardiovascular outcomes at 15-week follow-up (resting HR or blood pressure; P>0.05). Compared to CG, bodyweight (-2.3 kg, 95% CI -4.0 to -7.0; P=0.006), total fat mass (-2.0 kg, 95% CI -3.5 to -0.5; P=0.01), and total fat percentage (-1.6%, 95% CI -2.8 to -0.3; P=0.01) decreased in TG. The group-based supervised training had high adherence and moderate exercise intensity, whereas the home-based training was not feasible in this study population. This exercise programme performed once a week did not improve aerobic fitness. Thus, supervised training with more vigorous intensity control appears advisable. Clinical Study registration number is H-15016951.
有强有力的证据表明，即使进行少量的身体活动，也能带来显著的健康益处。然而，让人们定期锻炼是一项重大挑战，尤其是在老年人中。本研究调查了针对久坐老年人的实用 15 周运动方案的可行性和对生理健康的影响。在一项单盲随机对照试验中，45 名久坐的 60-83 岁老年人（25 名女性，20 名男性）被随机分配（2:1 比例）至训练组（TG，n=30）或对照组（CG，n=15）。TG 的训练包括运动方式的组合（即力量、有氧健身、稳定性和灵活性训练），每周进行一次监督小组式训练，每周进行一次家庭式训练，共进行 15 周。可行性结果包括运动强度、依从性和不良事件。主要结果是有氧健身（VO/kg）的变化。监督运动的依从性很高（81%），家庭运动的依从性很低（0%）。TG 中没有发生急性损伤，但有 4 名受试者（13%）报告与训练相关的关节疼痛相当严重。监督训练期间的平均心率（HR）为 104±12 次/分钟（69.3±8.0%HR），训练时间有 3.9±7.3%超过 90%HR。意向治疗分析显示，15 周随访时，有氧健身（P=0.790）或任何次要心血管结局（静息 HR 或血压；P>0.05）均无组间差异。与 CG 相比，TG 体重（-2.3kg，95%CI-4.0 至-7.0；P=0.006）、总脂肪量（-2.0kg，95%CI-3.5 至-0.5；P=0.01）和总脂肪百分比（-1.6%，95%CI-2.8 至-0.3；P=0.01）降低。这种每周进行一次的小组监督训练具有较高的依从性和中等的运动强度，而家庭训练在本研究人群中不可行。这种每周进行一次的运动方案并未改善有氧健身。因此，建议进行更剧烈强度控制的监督训练。临床研究注册号为 H-15016951。
