Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Periodized and non-periodized resistance training programs on body composition and physical function of older women.

Experimental gerontology
January 1, 1970
Hélio José Coelho-Júnior et al. (8 authors)
Journal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tHuman StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to compare the effects of daily undulating periodization (DUP) and nonperiodized (NP) resistance training programs on body composition and physical function in older women.

Results Summary

The study found that NP improved multiple physical function measures (countermovement jump, timed "Up and Go" test, walking speed, and one-leg-stand), while DUP only improved TUG performance. Neither program significantly altered body composition.

Population

Healthy community-dwelling older women aged 60-79 years.

Effective Dosage

Twice weekly sessions over 22 weeks; NP: 3 sets of 8-10 reps at "difficult" intensity (RPE 5-6); DUP: one session at "moderate" intensity (RPE 3) performed as fast as possible, and one session similar to NP.

Duration

22 weeks

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (8)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
nonperiodized (NP) resistance training program
increase
countermovement jump
healthy community-dwelling older women
+55.7%
showed significant improvements
#1
nonperiodized (NP) resistance training program
decrease
timed 'Up and Go' (TUG) test
healthy community-dwelling older women
-43.2% (faster)
showed significant improvements
#2
nonperiodized (NP) resistance training program
increase
walking speed
healthy community-dwelling older women
+12.0%
showed significant improvements
#3
nonperiodized (NP) resistance training program
increase
one-leg-stand
healthy community-dwelling older women
+154.5%
showed significant improvements
#4
daily undulating periodization (DUP) program
decrease
TUG performance
healthy community-dwelling older women
-53.2% (faster)
improved
#5
nonperiodized (NP) resistance training program
no change
body composition
healthy community-dwelling older women
no significant changes
no significant changes
#6
daily undulating periodization (DUP) program
no change
body composition
healthy community-dwelling older women
no significant changes
no significant changes
#7
control group (CG)
no change
body composition
healthy community-dwelling older women
no significant changes
no significant changes
#8
Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although combining classical resistance (RT) and power training (PT) might be an efficient strategy to achieve optimal enhancements in body composition and physical function in older adults, the most effective approach to combine these different types of exercise training is still unknown. Periodization, an organizational model that refers to a succession of cycle that will vary in exercise intensity and/or volume to allow for the training stimulus to remain biologically challenging and effective, may represent an interesting approach. Among the different types of periodization, daily undulating periodization (DUP) has attracted considerable attention given its superiority in comparison to nonperiodized (NP) RT programs to elicit neuromuscular improvements in young adults. However, whether a DUP program combining PT and traditional RT can produce similar or greater improvements in body composition and physical function in older adults than a NP RT program has not yet been established. Therefore, the present study compared the effects of a DUP and NP programs on body composition and physical function in healthy community-dwelling older women. METHODS: Forty-two older women (60-79 years) were randomized into one of the three experimental groups: NP, DUP, and control group (CG). Body composition and physical function were assessed at baseline and after the intervention. The sessions of exercises were performed twice a week over 22 weeks. In NP, the two exercise sessions were based on three sets of 8-10 repetitions at a "difficult" intensity (i.e., 5-6) prescribed based on the Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale. In DUP, the first session was based on PT (three sets of 8-10 repetitions at a "moderate" intensity, i.e., 3, performed as fast as possible), while the second session was similar to the NP. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in body composition in any of the groups. Relative to baseline, participants assigned to NP showed significant improvements in countermovement jump (+55.7%), timed "Up and Go" (TUG) test (-43.2%, faster), walking speed (+12.0%), and one-leg-stand (+154.5%). In contrast, DUP only improved TUG performance (-53.2%, faster). CONCLUSION: NP and DUP improved physical function in community-dwelling older women, with greater improvements in physical parameters only observed after NP.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
AgedBody CompositionFemaleFrail ElderlyFrailtyHealth StatusHumansMiddle AgedMuscle StrengthMuscle, SkeletalPhysical FitnessResistance TrainingSingle-Blind MethodWalking
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy70/10
Quality85/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations27
Citations/Year4.5
Relative Citation Ratio2.42
NIH Percentile79.9%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.75
Weight Score1.85
Normalized Score0.65
Related Supplements