Search

Background: The use of compression garments (CGs) during or after training and competition has gained popularity in the last few decades. However, the data concerning CGs’ beneficial effects on muscle strength-related outcomes after physical exercise remain inconclusive. Objective: The aim was to determine whether wearing CGs during or after physical exercise would facilitate the recovery of muscle strength-related outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across five databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCOhost). Data from 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 350 healthy participants were extracted and meta-analytically computed. Weighted between-study standardized mean differences (SMDs) with respect to their standard errors (SEs) were aggregated and corrected for sample size to compute overall SMDs. The type of physical exercise, the body area and timing of CG application, and the time interval between the end of the exercise and subsequent testing were assessed. Results: CGs produced no strength-sparing effects (SMD [95% confidence interval]) at the following time points (t) after physical exercise: immediately ≤ t < 24 h: − 0.02 (− 0.22 to 0.19), p = 0.87; 24 ≤ t < 48 h: − 0.00 (− 0.22 to 0.21), p = 0.98; 48 ≤ t < 72 h: − 0.03 (− 0.43 to 0.37), p = 0.87; 72 ≤ t < 96 h: 0.14 (− 0.21 to 0.49), p = 0.43; 96 h ≤ t: 0.26 (− 0.33 to 0.85), p = 0.38. The body area where the CG was applied had no strength-sparing effects. CGs revealed weak strength-sparing effects after plyometric exercise. Conclusion: Meta-analytical evidence suggests that wearing a CG during or after training does not seem to facilitate the recovery of muscle strength following physical exercise. Practitioners, athletes, coaches, and trainers should reconsider the use of CG as a tool to reduce the effects of physical exercise on muscle strength. Trial Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42021246753.

Background Cross-education refers to increased motor output (i.e., force generation, skill) of the opposite, untrained limb following a period of unilateral exercise training. Despite extensive research, several aspects of the transfer phenomenon remain controversial. Methods A modified two-round Delphi online survey was conducted among international experts to reach consensus on terminology, methodology, mechanisms of action, and translational potential of cross-education, and to provide a framework for future research. Results Through purposive sampling of the literature, we identified 56 noted experts in the field, of whom 32 completed the survey, and reached consensus (75% threshold) on 17 out of 27 items. Conclusion Our consensus-based recommendations for future studies are that (1) the term ‘cross-education’ should be adopted to refer to the transfer phenomenon, also specifying if transfer of strength or skill is meant; (2) functional magnetic resonance imaging, short-interval intracortical inhibition and interhemispheric inhibition appear to be promising tools to study the mechanisms of transfer; (3) strategies which maximize cross-education, such as high-intensity training, eccentric contractions, and mirror illusion, seem worth being included in the intervention plan; (4) study protocols should be designed to include at least 13–18 sessions or 4–6 weeks to produce functionally meaningful transfer of strength, and (5) cross-education could be considered as an adjuvant treatment particularly for unilateral orthopedic conditions and sports injuries. Additionally, a clear gap in views emerged between the research field and the purely clinical field. The present consensus statement clarifies relevant aspects of cross-education including neurophysiological, neuroanatomical, and methodological characteristics of the transfer phenomenon, and provides guidance on how to improve the quality and usability of future cross-education studies.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that physical exercise training (PET) conducted at the workplace is effective in improving physical fitness and thus health. However, there is no current systematic review available that provides high-level evidence regarding the effects of PET on physical fitness in the workforce.OBJECTIVES: To quantify sex-, age-, and occupation type-specific effects of PET on physical fitness and to characterize dose-response relationships of PET modalities that could maximize gains in physical fitness in the working population.DATA SOURCES: A computerized systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed and Cochrane Library (2000-2019) to identify articles related to PET in workers.STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only randomized controlled trials with a passive control group were included if they investigated the effects of PET programs in workers and tested at least one fitness measure.STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Weighted mean standardised mean differences (SMDwm) were calculated using random effects models. A multivariate random effects meta-regression was computed to explain the influence of key training modalities (e.g., training frequency, session duration, intensity) on the effectiveness of PET on measures of physical fitness. Further, subgroup univariate analyses were computed for each training modality. Additionally, methodological quality of the included studies was rated with the help of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale.RESULTS: Overall, 3423 workers aged 30-56 years participated in 17 studies (19 articles) that were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality of the included studies was moderate with a median PEDro score of 6. Our analyses revealed significant, small-sized effects of PET on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), muscular endurance, and muscle power (0.29 ≤ SMDwm ≤ 0.48). Medium effects were found for CRF and muscular endurance in younger workers (≤ 45 years) (SMDwm = 0.71) and white-collar workers (SMDwm = 0.60), respectively. Multivariate random effects meta-regression for CRF revealed that none of the examined training modalities predicted the effects of PET on CRF (R2 = 0). Independently computed subgroup analyses showed significant PET effects on CRF when conducted for 9-12 weeks (SMDwm = 0.31) and for 17-20 weeks (SMDwm = 0.74).CONCLUSIONS: PET effects on physical fitness in healthy workers are moderated by age (CRF) and occupation type (muscular endurance). Further, independently computed subgroup analyses indicated that the training period of the PET programs may play an important role in improving CRF in workers.

Background Balance and resistance training can improve healthy older adults' balance and muscle strength. Delivering such exercise programs at home without supervision may facilitate participation for older adults because they do not have to leave their homes. To date, no systematic literature analysis has been conducted to determine if supervision affects the effectiveness of these programs to improve healthy older adults' balance and muscle strength/ power. Objectives The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effectiveness of supervised vs. unsupervised balance and/or resistance training programs on measures of balance and muscle strength/ power in healthy older adults. In addition, the impact of supervision on training-induced adaptive processes was evaluated in the form of dose-response relationships by analyzing randomized controlled trials that compared supervised with unsupervised trials. Data Sources A computerized systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and SportDiscus to detect articles examining the role of supervision in balance and/or resistance training in older adults. Study Eligibility Criteria The initially identified 6041 articles were systematically screened. Studies were included if they examined balance and/or resistance training in adults aged >= 65 years with no relevant diseases and registered at least one behavioral balance (e.g., time during single leg stance) and/or muscle strength/ power outcome (e.g., time for 5-Times-Chair-Rise-Test). Finally, 11 studies were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Study Appraisal Weighted mean standardized mean differences between subjects (SMDbs) of supervised vs. unsupervised balance/resistance training studies were calculated. The included studies were coded for the following variables: number of participants, sex, age, number and type of interventions, type of balance/strength tests, and change (%) from pre- to post-intervention values. Additionally, we coded training according to the following modalities: period, frequency, volume, modalities of supervision (i.e., number of supervised/unsupervised sessions within the supervised or unsupervised training groups, respectively). Heterogeneity was computed using I 2 and chi(2) statistics. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Results Our analyses revealed that in older adults, supervised balance/resistance training was superior compared with unsupervised balance/resistance training in improving measures of static steady-state balance (mean SMDbs = 0.28, p = 0.39), dynamic steady-state balance (mean SMDbs = 0.35, p = 0.02), proactive balance (mean SMDbs = 0.24, p = 0.05), balance test batteries (mean SMDbs = 0.53, p = 0.02), and measures of muscle strength/power (mean SMDbs = 0.51, p = 0.04). Regarding the examined dose-response relationships, our analyses showed that a number of 10-29 additional supervised sessions in the supervised training groups compared with the unsupervised training groups resulted in the largest effects for static steady-state balance (mean SMDbs = 0.35), dynamic steady-state balance (mean SMDbs = 0.37), and muscle strength/power (mean SMDbs = 1.12). Further, >= 30 additional supervised sessions in the supervised training groups were needed to produce the largest effects on proactive balance (mean SMDbs = 0.30) and balance test batteries (mean SMDbs = 0.77). Effects in favor of supervised programs were larger for studies that did not include any supervised sessions in their unsupervised programs (mean SMDbs: 0.28-1.24) compared with studies that implemented a few supervised sessions in their unsupervised programs (e.g., three supervised sessions throughout the entire intervention program; SMDbs: -0.06 to 0.41). Limitations The present findings have to be interpreted with caution because of the low number of eligible studies and the moderate methodological quality of the included studies, which is indicated by a median Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale score of 5. Furthermore, we indirectly compared dose-response relationships across studies and not from single controlled studies. Conclusions Our analyses suggest that supervised balance and/or resistance training improved measures of balance and muscle strength/power to a greater extent than unsupervised programs in older adults. Owing to the small number of available studies, we were unable to establish a clear dose-response relationship with regard to the impact of supervision. However, the positive effects of supervised training are particularly prominent when compared with completely unsupervised training programs. It is therefore recommended to include supervised sessions (i.e., two out of three sessions/week) in balance/resistance training programs to effectively improve balance and muscle strength/power in older adults.

Background: Habitual walking speed predicts many clinical conditions later in life, but it declines with age. However, which particular exercise intervention can minimize the age-related gait speed loss is unclear. Purpose: Our objective was to determine the effects of strength, power, coordination, and multimodal exercise training on healthy old adults' habitual and fast gait speed. Methods: We performed a computerized systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Knowledge from January 1984 up to December 2014. Search terms included 'Resistance training', 'power training', 'coordination training', 'multimodal training', and 'gait speed (outcome term). Inclusion criteria were articles available in full text, publication period over past 30 years, human species, journal articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, English as publication language, and subject age C65 years. The methodological quality of all eligible intervention studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. We computed weighted average standardized mean differences of the intervention-induced adaptations in gait speed using a random-effects model and tested for overall and individual intervention effects relative to no-exercise controls. Results: A total of 42 studies (mean PEDro score of 5.0 +/- 1.2) were included in the analyses (2495 healthy old adults; age 74.2 years [64.4-82.7]; body mass 69.9 +/- 4.9 kg, height 1.64 +/- 0.05 m, body mass index 26.4 +/- 1.9 kg/m(2), and gait speed 1.22 +/- 0.18 m/s). The search identified only one power training study, therefore the subsequent analyses focused only on the effects of resistance, coordination, and multimodal training on gait speed. The three types of intervention improved gait speed in the three experimental groups combined (n = 1297) by 0.10 m/s (+/- 0.12) or 8.4 % (+/- 9.7), with a large effect size (ES) of 0.84. Resistance (24 studies; n = 613; 0.11 m/s; 9.3 %; ES: 0.84), coordination (eight studies, n = 198; 0.09 m/s; 7.6 %; ES: 0.76), and multimodal training (19 studies; n = 486; 0.09 m/s; 8.4 %, ES: 0.86) increased gait speed statistically and similarly. Conclusions: Commonly used exercise interventions can functionally and clinically increase habitual and fast gait speed and help slow the loss of gait speed or delay its onset., Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe; 840

Page 1724, column 2, section 2.4, paragraph 2, lines 25–31: The following sentence, which previously read: To verify the effectiveness of BT on a balance outcome measures, we computed the within-subject standardized mean difference [SMDws = ([mean pre-value − mean post-value]/SD pre-value)] and the between-subject standardized mean difference [SMDbs = ([mean post-value intervention group − mean post-value control group]/pooled variance)]. Should read: To verify the effectiveness of BT on balance outcome measures, we computed the within-subject standardized mean difference (SMDws = [mean pre-value − mean post-value]/standard deviation pre-value) and the between-subject standardized mean difference (SMDbs = [mean post-value intervention group − mean post-value control group]/pooled standard deviation).

Page 1630, column 2, section 2.3, paragraph 2, lines 15–20: The following sentence, which previously read: To determine the effectiveness of an exercise intervention in relation to gait speed, we computed between-subject effect size (ES) using the implemented formula in Review Manager version 5.3 (Hedges’ adjusted g) as (ES = ±[(mean post-value intervention group) − (mean post-value control group)]/pooled variance) [91]. Should read: To determine the effectiveness of an exercise intervention in relation to gait speed, we computed between-subject effect size (ES) using the implemented formula in Review Manager version 5.3 (Hedges’ adjusted g) as (ES = [(mean post-value intervention group) − (mean post-value control group)]/pooled standard deviation) [91].

Page 559, column 2, section 2.4, paragraph 2, lines 47–52: The following sentence, which previously read: Within-subject ESdw (ESdw = ± [mean pre-value − mean post-value]/SD pre-value) and between-subject ESdb (ESdb = ± [mean post-value intervention group − mean post-value control group]/pooled variance) were computed according to Cohen [15] (where SD is standard deviation). Should read: Within-subject ESdw (ESdw = [mean pre-value − mean post-value]/SD pre-value) and between-subject ESdb (ESdb = [mean post-value intervention group − mean post-value control group]/pooled SD) were computed according to Cohen [15] (where SD is standard deviation).

Background Resistance training (RT) is an intervention frequently used to improve muscle strength and morphology in old age. However, evidence-based, dose-response relationships regarding specific RT variables (e.g., training period, frequency, intensity, volume) are unclear in healthy old adults. Objectives The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to determine the general effects of RT on measures of muscle strength and morphology and to provide dose-response relationships of RT variables through an analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that could improve muscle strength and morphology in healthy old adults. Data Sources A computerized, systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library from January 1984 up to June 2015 to identify all RCTs related to RT in healthy old adults. Study Eligibility Criteria The initial search identified 506 studies, with a final yield of 25 studies. Only RCTs that examined the effects of RT in adults with a mean age of 65 and older were included. The 25 studies quantified at least one measure of muscle strength or morphology and sufficiently described training variables (e.g., training period, frequency, volume, intensity). Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods We quantified the overall effects of RT on measures of muscle strength and morphology by computing weighted between-subject standardized mean differences (SMDbs) between intervention and control groups. We analyzed the data for the main outcomes of one-repetition maximum (1RM), maximum voluntary contraction under isometric conditions (MVC), and muscle morphology (i.e., cross-sectional area or volume or thickness of muscles) and assessed the methodological study quality by Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I-2 and chi(2) statistics. A random effects meta-regression was calculated to explain the influence of key training variables on the effectiveness of RT in terms of muscle strength and morphology. For meta-regression, training variables were divided into the following subcategories: volume, intensity, and rest. In addition to meta-regression, dose-response relationships were calculated independently for single training variables (e.g., training frequency). Results RT improved muscle strength substantially (mean SMDbs = 1.57; 25 studies), but had small effects on measures of muscle morphology (mean SMDbs = 0.42; nine studies). Specifically, RT produced large effects in both 1RM of upper (mean SMDbs = 1.61; 11 studies) and lower (mean SMDbs = 1.76; 19 studies) extremities and a medium effect in MVC of lower (mean SMDbs = 0.76; four studies) extremities. Results of the meta-regression revealed that the variables "training period'' (p = 0.04) and "intensity'' (p

The present review proposes the untested hypothesis that cross-education performed with a mirror increases the transfer of motor function to the resting limb compared with standard cross-education interventions without a mirror. The hypothesis is based on neuroanatomical evidence suggesting an overlap in activated brain areas when a unilateral motor task is performed with and without a mirror in the context of cross-education of the upper extremities. The review shows that the mirror-neuron system (MNS), connecting sensory neurons responding to visual properties of an observed action and motor neurons that discharge action potentials during the execution of a similar action, has the potential to enhance cross-education. After a literature search we narrowed the review to studies that examined healthy young adults who performed unilateral strength training and unilateral motor tasks with or without a mirror and assessed outcome measures in relation to the changes in brain activity, motor cortical excitability, and corticospinal excitability. We identified six chronic studies that examined the effects of unilateral strength training on neural adaptations and 15 cross-sectional studies that examined acute changes in brain activation, motor cortical and corticospinal excitability using imaging, electroencephalographic, magnetoencephalographic, and magnetic brain stimulation. There were two chronic and nine cross-sectional studies in which participants performed unilateral motor tasks while viewing the image of the active hand superimposed on the resting hand’s image. Collectively, the data suggest that the MNS is involved in cross-education and the hypothesis is tenable. However, future studies are needed to elucidate the precise mechanism of how the use of a mirror in a cross-education study augments transfer to the non-exercised limb. Recent studies show a strength-sparing effect in the immobilized arm after strength training of the free arm in healthy individuals, and improved bilateral function after unilateral exercise therapy in stroke patients. It is thus conceptually justified to conduct randomized clinical trials that supplement cross-education protocols with a mirror. Such a treatment could reduce muscle weakness caused by limb fractures, anterior-cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery, stroke, and other unilateral motor dysfunctions.

Biological aging inevitably affects every individual, no matter what their color of skin, country of origin, level of education, and socio-economic status is. Intuitively, we associate aging with old age. However, aging encompasses more than senescence. In fact, the process begins at conception and continues throughout the lifespan, with marked physiological and performance changes occurring for some reason after age 60 years. Aging is a process or group of processes occurring in living organisms that with the passage of time leads to a loss of adaptability, functional impairment, and eventually death [1]. Healthy aging is a desirable path that is worth pursuing for every individual. Factors that determine healthy or successful aging are avoiding disease (e.g., obesity), engagement with life (e.g., social activities), maintaining high cognitive and physical function through, for instance, proper diet, and sufficient physical activity [1]. The American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association have provided recommendations on the types and amounts of physical activity needed to improve and maintain health in older adults [2]. With this purpose in mind, seniors are advised to perform physical activity at a moderate intensity that results in aerobic metabolism for a minimum of 30 min on 5 days each week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for a minimum of 20 min on 3 days each week. To maintain the flexibility necessary for regular physical activity and daily life, older adults should perform activities that maintain or increase flexibility on at least 2 days each week for at least 10 min each day. To reduce the risk of injury due to falls, community-dwelling older adults at substantial risk of falls should perform exercises that maintain or improve balance. In addition, at least twice each week older adults should perform muscle-strengthening activities using the major muscles of the body to maintain or increase muscular strength and endurance [2]. The German Research Foundation provided support for a series of workshops that took place in Potsdam, Freiburg, and Kassel between October 2013 and September 2014 (MU 3327/2-1). International experts discussed current knowledge of how age affects motor performance throughout the lifespan and how exercise interventions could improve motor performance in older adults, delay the onset and progression of mobility disability, and promote healthy aging. To complement already existing physical activity guidelines, this themed issue of Sports Medicine contains systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses that provide evidence-based overviews of current knowledge concerning the efficacy of exercise interventions with a focus on seniors. Four of seven papers focus on the intervention effects of strength training using unstable surfaces, resistance training, power training, coordination training, and balance training on measures of balance, strength, power, and mobility in cohorts across the lifespan with a focus on older adults (Behm et al., Borde et al., Hortobagyi et al., Lesinski et al). Two papers describe the dose-response relationships following resistance and balance training in older adults (Borde et al., Lesinski et al.). This is new and important evidence-based information for practitioners and therapists seeking to design and implement effective exercise programs to counteract dynapenia, sarcopenia, and mobility disability in seniors. Further, two papers analyze how task difficulty affects responses to balance perturbations in older adults (Bohm et al.) and cognitive-motor dual tasking across the lifespan (Ruffieux et al.), with a perspective on intervention design. Finally, Muehlbauer et al. examine the relationship between measures of balance and leg strength/power across the lifespan in an effort to provide information that facilitates better-informed exercise prescription. The consistent message from this wealth of up-to-date information is that spontaneous physical activity and systematic exercise delivered in a variety of forms can increase motor performance independent of age, slow the progression of mobility disability, and most likely improve health in old age. As part of their efforts to promote healthy aging, practitioners, healthcare professionals, and policy makers can use this new knowledge to recommend and urge seniors to become and remain physically active.