4.4 Article

Effect of moderate intensity resistance training during weight loss on body composition and physical performance in overweight older adults

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 109, 期 3, 页码 517-525

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-010-1387-9

关键词

Sarcopenia; Aging; Obesity; Exercise; Diet

资金

  1. College of Environmental and Life Sciences Community Access to Research and Extension Services (CELS CARES)
  2. USDA
  3. URI Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of resistance training has not been thoroughly examined in overweight older adults undergoing weight loss. Subjects (n = 27) were overweight and obese (BMI 31.7 +/- A 3.6 kg/m(2)) older (age 67 +/- A 4 years) adults and were randomized into either a 10-week Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension for weight loss diet (DASH, n = 12) or DASH plus moderate intensity resistance training (DASH-RT, n = 15). Outcomes included weight loss, total body and mid-thigh composition, muscle and physical function. There were no significant weight loss differences between the DASH-RT and DASH groups (-3.6 +/- A 0.8 vs. -2.0 +/- A 0.9%, p = 0.137). The DASH-RT group had a greater reduction in body fat than the DASH group (-4.1 +/- A 0.9 vs. -0.2 +/- A 1.0 kg, p = 0.005). The DASH-RT group had greater changes in lean mass (+0.8 +/- A 0.4 vs. -1.4 +/- A 0.4 kg, p = 0.002) and strength (+60 +/- A 18 vs. -5 +/- A 9 N, p = 0.008) than the DASH group. There were favorable changes in mid-thigh composition variables in the DASH-RT group that were different than the lack of changes observed in the DASH group, except for intermuscular adipose tissue. Both groups experienced decreases in 400-m walk times showed (DASH -36 +/- A 11 s, DASH-RT -40 +/- A 7 s) with no differences between groups. Moderate intensity resistance training during weight loss appears to improve fat mass and thigh composition, but weight loss only does not. However, global measures of physical functioning may improve with a weight loss-only program.

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

4.4
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