Effectiveness of Iso-Inertial Resistance Training on Muscle Power in Middle-Older Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 4.8 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
JMIR Aging Pub Date : 2025-08-21 DOI:10.2196/66414
Aïda Cadellans Arroniz, Daniel Romero Rodríguez, Víctor Zárate, Flora Dantony, Marc Madruga Parera, Silvia Ortega Cebrian, David Blanco
{"title":"Effectiveness of Iso-Inertial Resistance Training on Muscle Power in Middle-Older Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Aïda Cadellans Arroniz, Daniel Romero Rodríguez, Víctor Zárate, Flora Dantony, Marc Madruga Parera, Silvia Ortega Cebrian, David Blanco","doi":"10.2196/66414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Resistance training is commonly used to prevent the decline in muscle power associated with aging.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of iso-inertial (IN) training on power, physical performance, and variables associated with the risk of falls, compared to gravitational (GR) training, in physically active middle-older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Espai Esport Wellness Center (Granollers, Spain). In total, 44 physically active adults (age >57) were randomized 1:1 to either the IN (n=21) or GR (n=23) training groups (using R software; R Core Team). Participants completed a 6-week training program (2 sessions/week) consisting of 3 exercises (forward lunge, side lunge, and forward lunge with row). The primary outcome includes power in the eccentric phase of each exercise, evaluated using both IN and GR devices. Secondary outcomes include concentric power, physical performance, and variables associated with the risk of falls. Only outcome evaluators were blinded. We used multivariate linear regression models for the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 27 participants completed the program (IN: n=15 IN; GR: n=12). IN training resulted in better eccentric power gains compared to GR training when assessed using the IN system, although the difference was only statistically significant for the side lunge. For forward lunge, between-group difference was 4.50 W (95% CI -2.94 to 11.94 W, P=.23); for side lunge, between-group difference was 9.24 W (95% CI 2.99-15.49 W; P<.01); and for forward lunge with row, between-group difference was 15.25 W (95% CI -0.63 to 31.13 W; P=.06). We observed no significant differences for the eccentric power using the GR system evaluation, concentric power, physical performance, and variables associated with the risk of falls. Both groups showed significant improvements from baseline across all outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although IN training appeared to result in greater power gains during the eccentric phase when assessed with the IN system, statistically significant differences were observed only for the side lunge exercise. Both training systems seemed equally effective in improving eccentric power as evaluated with the GR system, concentric power, physical performance, and reducing variables associated with the risk of falls.</p>","PeriodicalId":36245,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Aging","volume":"8 ","pages":"e66414"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12370268/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Aging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/66414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Resistance training is commonly used to prevent the decline in muscle power associated with aging.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of iso-inertial (IN) training on power, physical performance, and variables associated with the risk of falls, compared to gravitational (GR) training, in physically active middle-older adults.

Methods: A parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Espai Esport Wellness Center (Granollers, Spain). In total, 44 physically active adults (age >57) were randomized 1:1 to either the IN (n=21) or GR (n=23) training groups (using R software; R Core Team). Participants completed a 6-week training program (2 sessions/week) consisting of 3 exercises (forward lunge, side lunge, and forward lunge with row). The primary outcome includes power in the eccentric phase of each exercise, evaluated using both IN and GR devices. Secondary outcomes include concentric power, physical performance, and variables associated with the risk of falls. Only outcome evaluators were blinded. We used multivariate linear regression models for the analysis.

Results: In total, 27 participants completed the program (IN: n=15 IN; GR: n=12). IN training resulted in better eccentric power gains compared to GR training when assessed using the IN system, although the difference was only statistically significant for the side lunge. For forward lunge, between-group difference was 4.50 W (95% CI -2.94 to 11.94 W, P=.23); for side lunge, between-group difference was 9.24 W (95% CI 2.99-15.49 W; P<.01); and for forward lunge with row, between-group difference was 15.25 W (95% CI -0.63 to 31.13 W; P=.06). We observed no significant differences for the eccentric power using the GR system evaluation, concentric power, physical performance, and variables associated with the risk of falls. Both groups showed significant improvements from baseline across all outcomes.

Conclusions: Although IN training appeared to result in greater power gains during the eccentric phase when assessed with the IN system, statistically significant differences were observed only for the side lunge exercise. Both training systems seemed equally effective in improving eccentric power as evaluated with the GR system, concentric power, physical performance, and reducing variables associated with the risk of falls.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

等惯性阻力训练对中老年人肌肉力量的影响:随机对照试验。
背景:抗阻训练通常用于防止与衰老相关的肌肉力量下降。目的:本研究旨在评估与重力(GR)训练相比,等惯性(IN)训练对体力活动的中老年成年人的力量、身体表现和与跌倒风险相关的变量的有效性。方法:在西班牙Espai电子竞技健康中心(Granollers, Spain)进行平行组随机对照试验。总共有44名身体活跃的成年人(年龄在50到57岁之间)被1:1随机分配到In (n=21)或GR (n=23)训练组(使用R软件;R Core Team)。参与者完成了为期6周的训练计划(2次/周),包括3个练习(前弓步,侧弓步和前弓步划行)。主要结果包括每次运动偏心阶段的能量,使用in和GR设备进行评估。次要结局包括同心力、身体表现和与跌倒风险相关的变量。只有结果评估者是盲法的。我们使用多元线性回归模型进行分析。结果:共有27名参与者完成了该计划(In: n=15 In; GR: n=12)。当使用IN系统进行评估时,与GR训练相比,IN训练产生了更好的偏心力量增益,尽管差异仅在侧弓步上有统计学意义。前弓步组间差异为4.50 W (95% CI -2.94 ~ 11.94 W, P= 0.23);对于侧弓步,组间差异为9.24 W (95% CI 2.99-15.49 W)。结论:尽管使用IN系统评估时,IN训练在偏心阶段似乎能获得更大的力量增益,但仅在侧弓步运动中观察到统计学上的显著差异。两种训练系统似乎在提高用GR系统评估的偏心力量、同心力量、身体表现和减少与跌倒风险相关的变量方面同样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Aging
JMIR Aging Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.10%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信