Treinamento de força com e sem instabilidade não melhora os níveis gerais de capacidade intrínseca em idosos com queixas cognitivas / Resistance training with and without instability does not improve overall levels of intrinsic capacity in older adults with cognitive complaints

INTRODUÇÃO: Capacidade intrínseca (CI) é um construto que engloba capacidades físicas e mentais para o autocuidado e envelhecimento saudável. A compreensão do papel potencial do treinamento resistido, com e sem instabilidade, para promover o CI precisa ser esclarecida. OBJETIVO: Avaliar o impacto do treinamento de força sobre os níveis de capacidade intrínseca em idosos com queixas cognitivas. MÉTODOS: Idosos com queixas cognitivas (n=67) foram aleatoriamente designados para 12 semanas de TF tradicional (n=23), TF com dispositivos de instabilidade (TFI) (n=22) ou controle (n=22). Ambos os grupos de treinamento realizaram três séries de 10- 15 repetições. O grupo TFI realizou exercícios utilizando dispositivos de instabilidade. O grupo controle recebeu aulas semanais de educação em saúde. Os domínios da CI foram de mobilidade e velocidade da marcha (locomotora), função global e executiva (cognitivo), força de preensão e teste de caminhada de seis minutos (vitalidade), e sintomas depressivos e autoeficácia (psicológicos) por meio de escores-z compostos. Calculamos os níveis globais de CI pela soma de cada pontuação composta. RESULTADOS: Diferença significativa intragrupo nos níveis gerais de CI (∆TFI = +1.69, ∆TF = +1.30) e seus respectivos domínios (Locomoção: ∆TFI = +2.32, ∆TF = +3.21; Cognição: ∆TFI = +2.31; Vitalidade: ∆TFI = +1.23, ∆TF = +1.42; e Psicológico: ∆TFI = -0.65, ∆TF = -0.62). Contudo, não houve diferenças entre os grupos. Análise de sensibilidade mesclando os grupos de treinamento revelou diferença significativa para o domínio locomotor após 12 semanas (+1.97, p=0.045). CONCLUSÃO: Treinamento de força com e sem dispositivos de instabilidade não melhorou os níveis de CI em idosos com queixas cognitivas.

INTRODUCTION: Intrinsic capacity (IC) is a construct that encompasses physical and mental capacities important for self-care and healthy aging. Understanding the potential role of resistance training with and without instability to promote IC needs to be clarified. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of resistance training on intrinsic capacity levels in older adults with cognitive complaints. METHODS: Older adults with cognitive complaints (n=67) were randomly assigned to either 12 weeks of traditional RE (n=23), RE with instability devices (REI) (n=22), or control (n=22). Both training groups performed three sets of 10-15 repetitions. REI group performed each exercise using instability devices. The control group received weekly health education classes. IC domains were analyzed using mobility and gait velocity (locomotor), global and executive functioning (cognitive), grip strength and six-minute walking test (vitality), and depressive symptoms and self-efficacy (psychological) through z-composite scores. We computed global levels of IC by the sum of each composite score. RESULTS: A significant within-group difference (improvement) in overall levels of IC (∆REI = +1.69, ∆RE = +1.30) and all their domains (Locomotion: ∆REI = +2.32, ∆RE = +3.21; Cognition: ∆REI = +2.31; Vitality: ∆REI = +1.23, ∆RE = +1.42; and Psychological: ∆REI = -0.65, ∆RE = -0.62). However, no between-group differences were observed at the completion of the trial. Sensitivity analysis merging training groups revealed a between-group difference for the locomotor domain (+1.97, p=0.045). CONCLUSION: Resistance training with and without instability devices did not improve IC levels among older adults with cognitive complaints.

Does the stretching intensity matter when targeting a range of motion gains? a randomized trial

Abstract Aims: To verify the effects of flexibility training conducted at different intensities in young adults. Methods: Twenty-one (21) young adults of both genders with no history of surgery, fracture, and/or rheumatic diseases in the lower limbs and hip, were randomly assigned to low intensity (LI) or high intensity (HI) stretching groups. Two researchers were assigned to evaluate the active knee extension range of motion (ROM) of the volunteers and two other researchers were responsible for the training program. The training consisted of a single exercise for the hamstring muscles (biceps femoris, semimembranosus, semitendinosus). Each session consisted of three repetitions of passive static stretching, maintained for the 60s each, with 30s interval between them, and performed three times a week for four weeks. The stretching intensity was based on the Numerical Verbal Scale, the LI group maintained the intensity between 1 and 2, while the HI group between 9 and 10. Three ROM evaluations were performed pre-intervention, after the 6th session and at the end of the 12th session. Results: No difference was observed between the groups that underwent either high- or low-intensity programs. Both groups achieved gains in flexibility after four weeks of training. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that both high- and low-intensity stretching exercises are effective for ROM and there were no differences between them. Therefore, the intensity can be defined by the preference of the therapist or patient.