健康绝经后妇女弹道与常规阻力训练的可行性:一项三组平行随机对照试验

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Elisa A. Marques , Ogulcan Caliskan , Katherine Brooke-Wavell , Jonathan Folland
{"title":"健康绝经后妇女弹道与常规阻力训练的可行性:一项三组平行随机对照试验","authors":"Elisa A. Marques ,&nbsp;Ogulcan Caliskan ,&nbsp;Katherine Brooke-Wavell ,&nbsp;Jonathan Folland","doi":"10.1016/j.maturitas.2025.108246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Power training has gained attention as a method for enhancing functional performance and mitigating fall risk in older adults, yet its long-term feasibility and safety, particularly in ballistic resistance training, remain underexplored in postmenopausal women. We evaluated the feasibility of 8-month ballistic resistance training compared with conventional resistance training in postmenopausal women.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>The Resistance Exercise Programme on Risk of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis in Females (REPROOF) study was a three-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial at a university lab in the UK. Healthy postmenopausal women (<em>n</em> = 109) were randomised to 30 weeks (2 sessions/week) of lower-body ballistic resistance training, conventional resistance training, or a non-exercising control group.</div></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><div>The primary outcomes, collected by questionnaire, were process feasibility, acceptability, perceived exercise efficacy, and adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eighty-two participants completed the trial (75.2 % retention). Both ballistic resistance training and conventional resistance training were well accepted, with most participants rating the intervention positively. No differences in the perceived improvements in physical function and psychological well-being were found between the resistance training groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the rate of muscle-related adverse events between the resistance training groups (ballistic, 2.7 per 100 person-weeks; conventional, 2.3 cases per 100 person-weeks), but the rate was significantly lower in the control group (0.9 cases per 100 person-weeks). No serious adverse events occurred during or within 24 h of exercise sessions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The absence of serious adverse events and the observed positive outcomes confirm the safety, satisfaction, and perceived effectiveness of ballistic resistance training, suggesting its potential for broader application in healthy postmenopausal women.</div><div><span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> registry ID <span><span>NCT05889598</span><svg><path></path></svg></span></div></div>","PeriodicalId":51120,"journal":{"name":"Maturitas","volume":"196 ","pages":"Article 108246"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility of ballistic vs conventional resistance training in healthy postmenopausal women: A three-arm parallel randomised controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Elisa A. Marques ,&nbsp;Ogulcan Caliskan ,&nbsp;Katherine Brooke-Wavell ,&nbsp;Jonathan Folland\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.maturitas.2025.108246\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Power training has gained attention as a method for enhancing functional performance and mitigating fall risk in older adults, yet its long-term feasibility and safety, particularly in ballistic resistance training, remain underexplored in postmenopausal women. We evaluated the feasibility of 8-month ballistic resistance training compared with conventional resistance training in postmenopausal women.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>The Resistance Exercise Programme on Risk of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis in Females (REPROOF) study was a three-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial at a university lab in the UK. Healthy postmenopausal women (<em>n</em> = 109) were randomised to 30 weeks (2 sessions/week) of lower-body ballistic resistance training, conventional resistance training, or a non-exercising control group.</div></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><div>The primary outcomes, collected by questionnaire, were process feasibility, acceptability, perceived exercise efficacy, and adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eighty-two participants completed the trial (75.2 % retention). Both ballistic resistance training and conventional resistance training were well accepted, with most participants rating the intervention positively. No differences in the perceived improvements in physical function and psychological well-being were found between the resistance training groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the rate of muscle-related adverse events between the resistance training groups (ballistic, 2.7 per 100 person-weeks; conventional, 2.3 cases per 100 person-weeks), but the rate was significantly lower in the control group (0.9 cases per 100 person-weeks). No serious adverse events occurred during or within 24 h of exercise sessions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The absence of serious adverse events and the observed positive outcomes confirm the safety, satisfaction, and perceived effectiveness of ballistic resistance training, suggesting its potential for broader application in healthy postmenopausal women.</div><div><span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> registry ID <span><span>NCT05889598</span><svg><path></path></svg></span></div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Maturitas\",\"volume\":\"196 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Maturitas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378512225000544\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maturitas","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378512225000544","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

力量训练作为一种增强老年人功能表现和减轻跌倒风险的方法已引起人们的关注,但其长期可行性和安全性,特别是弹道阻力训练,在绝经后妇女中的应用仍未得到充分探讨。我们评估了8个月弹道阻力训练与常规阻力训练在绝经后妇女中的可行性。研究设计抗阻运动项目对女性骨质疏松和骨关节炎风险的影响(REPROOF)研究是在英国一所大学实验室进行的一项三组平行随机对照试验。健康的绝经后妇女(n = 109)被随机分为30周(2次/周)的下半身弹道阻力训练、常规阻力训练或不运动的对照组。通过问卷收集的主要结果包括过程可行性、可接受性、感知运动疗效和不良事件。结果有82名受试者完成了试验,保留率为75.2%。弹道阻力训练和常规阻力训练都被很好地接受,大多数参与者对干预的评价是积极的。在身体机能和心理健康的改善方面,阻力训练组之间没有发现差异。同样,阻力训练组之间肌肉相关不良事件的发生率也没有显著差异(弹道训练,2.7 / 100人周;常规组为每100人周2.3例),但对照组的发生率明显较低(每100人周0.9例)。在运动期间或24小时内未发生严重不良事件。结论:无严重不良事件和观察到的阳性结果证实了弹道阻力训练的安全性、满意度和有效性,提示其在健康绝经后妇女中有更广泛的应用潜力
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Feasibility of ballistic vs conventional resistance training in healthy postmenopausal women: A three-arm parallel randomised controlled trial

Objectives

Power training has gained attention as a method for enhancing functional performance and mitigating fall risk in older adults, yet its long-term feasibility and safety, particularly in ballistic resistance training, remain underexplored in postmenopausal women. We evaluated the feasibility of 8-month ballistic resistance training compared with conventional resistance training in postmenopausal women.

Study design

The Resistance Exercise Programme on Risk of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis in Females (REPROOF) study was a three-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial at a university lab in the UK. Healthy postmenopausal women (n = 109) were randomised to 30 weeks (2 sessions/week) of lower-body ballistic resistance training, conventional resistance training, or a non-exercising control group.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcomes, collected by questionnaire, were process feasibility, acceptability, perceived exercise efficacy, and adverse events.

Results

Eighty-two participants completed the trial (75.2 % retention). Both ballistic resistance training and conventional resistance training were well accepted, with most participants rating the intervention positively. No differences in the perceived improvements in physical function and psychological well-being were found between the resistance training groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the rate of muscle-related adverse events between the resistance training groups (ballistic, 2.7 per 100 person-weeks; conventional, 2.3 cases per 100 person-weeks), but the rate was significantly lower in the control group (0.9 cases per 100 person-weeks). No serious adverse events occurred during or within 24 h of exercise sessions.

Conclusions

The absence of serious adverse events and the observed positive outcomes confirm the safety, satisfaction, and perceived effectiveness of ballistic resistance training, suggesting its potential for broader application in healthy postmenopausal women.
ClinicalTrials.gov registry ID NCT05889598
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Maturitas
Maturitas 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
2.00%
发文量
142
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Maturitas is an international multidisciplinary peer reviewed scientific journal of midlife health and beyond publishing original research, reviews, consensus statements and guidelines, and mini-reviews. The journal provides a forum for all aspects of postreproductive health in both genders ranging from basic science to health and social care. Topic areas include:• Aging• Alternative and Complementary medicines• Arthritis and Bone Health• Cancer• Cardiovascular Health• Cognitive and Physical Functioning• Epidemiology, health and social care• Gynecology/ Reproductive Endocrinology• Nutrition/ Obesity Diabetes/ Metabolic Syndrome• Menopause, Ovarian Aging• Mental Health• Pharmacology• Sexuality• Quality of Life
×
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