A Review on Aging, Sarcopenia, Falls, and Resistance Training in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

As aging continues to grow in our society, sarcopenia and associated fall risk is considered a public health problem since falling is the third cause of chronic disability. Falls are negatively related to functionality and independence and positively associated with morbidity and mortality. The cost of treatment of secondary injuries related to falls is high. For example, one in ten fall incidents leads to bone fractures and several other comorbidities. As demonstrated by several experimental studies, adopting a more active lifestyle is critical for reducing the number of fall episodes and their consequences. Therefore, it is essential to debate the proven physical exercise methods to reduce falls and fall-related effects. Since muscle mass, muscle strength, bone density, and cartilage function may play significant roles in daily activities, resistance training may positively and significantly affect the elderly. This narrative review aimed to examine current evidence on existing resistance training using resistance machines and bodyweight or low-cost equipment for the elderly and how they are related to falls and fall-related consequences. We provide theoretical links between aging, sarcopenia, and falls linking to resistance training and offer practical suggestions to exercise professionals seeking to promote regular physical exercise to promote quality of life in this population. Exercise programs focusing on strength may significantly influence muscle mass and muscle strength, minimizing functional decline and risk of falling. Resistance training programs should be customized to each elderly according to age, sex, and other fundamental and individual aspects. This narrative review provides evidence to support recommendations for practical resistance training in the elderly related to intensity and volume. A properly designed resistance training program with adequate instructions and technique is safe for the elderly. It should include an individualized approach based on existing equipment (i.e., body weight, resistance machines). Existing literature shows that exercise performance towards 2–3 sets of 1–2 exercises per major muscle group, performing 5–8 repetitions or achieving intensities of 50–80% of 1RM, 2–3 times per week should be recommended, followed by training principles such as periodization and progression. Bearing this in mind, health and exercise professionals should combine efforts focusing on efficient strategies to reduce falls among the elderly and promote higher experiences of well-being at advanced stages in life.

Comparison of Weightlifting, Traditional Resistance Training and Plyometrics on Strength, Power and Speed: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background Weightlifting training (WLT) is commonly used to improve strength, power and speed in athletes. However, to date, WLT studies have either not compared training effects against those of other training methods, or been limited by small sample sizes, which are issues that can be resolved by pooling studies in a meta-analysis. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of WLT compared with traditional resistance training (TRT), plyometric training (PLYO) and/or control (CON) on strength, power and speed. Methods The systematic review included peer-reviewed articles that employed a WLT intervention, a comparison group (i.e. TRT, PLYO, CON), and a measure of strength, power and/or speed. Means and standard deviations of outcomes were converted to Hedges’ g effect sizes using an inverse variance random-effects model to generate a weighted mean effect size (ES). Results Sixteen studies were included in the analysis, comprising 427 participants. Data indicated that when compared with TRT, WLT resulted in greater improvements in weightlifting load lifted (4 studies, p = 0.02, g = 1.35; 95% CI 0.20–2.51) and countermovement jump (CMJ) height (9 studies, p = 0.00, g = 0.95; 95% CI 0.04–1.87). There was also a large effect in terms of linear sprint speed (4 studies, p = 0.13, g = 1.04; 95% CI − 0.03 to 2.39) and change of direction speed (CODS) (2 studies, p = 0.36, g = 1.21; 95% CI − 1.41 to 3.83); however, this was not significant. Interpretation of these findings should acknowledge the high heterogeneity across the included studies and potential risk of bias. WLT and PLYO resulted in similar improvements in speed, power and strength as demonstrated by negligible to moderate, non-significant effects in favour of WLT for improvements in linear sprint speed (4 studies, p = 0.35, g = 0.20; 95% CI − 0.23 to 0.63), CODS (3 studies, p = 0.52, g = 0.17; 95% CI − 0.35 to 0.68), CMJ (6 studies, p = 0.09, g = 0.31; 95% CI − 0.05 to 0.67), squat jump performance (5 studies, p = 0.08, g = 0.34; 95% CI − 0.04 to 0.73) and strength (4 studies, p = 0.20, g = 0.69; 95% CI − 0.37 to 1.75). Conclusion Overall, these findings support the notion that if the training goal is to improve strength, power and speed, supplementary weightlifting training may be advantageous for athletic development. Whilst WLT and PLYO may result in similar improvements, WLT can elicit additional benefits above that of TRT, resulting in greater improvements in weightlifting and jumping performance.

Safety, efficacy and delivery of isometric resistance training as an adjunct therapy for blood pressure control: a modified Delphi study

Uncontrolled hypertension remains the major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Isometric resistance training (IRT) has been shown to be a useful nonpharmacological therapy for reducing blood pressure (BP); however, some exercise physiologists and other health professionals are uncertain of the efficacy and safety of IRT. Experts’ consensus was sought in light of the current variability of IRT use as an adjunct treatment for hypertension. An expert consensus-building analysis (Delphi study) was conducted on items relevant to the safety, efficacy and delivery of IRT. The study consisted of 3 phases: (1) identification of items and expert participants for inclusion; (2) a two-round modified Delphi exercise involving expert panelists to build consensus; and (3) a study team consensus meeting for a final item review. A list of 50 items was generated, and 42 international experts were invited to join the Delphi panel. Thirteen and 10 experts completed Delphi Rounds 1 and 2, respectively, reaching consensus on 26 items in Round 1 and 10 items in Round 2. The study team consensus meeting conducted a final item review and considered the remaining 14 items for the content list. A final list of 43 items regarding IRT reached expert consensus: 7/10 items on safety, 11/11 items on efficacy, 10/12 items on programming, 8/10 items on delivery, and 7/7 on the mechanism of action. This study highlights that while experts reached a consensus that IRT is efficacious as an antihypertensive therapy, some still have safety concerns, and there is also ongoing conjecture regarding optimal delivery.