Search

For well over 20 centuries, the muscle wasting (sarcopenia) and weakness (dynapenia) that occurs with old age has been a predominant concern for mankind. Exercise has long been suggested as a treatment to combat sarcopenia and dynapenia, as it exerts effects on both the nervous and muscular systems that are critical to positive physiological and functional adaptations (e.g., enhanced muscle strength). For more than two decades, scientists have recognized the profound role that progressive resistance exercise training (RET) can have on increasing muscle strength, muscle size, and functional capacity in older adults. In this review article, we discuss how RET can be used in the management and prevention of sarcopenia and dynapenia. We first provide an overview of the evidence for this notion and highlight certain critical factors--namely, exercise intensity, volume, and progression--that are key to optimizing the resistance exercise prescription. We then highlight how many, if not most, of the commonly prescribed exercise programs for seniors are not the "best practices" and subsequently present easy-to-read guidelines for a well-rounded RET program designed for the management and prevention of sarcopenia and dynapenia, including example training programs for the beginner through programs for the advanced senior resistance exerciser. These guidelines have been written for the academician as well as the student and health-care provider across a variety of disciplines, including those in the long-term care industry, such as wellness instructors or activity directors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Older adults display wide individual variability (heterogeneity) in the effects of resistance exercise training on muscle strength. The mechanisms driving this heterogeneity are poorly understood. Understanding of these mechanisms could permit development of more targeted interventions and/or improved identification of individuals likely to respond to resistance training interventions. Thus, this study assessed potential physiological factors that may contribute to strength response heterogeneity in older adults: neural activation, muscle hypertrophy, and muscle contractility. In 24 older adults (72.3 ± 6.8 years), we measured the following parameters before and after 12 weeks of progressive resistance exercise training: i) isometric leg extensor strength; ii) isokinetic (60°/sec) leg extensor strength; iii) voluntary (neural) activation by comparing voluntary and electrically-stimulated muscle forces (i.e., superimposed doublet technique); iv) muscle hypertrophy via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) estimates of regional lean tissue mass; and v) intrinsic contractility by electrically-elicited twitch and doublet torques. We examined associations between physiological factors (baseline values and relative change) and the relative change in isometric and isokinetic muscle strength. Notably, changes in quadriceps contractility were positively associated with the relative improvement in isokinetic (r = 0.37–0.46, p ≤ 0.05), but not isometric strength (r = 0.09–0.21). Change in voluntary activation did not exhibit a significant association with the relative improvements in either isometric or isokinetic strength (r = 0.35 and 0.33, respectively; p > 0.05). Additionally, change in thigh lean mass was not significantly associated with relative improvement in isometric or isokinetic strength (r = 0.09 and −0.02, respectively; p > 0.05). Somewhat surprising was the lack of association between exercise-induced changes in isometric and isokinetic strength (r = 0.07). The strength response to resistance exercise in older adults appears to be contraction-type dependent. Therefore, future investigations should consider obtaining multiple measures of muscle strength to ensure that strength adaptations are comprehensively assessed. Changes in lean mass did not explain the heterogeneity in strength response for either contraction type, and the data regarding the influence of voluntary activation was inconclusive. For isokinetic contraction, the strength response was moderately explained by between-subject variance in the resistance-exercise induced changes in muscle contractility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]