The effects of barbell resistance exercise on information processing speed and conflict-related ERP in older adults: a crossover randomized controlled trial

Abstract

It is difficult to draw conclusions about the effect of resistance exercises on information processing speed and inhibitory control from previous studies due to possible underestimations of maximal strength and the lack of information on the intervention programs. To address this issue, a familiarization of resistance exercise was introduced before the strength test, and the repetition-to-fatigue method was used to calculate the 1RM (one repetition max). A two-arm RCT was conducted to evaluate the cognitive effect of resistance exercise. Male adults aged 50–65 years old performed a single bout of multiple joint, structural barbell resistance exercises (back squat, press, and deadlift) with 75% 1RM * 5 repetitions * 3 sets with 2–3 min rest between sets and exercises or a stretching exercise session (active-control intervention). This type of resistance exercise improved the information processing speed measured by Stroop task reaction time (t(23) = − 2.313, p = .030, M = − 16 ms, 95% CI [− 30, − 2]) and decreased the conflict-related neural activity measured by event-related potential N2b in both congruent (t(20) = 2.674, p = .015, M = 2.290 μv, 95% CI [0.504, 4.075]) and incongruent (t(20) = 2.851, p = .018, M = 2.291 μv, 95% CI [0.439, 4.142]) conditions. Resistance exercise significantly improved information processing speed and decrease conflict-related neural activity, but did not change inhibitory control in older adults compared to active control.Trial registration: NCT04534374 (01/09/2020).

Effects of Acute Resistance Exercise on Executive Function: A Systematic Review of the Moderating Role of Intensity and Executive Function Domain

“…Study design: 14 studies included a within-subject design [18,20,22,[24][25][26][27][28][29][56][57][58][59][60] and 5 studies included a between-subject design [17,21,23,61,62].…”

“…EF domains: 13 studies focused on one domain of EF [18,21,22,[24][25][26][27][57][58][59][60][61][62] and 6 studies focused on two or more domains of EF [17,20,23,28,29,56]. Of these, 16 studies examined inhibitory control [17, 20-25, 27-29, 56-58, 60-62], 5 studies examined working memory [18,20,23,28,59], and 6 studies examined cognitive flexibility [17,20,23,26,29,56].…”

“…Most studies were judged low risk for eligibility criteria, baseline comparability and proper continuation. Only 4 studies (21.05%) were judged low risk for concealed allocation [17,20,21,58], and 2 studies (10.52%) were judged low risk for intent to treat [22,58]. The overview of quality assessment is presented in Fig.…”

“…Accordingly, the inconsistency between these two reviews requires further examination based on the individual and combined moderating effects of exercise intensity and EF domain. Additionally, there have been numerous novel findings since the review of Wilke et al [4], warranting further summary and updating of the extant literature to better understand the relationship between acute RE and EF [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29].…”

Effects of resistance exercises on inhibitory control and plasma epinephrine levels: A registered report of a crossover randomized controlled trial

“…To further identify and address the potential methodological limitations of previous acute resistance exercise‐inhibitory control studies, 22 studies that investigated the effect of acute exercise on the Stroop task (Brush et al., 2016; Chang & Etnier, 2009; Chang et al., 2014; Chou et al., 2021; Coelho‐Júnior et al., 2021; de Almeida et al., 2021; de Souza et al., 2020; Dora et al., 2021a, 2021b; Engeroff et al., 2019; Harveson et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2016; Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Nutt et al., 2021; Sardeli et al., 2018; Tomoo et al., 2020; Tsuk et al., 2019; Tsukamoto et al., 2017; Vonk et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Wilke et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021) were also reviewed (Table 1). Although 82% of studies (18/22) (Chang & Etnier, 2009; Chou et al., 2021; Coelho‐Júnior et al., 2021; de Almeida et al., 2021; de Souza et al., 2020; Dora et al., 2021a, 2021b; Engeroff et al., 2019; Harveson et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2016; Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Nutt et al., 2021; Sardeli et al., 2018; Tomoo et al., 2020; Tsukamoto et al., 2017; Vonk et al., 2019; Wilke et al., 2020; Yamada et al., 2021) claimed to implement randomization, only 2 (Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021; Engeroff et al., 2019) and 1 (Lin, Hsieh, Chueh, Huang, et al., 2021) out of these 18 studies reported the process of allocation sequence generation (random number generation) and concealment, respectively. These two steps are crucial in randomized controlled trials (Sterne et al., 2019, Full guidance document, section 4.1).…”