Resistance Training on an Outdoor Exercise Structure Improves Lower-Body Relative Strength in Older Adults.

Improving relative strength is important for maintaining functionality with age, and outdoor exercise structures could be useful to facilitate this. A total of 29 adults aged 65+ participated in a non-randomized crossover study with a 6-week control followed by a 6-week resistance training intervention on an outdoor exercise structure (3x/week). Relative strength (predicted maximal leg press/lower body lean mass [Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry]) and physical function variables were measured at baseline, post-control, and post-intervention. Represented as median (25th-75th), lower body relative strength improved from 7.91 (7.01-9.35) post-control to 8.50 (7.99-9.72) post-intervention (p = .002) in study completers (n = 17). Maximum leg press (p = .002), 30-second chair stand (p < .001), one-leg stance (p = .011), and maximum chest press (p = .009) also improved significantly during the intervention. There were no significant changes in aerobic activity, grip strength, lean mass, or muscle power. This study demonstrates that there could be potential relative strength benefits associated with the use of outdoor exercise structures in older adults.

Convergent validity and inter-rater reliability of a lower-limb multimodal physical function assessment in community-dwelling older adults.

Introduction: Lower-limb physical function declines with age and contributes to a greater difficulty in performing activities of daily living. Existing assessments of lower-limb function assess one dimension of movement in isolation or are not time-efficient, which discourages their use in community and clinical settings. We aimed to address these limitations by assessing the inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of a new multimodal functional lower-limb assessment (FLA). Methods: FLA consists of five major functional movement tasks (rising from a chair, walking gait, stair ascending/descending, obstacle avoidance, and descending to a chair) performed consecutively. A total of 48 community-dwelling older adults (32 female participants; age: 71 ± 6 years) completed the FLA as well as timed up-and-go, 30-s sit-to-stand, and 6-min walk tests. Results: Slower FLA time was correlated with a slower timed up-and-go test (ρ = 0.70), less sit-to-stand repetitions (ρ = -0.65), and a shorter distance in the 6-min walk test (ρ = -0.69; all, p < 0.001). Assessments by two raters were not different (12.28 ± 3.86 s versus 12.29 ± 3.83 s, p = 0.98; inter-rater reliability ρ = 0.993, p < 0.001) and were statistically equivalent (via equivalence testing). Multiple regression and relative weights analyses demonstrated that FLA times were most predicted by the timed up-and-go performance [adjusted R 2 = 0.75; p < 0.001; raw weight 0.42 (95% CI: 0.27, 0.53)]. Discussion: Our findings document the high inter-rater reliability and moderate-strong convergent validity of the FLA. These findings warrant further investigation into the predictive validity of the FLA for its use as an assessment of lower-limb physical function among community-dwelling older adults.

Fear of Falls Following an Online Exercise Program for Aging Adults.

Individuals who participate in regular exercise tend to report a lower fear of falling; however, it is unknown if this fear can be reduced following an online fall prevention exercise program. The main purpose of this study was to test if offering a peer-led fall prevention exercise program online reduced the fear of falling and if this potential improvement was greater than when the program was offered in person. The secondary objectives were to describe participants' characteristics when participating online, the rate of falls and the context in which falls occur. A total of 85 adults aged 69.0 ± 7.8 years participated in the program offered online (n = 44) and in-person (n = 41). No significant differences in fear of falling before and after participation in the program were reported for either group: online (20.7 ± 5.1-21.8 ± 5.5) and in-person (20.6 ± 5.1-21.2 ± 5.3). Online participants reported a greater proportion of falls (n = 9; 20.5% vs. n = 4; 9.8%; p = .14), mostly occurring outdoors (n = 7) (77.8). A properly designed study is needed to test if the rate of falls is greater when an exercise program is offered online.