BACKGROUND Resistance training is used to prevent the decrease in muscle strength associated with age. OBJECTIVE This study evaluates the effectiveness of iso-inertial training on power, physical performance, and risk of falls compared to gravitational training in physically active middle-older adults. METHODS Parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at Espai Esport Wellness Center (Granollers, Spain). Forty-four physically active adults (age >57) were randomised to iso-inertial (n=21) or gravitational (n=23) training groups (R software; 1:1 ratio). Participants had to complete a 6-week training program (2 sessions/week) consisting of three exercises (forward and side lunge, forward lunge with row). Primary outcome: power in the eccentric phase of each exercise evaluated with both iso-inertial and gravitational devices. Secondary outcomes: concentric power, physical performance, risk of falls. Only outcome evaluators were blinded. We used multivariate linear regression models for the analysis. RESULTS 27 participants completed the program (n=15 iso-inertial, n=12 gravitational). Iso-inertial training showed better eccentric power gains than gravitational training for the iso-inertial system evaluation, although the difference was only statistically significant for the side lunge. Forward lunge: between-group difference 4.50 W (95% CI: -2.94 to 11.94, p=0.23); side lunge: difference 9.24 W (95% CI: 2.99 to 15.49; p=0.00); forward lunge with row: difference 15.25 W (95% CI: -0.63 -to 31.13, p=0.06). We observed no differences for the gravitational system evaluation nor for concentric power, physical performance, and risk of falls. The two groups improved remarkably from baseline for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Iso-inertial training leads to better eccentric power gains than gravitational training and therefore could be considered by clinicians when prescribing resistance training to middle-older adults. Both training systems were equally effective in improving concentric power and physical performance, and reducing risk of falls. CLINICALTRIAL This study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06160089).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cadellans-Arróniz et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: