COVID-19 in older adult residents in nursing homes: factors associated with mortality and impact on functional capacity.

Objective: To verify if the functional capacity prior to COVID-19 infection was different between Survivor and Non-survivor older adults. Also, to verify the effect of the isolation period after COVID-19 infection on the functional capacity of the Survivors residing in nursing homes. Materials and methods: Older adults residing in nursing homes were evaluated 30 days before the COVID-19 outbreak at the site for (i) general health characteristics (obtained from medical records); (ii) gait speed, handgrip strength and 30-s sit-to-stand; (iii) sarcopenia and (iv) estimated muscle mass. Comparisons were made between Survivors and Non-survivors of COVID-19. After the isolation, the Survivors performed the assessments again. Results: Twenty-one (81 ± 9.3 years) participants tested positive for COVID-19 and participated in the study, 12 survivors. No difference was observed between Survivors and Non-survivors in any of the outcomes evaluated. However, a moderate effect size was observed for handgrip strength, with lower values for the Non-survivors group (- 16%; d = 0.53). The isolation period reduced the number of sit-to-stand repetitions with moderate effect size in the Survivors (p = 0.046, gav = 0.66). Conclusion: Although the null hypothesis analysis did not find significant differences between the groups, the effect size suggests that older adults residing in nursing homes who died from COVID-19 had lower handgrip strength. In the survivors, the isolation period after COVID-19 infection only negatively impacted the sit-to-stand performance.

Hip abduction machine is better than free weights to target the gluteus medius while minimizing tensor fascia latae activation.

INTRODUCTION: Changes in the lower extremities' biomechanics are associated with gluteus medius (GMed) weakness and increased tensor fascia latae (TFL) activation. OBJECTIVE: To determine which exercises produce greater GMed activity while minimizing TFL activation during the concentric and eccentric phases of three single-joint strengthening exercises. DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven males (age: 29.18 ± 4.51 years; body mass: 84.01 ± 14.48 kg; height: 1.74 ± 0.07 m; body fat: 16.34 ± 3.33%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GMed and TFL activation and activation ratio while performing ten maximal repetitions of three exercises: side-lying hip abduction (SLHA); clamshell (CLAM) and hip abductor machine (HAM). RESULTS: GMed activation was greater than TFL in all exercises in both concentric and eccentric phases. There were no differences in GMed activation between the three exercises in both phases. TFL activation was greater in SLHA compared to HAM and CLAM during both phases. In both concentric and eccentric phases, GMed:TFL ratio was greater in HAM compared to CLAM and SLHA. CONCLUSIONS: GMed had increased activation compared to TFL in all analyzed exercises. Considering GMed:TFL ratio, if the goal is to preferentially activate GMed while minimizing TFL activation, the hip abductor machine seems to be the best exercise.

Gluteus Medius and Tensor Fascia Latae muscle activation levels during multi-joint strengthening exercises

Aim: To compare the activation of GMed and TFL in four multi-joint exercises in strength training protocols and to verify if the level of muscle activation is indicated for strength gains in resistance training protocols. Methods: Eleven recreational lifters had normalized muscle activation of GMed and TFL assessed during ten maximal repetitions of four multi-joint exercises: (1) bilateral supine bridge (BiBRG); (2) bilateral supine bridge with hip abducted (BiBRG-AB); (3) unilateral supine bridge (UniBRG) and (4) single-leg squat (SLS). Results: A load of exercises was significantly greater for the BiBRG and BiBRG-AB compared to the UniBRG and SLS (p<0.001). We observed that GMed activation was significant greater compared to TFL among the four exercises (p=0.004) [BiBRG: Δ=26.2%; BiBRG-AB: Δ=27.3%; UniBRG: Δ=24.5% and SLS: Δ=18.8%]. Additionally, GMed activation was classified as moderate (<40%iMVC) and TFL activation was classified as low (<20%iMVC) in all exercises. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that GMed is more active than TFL in all analyzed exercises. However, the level of activation observed for GMed was below that recommended to strength gain in resistance training programs.(AU)