Effects of High-Speed Versus Traditional Resistance Training in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: The losses of strength, agility, balance, and functionality caused by aging are harmful to the elderly population. Resistance training (RT) may be an efficient tool to mitigate such neuromuscular decline and different RT methods can be used. Therefore, it is important to investigate the different responses to different training methods. HYPOTHESIS: Eight weeks of traditional resistance training (TRT) are expected to promote similar results to high-speed training (HST) in physical functional performance (PFP) and quality of life in the elderly. STUDY DESIGN: A clinical trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: Participants (n = 24) with a mean age of 67.8 ± 6.3 years completed 8 weeks of RT. They were allocated into HST (n = 12) and TRT (n = 12). TRT involved training with 10 to 12 repetitions at controlled velocity until momentary muscle failure, while HST involved performing 6 to 8 repetitions at 40% to 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) at maximum velocity. Pre- and posttraining, the participants were tested for (1) maximum strength in the 45° leg press and chest press; (2) PFP in the 30-second chair stand, timed-up-and-go (TUG), and medicine ball throw test; and (3) quality of life. RESULTS: Both groups improved muscle strength in the 45° leg press, with greater increases for TRT (HST: +21% vs TRT: +49%, P = 0.019). There was no change in chest press strength for HST (-0.6%) (P = 0.61), but there was a significant increase for the TRT group (+21%, P = 0.001). There was a similar improvement (P < 0.05) for both groups in TUG (HST: 7%; TRT: 10%), chair stand (HST: 18%; TRT: 21%), and medicine ball throwing performance (HST: 9%; TRT: 9%), with no difference between groups (P = 0.08-0.94). Emotional aspect significantly increased by 20% (P = 0.04) in HST and 50% (P = 0.04) in TRT. CONCLUSION: Both TRT and HST are able to promote improvements in functional performance in the elderly with greater in strength gains for TRT. Therefore, exercise professionals could choose based on individual characteristics and preferences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings provide important insights into how health care professionals can prescribe HST and TRT, considering efficiency, safety, and individual aspects.

Ursolic acid has no additional effect on muscle strength and mass in active men undergoing a high-protein diet and resistance training: A double-blind and placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ursolic acid (UA) is thought to have an anabolic effect on muscle mass in humans. This study sought to compare the effects of UA and a placebo on muscle strength and mass in young men undergoing resistance training (RT) and consuming a high-protein diet. METHODS: A clinical, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted for 8 weeks. The Control + RT group (CON n = 12) received 400 mg/d of placebo, and the UA + RT group (UA n = 10) received 400 mg/d of UA. Both groups ingested ~1.6 g/kg of protein and performed the same RT program. Pre- and post-intervention, both groups were evaluated for anthropometric measures, body composition, food intake and muscle strength. RESULTS: Food intake remained unchanged throughout the study. Both groups showed significant increases in body weight (CON Δ: 2.12 ± 0.47 kg, p = 0.001 vs. UA Δ: 2.24 ± 0.67 kg, p = 0.009), body mass index (BMI) (CON Δ: 0.69 ± 0.15 kg/m2, p = 0.001 vs. UA Δ: 0.75 ± 0.23, p = 0.011) and thigh circumference (CON Δ: 1.50 ± 0.36, p = 0.002 vs. UA Δ: 2.46 ± 0.50 cm, p = 0.003 vs. UA 1.84 ± 0.82 cm, p = 0.001), with differences between them. There was no difference in the arm, waist and hip circumferences. Both groups showed increases in muscle mass (CON Δ: 1.12 ± 0.26, p = 0.001 vs. UA Δ: 1.08 ± 0.28 kg, p = 0.004), but there was no significant difference between them. Additionally, there were significant increases in the one repetition maximum test in the bench press and in the 10-repetition maximum test in the knee extension (CON Δ: 5.00 ± 2.09, p = 0.036 vs. UA Δ: 7.8 ± 1.87, p = 0.340 and CON Δ: 3.58 ± 1.15, p = 0.010 vs. UA Δ: 1.20 ± 0.72, p = 0.133), respectively, with no difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: Ursolic acid had no synergic effect on muscle strength and mass in response to RT in physically active men consuming a high-protein diet. BRAZILIAN CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY (REBEC): RBR-76tbqs.

Effects of Creatine Supplementation on Lower-Limb Muscle Endurance Following an Acute Bout of Aerobic Exercise in Young Men.

We aimed to determine whether creatine supplementation influences lower-limb muscle endurance following an acute bout of aerobic exercise (AE) in young healthy men. Using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design, 11 men (26.5 ± 6.2 years, body mass index 26.6 ± 2.1 kg/m2),with 12 months of experience in strength training (three times/week) and AE (two times/week) were randomized to receive creatine (20 g/day plus 20 g/day maltodextrin) and placebo (40 g/day maltodextrin) for 7 days, separated by a washout period of 14 days, before performing an acute bout of AE (30 min on treadmill at 80% baseline maximum velocity) which was followed by four sets of bilateral leg extension endurance exercise using a 10-repetition maximum protocol (10 RM)). There was a significant decrease in the number of repetitions performed in the third (Placebo: -20% vs. Creatine: -22%) and fourth set (Placebo: -22% vs. Creatine: -28%) compared with the first set (p < 0.05), with no differences between creatine and placebo. Additionally, no differences were observed between creatine and placebo for the total number of repetitions performed across all four sets (Placebo: 33.9 ± 7.0 vs. Creatine: 34.0 ± 6.9 repetitions, p = 0.97), nor for total work volume (Placebo: 3030.5 ± 1068.2 vs. Creatine: 3039.8 ± 1087.7 kg, p = 0.98). Short-term creatine supplementation has no effect on lower-limb muscle endurance following an acute bout of aerobic exercise in trained young men.