4.5 Article

Heavy resistance training increases muscle size, strength and physical function in elderly male COPD-patients -: a pilot study

Journal

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume 98, Issue 10, Pages 1000-1007

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2004.03.003

Keywords

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; pulmonary rehabilitation; resistance training; muscle size; muscle strength; physical function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the effects of heavy resistance training in elderly mates with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 18 Home-dwelling male patients (age range: 65-80 years), with a mean forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) of 46 +/- 3.4% of predicted value, were recruited. Baseline and post-training assessments included: Cross-sectional. area (CSA) of quadriceps assessed by MRI, isometric and isokinetic knee extension strength, isometric trunk strength, leg extension power, normal and maximal gait-speed on a 30 m track, stair climbing time, number of chair stands in 30 s, lung function (FEV1) and self-reported health. Subjects were randomized to a resistance training group (RE, n = 9) or a control group conducting breathing exercises (CON, n = 9). RE performed heavy progressive resistance training twice a week for 12 weeks. 6 RE and 7 CON completed the study. In RE the following improved (P < 0.05): Quadriceps CSA: 4%, isometric knee extension strength: 14%, isokinetic knee extension strength at 60degrees/s.: 18%, leg extension power: 19%, maximal gait speed: 14%, stair climbing time: 17%, isometric trunk flexion: 5% and self-reported health. In CON no changes were found. In conclusion, 12 weeks of heavy resistance training twice a week resulted in significant improvements in muscle size, knee extension strength, leg extension power, functional performance and self-reported health in elderly male COPD patients. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All. rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available