2016
DOI: 10.1589/jpts.28.3183
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of a simple and adherent home exercise program on the physical function of community dwelling adults sixty years of age and older with pre-sarcopenia or sarcopenia

Abstract: [Purpose] To evaluate the effect of a home exercise program on physical function in community dwelling elderly with pre-sarcopenia or sarcopenia. [Subjects and Methods] Fifty-two community-dwelling individuals, over 60 years and meeting the diagnostic criteria for pre-sarcopenia or sarcopenia, were randomly assigned to intervention group (n=34) and control group (n=18). The intervention group completed 6-months home exercise programs, combining walking with lower limb resistance exercises. Body mass index, ske… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
103
1
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(110 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
4
103
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Sample size calculations were based on the results of our previous study on the effects of MIS and RE on muscle integrity in older adults [67], setting power to 80% with alpha at 5%, yielding an estimate of 10 participants per group to detect differences in body composition and strength. Expecting a dropout rate of 20-30% for unsupervised training forms with limited subject interaction [36], and considering that sample sizes were 25 per group in Bell et al [53], we aimed for a final count of 15-20 participants per group.…”
Section: Recruitment Screening and Randomizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sample size calculations were based on the results of our previous study on the effects of MIS and RE on muscle integrity in older adults [67], setting power to 80% with alpha at 5%, yielding an estimate of 10 participants per group to detect differences in body composition and strength. Expecting a dropout rate of 20-30% for unsupervised training forms with limited subject interaction [36], and considering that sample sizes were 25 per group in Bell et al [53], we aimed for a final count of 15-20 participants per group.…”
Section: Recruitment Screening and Randomizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The duration of the interventions ranged from 6 to 36 weeks, and the exercise sessions consisted of 30 to 80 min training. The included studies assessed muscle mass (ASM [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] and ASM/height 2 [18,[24][25][26][27]), muscle strength (grip strength [17,18,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][28][29][30][31][32][33] and five chair stand time [23,26,34,35]) or physical performance (gait speed [19-22, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 36, 37] and the TUG test [20,27,32,[34][35][36]) at baseline and after the exercise intervention. Huang [38] used skeletal muscle mass/weight as the outcome for muscle mass.…”
Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The intervention consisted of resistance training, balance, flexibility, and aerobic exercises and participants determined their individual resistance load as 12 to 14 on the Borg scale [ 10 ]. Finally, a 6-month home exercise program improved physical function in 52 community-dwelling individuals (≥60 years of age) with low muscle mass or sarcopenia [ 11 ]. The home program consisted of a combination of walking (20-30 minutes per day) and lower limb resistance exercises (6× squats, 1-minute single-leg standing and 20× heel raises) [ 11 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, a 6-month home exercise program improved physical function in 52 community-dwelling individuals (≥60 years of age) with low muscle mass or sarcopenia [ 11 ]. The home program consisted of a combination of walking (20-30 minutes per day) and lower limb resistance exercises (6× squats, 1-minute single-leg standing and 20× heel raises) [ 11 ]. To date, to our knowledge, no interventions have been conducted in middle-aged adults with low relative appendicular lean soft tissue mass.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%