4.3 Article

How Do Master Weightlifters Train? A Transnational Study of Weightlifting Training Practices and Concurrent Training

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052708

Keywords

weightlifting; sport; older adults; aging; sex differences; concurrent training; geographic differences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that there are gender differences and regional variations in the training time and concurrent training of older weightlifters. Older females typically train 4 days a week, while older males reduce this to 3 days.
(1) Background: The wide range of preparedness, physical fitness, and capabilities of older athletes makes it challenging to recommend general training programs for this cohort ranging from ages 35 to 80 and older. Weightlifting has enjoyed an unprecedented growth in recent years, especially among women. The objectives of this study are to describe age and sex differences in self-reported training regimens and concurrent training for Masters weightlifters and investigate regional differences. (2) Methods: A total of 1051 Masters weightlifters from Australia, Canada, Europe, and the USA completed an online survey that included questions on sport history and training practices. (3) Results: A training session typically lasted 1.5 to 2 h for both sexes across all ages. Weightlifters engaged in concurrent training (66.9%), especially in endurance training (24.9%) and CrossFit (36.4%), but the proportions differed across geographic regions. Older females maintained training 4 days per week, while older males reduced this to 3 days per week. (4) Conclusions: Weightlifting training practice of Masters athletes was remarkably consistent across ages, but concurrent training differed between males and females and across regions. This study provides helpful information for athletes, coaches, and sport organizations about the variation in weightlifting training practices and concurrent training of older athletes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available