This review provides evidence that PRT is an effective intervention for improving physical functioning in older people, including improving strength and the performance of some simple and complex activities. However, some caution is needed with transferring these exercises for use with clinical populations because adverse events are not adequately reported.
A comparison of periodised and fixed repetition training protocol on strength in older adults.
It has been forwarded that strength training is the primary intervention for improving and maintaining functional independence of the elderly. The purpose of this study was to determine if a periodised strength-training program was superior to a fixed repetition protocol for enhancing strength in older adults. Previously untrained male and female participants (71.6+/-5.3 y) were separated into three groups: fixed repetition (FR: n= 18), periodised (PER: n= 21) and control (C: n= 21). FR and PER protocols trained 2 days/week performing knee extensions, leg press, leg curl, biceps curl, triceps extension, lat pull downs, shoulder press and seated bench press. FR performed three sets of 9RM/exercise throughout the 18-week study. PER performed two sets of 15RM/exercise (weeks 1-6), three sets of 9RM/exercise (weeks 7-12) and four sets of 6RM/exercise (weeks 13-18). Pre-post 1RM were collected for each exercise. The sum of 1RM for the eight exercises was considered indicative of total body strength and served as the dependent variable. An ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc was utilised to analyse the data. FR (p< 0.01) and PER (p< 0.01) groups experienced significant strength gains compared to C but were not different from each other. The results suggest that previously untrained older adults could expect similar strength gains from FR or PER strength-training protocols of 18 weeks or less.