European Review of Aging and Physical Activity最新文献

Background: Research suggests that muscle power is a more critical determinant of physical functioning in older adults than muscle strength. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of power training compared to strength training in older adults on tests for muscle power, two groups of activity-based tests under controlled conditions: generic tests and tests with an emphasis on movement speed, and finally, physical activity level in daily life.

Methods: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing effects of power training to strength training in older adults was performed in PubMed, Embase, Ebsco/CINAHL, Ebsco/SPORTDiscus, Wiley/Cochrane Library and Scopus. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool, and quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Standardized mean differenences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes separately using a random effects model.

Results: Fifteen trials and 583 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated a statistically significant benefit of power training on all reported outcomes (muscle power SMD: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.44, p < 0.001; generic activity-based tests SMD: 0.37, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.68; p = 0.02, activity-based tests emphasizing movement speed SMD: 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.62, p < 0.001). None of the included studies used physical activity level in daily life as outcome.

Conclusions: Power training offers more potential for improving muscle power and performance on activity tests in older adults compared to strength training. Future research should assess exercise parameters for power training in older adults. In addition, the validity and reliability of the tests used must be evaluated to establish a standardized test protocol. This protocol should also include measurements of physical activity in daily life.

In recent years digital technologies have become a major means for providing health-related services and this trend was strongly reinforced by the current Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As it is well-known that regular physical activity has positive effects on individual physical and mental health and thus is an important prerequisite for healthy aging, digital technologies are also increasingly used to promote unstructured and structured forms of physical activity. However, in the course of this development, several terms (e.g., Digital Health, Electronic Health, Mobile Health, Telehealth, Telemedicine, and Telerehabilitation) have been introduced to refer to the application of digital technologies to provide health-related services such as physical interventions. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned terms are often used in several different ways, but also relatively interchangeably. Given that ambiguous terminology is a major source of difficulty in scientific communication which can impede the progress of theoretical and empirical research, this article aims to make the reader aware of the subtle differences between the relevant terms which are applied at the intersection of physical activity and Digital Health and to provide state-of-art definitions for them.

Background: The purpose of this study was to explore perceived changes in physical activity (PA) due to Covid19 stay-at-home and social distancing guidance among older adults.

Methods: Participants (n = 1429, 77% female, 84% ≥60 years) living in Scotland completed an online survey in Summer 2020 measuring PA and wellbeing (indexed through loneliness, and health-related quality of life). The survey included open- and closed-ended questions about how these variables changed in response to Covid19 social distancing and 'shielding' guidelines.

Results: From the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), the majority reported high volumes of PA, indicative of being 'moderately' or 'highly' active. When asked specifically about strength training, 12% reported engagement on ≥2d/wk. Most participants reported that PA had changed during this time, citing reduced use of exercise facilities, increased active travel, and online PA classes; although only 16% reported engaging in PA online.

Conclusions: Higher levels of PA were found to be associated with better health-related quality of life. Additional efforts should be made to support PA engagement in older adults, including strength training and other tailored approaches to support individual needs.

Background: Aging leads to a number of structural and physiological deficits such as loss of muscle mass and strength. Strength training at ~ 70% of 1 repetition max (RM) is recommended to prevent age-related loss of muscle mass and strength. However, most older adults may not be able to perform 70% of 1RM or higher intensity. An alternative exercise training program combining low intensity resistance exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) can result in similar acute and chronic benefits to skeletal muscles in older adults.

Main body and short conclusion: The potential mechanisms involved are discussed, and include reactive hyperaemia, metabolic stress, and hypoxia. Key issues and safety with the use of BFR in older adults, especially those with chronic conditions are also discussed. Although there has been no reported evidence to suggest that BFR elevates the risk of clinical complications any more than high intensity exercise, it is recommended for individuals to be medically cleared of any cardiovascular risks, prior to engaging in BFR exercise.

Background: Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) are not stable conditions but change over time and among individuals, and both could have deleterious effects on health-related outcomes among older adults. This study aimed to identify the longitudinal trajectories of PA and SB and estimate their association with quality of life, disability, and all-cause mortality in a national sample of older Mexican adults.

Methods: Data comes from three waves of the WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE) in Mexico (2009, 2014, 2017). In total, 3209 older adults ages 50 and above were included. PA and SB were determined by using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). Disability was measured using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), quality of life using the WHOQOL (WHO Quality of Life) instrument, and all-cause mortality using a verbal autopsy. We used growth mixture modeling (GMM) to investigate the longitudinal trajectories of PA and SB. Three-level linear mixed effect models were used to estimate the associations of PA and SB with quality of life and disability and the Cox model for the association with all-cause mortality.

Results: Three longitudinal trajectories of PA and SB were found: low-PA-decreasers, moderate-PA-decreasers, and high-PA-decreasers for PA; and low-maintainers, steep-decreasers, and steep-increasers for SB. Decreased quality of life, increased disability, and all-cause mortality were all consistently associated with worse PA and SB trajectories.

Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for health policies and prevention strategies that promote PA and limit SB in middle-aged adults. Further studies should consider these activities/behaviors as exposures that vary throughout life and work to identify vulnerable groups of older adults for whom physical activation interventions and programs would be most impactful.