PRT had a large positive effect on strength ( 41 trials , 1955 participants ) , but there was statistical heterogeneity that was not explained by differences in study quality , participant characteristics or the exercise program .
REVIEW ER 'S CONCLUSIONS PRT appears to be an effective intervention to increase strength in older people and has a positive effect on some functional limitations .
However , the effect of this intervention on more substantive outcomes such as measures of disability or HRQOL remains unclear .
BACKGROUND Muscle weakness in old age , is associated with physical disability and an increased risk of falls .
Progressive resistance strength ( PRT ) training exercises ( i.e. movements performed against a specific external force that is regularly increased during training ) are design ed to increase strength in older people .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of PRT on measures of physical disability , functional limitation and impairment in older people  , and identify adverse events .
Concurrent cardiovascular and resistance training in healthy older adults.
PURPOSE The recommendations for exercise training and physical activity for older adults include cardiovascular and resistance training components ( CVT and RT , respectively ) . The purpose of the present investigation was to compare the fitness benefits of concurrent CVT and RT with those attained through an equivalent duration of CVT or RT alone . METHODS Thirty-six participants ( ages 60 - 84 ) were assigned to a control group or to one of three exercise treatment groups . The treatment groups exercised three times per week for 12 wk using RT ( N = 11 ) , CVT ( N = 10 ) , or CVT and RT ( BOTH , N = 9 ) . Pre- and post-training , participants performed a submaximal exercise test ( GXT ) , five repetition-maximum strength tests ( 5RM ) , and the AAHPERD functional fitness test for older adults . RESULTS All exercise treatment groups revealed lower resting heart rate and rate-pressure product ; lower exercise diastolic blood pressure and rating of perceived exertion ; increased GXT duration ; increased leg , back , and shoulder 5RM scores ; and improved AAHPERD flexibility , coordination , and cardiovascular endurance scores . The exercise treatment groups responded differently on the following : RT and BOTH enhanced arm and chest strength more than CVT ; and BOTH enhanced AAHPERD strength and agility scores more than CVT or RT . CONCLUSIONS Concurrent CVT and RT is as effective in eliciting improvements in cardiovascular fitness and 5RM performance as CVT or RT , respectively . Moreover , incorporating both CVT and RT in exercise programs for older adults may be more effective in optimizing aspects of functional fitness than programs that involve only one component
PRT had a large positive effect on strength ( 41 trials , 1955 participants ) , but there was statistical heterogeneity that was not explained by differences in study quality , participant characteristics or the exercise program .
REVIEW ER 'S CONCLUSIONS PRT appears to be an effective intervention to increase strength in older people and has a positive effect on some functional limitations .
However , the effect of this intervention on more substantive outcomes such as measures of disability or HRQOL remains unclear .
BACKGROUND Muscle weakness in old age , is associated with physical disability and an increased risk of falls .
Progressive resistance strength ( PRT ) training exercises ( i.e. movements performed against a specific external force that is regularly increased during training ) are design ed to increase strength in older people .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of PRT on measures of physical disability , functional limitation and impairment in older people  , and identify adverse events .