4.6 Article

The effect of calisthenic home exercises on postmenopausal fractures -: a long-term observational study

期刊

MATURITAS
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 61-67

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-5122(01)00229-8

关键词

bone mineral content; fragility fractures; home exercise program; walking speed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the long-term effects of calisthenic home exercises on the incidence of fractures in postmenopausal women. Design : Controlled long-term observational study. Methods: Postmenopausal women between 45 and 75 years of age who had been randomly assigned to an exercise or control group in the course of a previous study conducted 5 - 10 years ago, were invited for follow-up. The number of fractures before and during the observation time were recorded by means of a questionnaire. Vertebral deformities due to fractures were diagnosed by X-rays at entry and at follow-up. Walking speed, muscle strength, static posturography, and maximum oxygen uptake were measured in addition. Results: After an average follow-up time of 7.6 +/- 1.1 years, 73 women of the exercise group and 64 subjects of the control group were investigated. Thirty-three per cent (n = 24) of the exercise group reported to have exercised continuously at least three times a week for 20 min. No intergroup differences between the compliant and non-compliant exercisers and the control group were seen in the number of fractures. However, the incidence of fracture was lowest in women with a baseline bone mass less than one standard deviation (SID) below the mean for young adults (high BMC) and highest in those with more than 2.5 SD below the mean for young adults (low BMC (P < 0.001, odds ratio 2.9 [95% CI, 1.59 - 5.39]). conclusion : This long-term follow-up did not produce any evidence that prescription of a calisthenic home exercise program may prevent fractures in postmenopausal women aged between 61 +/- 6.4 and 68 +/- 6.5 years, (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据