Table 4 RT studies in obesity/sarcopenic obesity
From: Resistance Training and Weight Loss in Older Adults: A Scoping Review
Study | Exercise protocol | WL-related outcome (s) | Feasibility/tolerability |
|---|---|---|---|
Avila et al. [28] | Frequency: 3x/wk for 10 weeks Modality: selectorized resistance exercise machines (six upper and lower body; 4 sets × 8–12 repetitions) + stretching | Significant reductions relative to baseline were observed in BM (− 3.3 + 0.8 kg, p < 0.001) and FM (− 4.1 + 0.9 kg, p < 0.001) in the DASH + RT group, while significant reductions in BM were observed in the DASH-only group (− 1.7 + 0.9 kg, p = 0.044). Results support existing knowledge that exercise + diet approaches to WL are generally more effective than diet-only approaches | Dropouts: 1 (96% adherence) AEs: 1 × minor hip extensor strain Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
Balachandran et al. [32] | Frequency: 2x/wk for 15 weeks Modality: 5 lower body and 6 upper body pneumatic exercise machines (3 sets of 10–12 repetitions using 70% of their 1RM) | No significant between or within-group differences were observed on any body composition outcome measure | Dropouts: 1 Adherence to intervention: 85% AEs: 1 × shoulder pain due to pre-existing injury Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
Beavers et al. [29] | Frequency: 4x/wk (2 × upper body, 2 × lower body) for 18 months Modality: eight selectorized resistance exercise machines (3 sets of 10–12 repetitions) | Total BM loss was greatest when WL was combined with exercise (WL: − 5.7 + 0.7 kg, WL + AT: − 8.5 + 0.7 kg, WL + RT: − 8.7 + 0.7 kg; p < 0.01). LM loss was greatest in WL + AT (− 1.6 + 0.3 kg, − 3.1%) compared with WL + RT (− 0.8 + 0.3 kg, − 1.5%) or WL (− 1.0 + 0.3 kg; − 2.0%); both p = 0.02. Results confirm existing literature WL + RT is preferable to WL + AT with respect to exercise aimed at improving body composition in obese and overweight older adults | Dropouts: 14 (17%) AEs: 2 × dropout due to medical complication Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
Bocalini et al. [30] | Frequency: 3x/wk for 12 weeks Modality: whole body RT using elastic bands and free weights | Significant post-intervention reductions were observed in BM (overweight: − 4.5 ± 1.0%, obese: − 8.0 ± 0.8%), %BF (via skinfold analysis; overweight: − 11.0 ± 2.2%, obese: − 21.4 ± 2.1%) and FM (overweight: − 16.1 ± 3.2%, obese: − 31.2 ± 3.0%). No significant body composition changes were observed in participants with a healthy baseline BMI (18.5–24.9 kg/m^2). Results support existing literature regarding the beneficial effect of RT in obese and overweight women | Dropouts: 2 AEs: 0 Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
Brochu et al. [15] | Frequency: 3x/wk for 6 months Modality: Seven exercises targeting the whole body (leg press, chest press; lateral pull downs; shoulder press; arm curls, triceps extensions). 2–3 sets (15 repetitions, 65% 1RM) per exercise in Phase 1 progressing to 3–4 sets (10–12 repetitions, 75% 1RM) per exercise in Phase 4 | Both CR and CR + RT were found to facilitate significant improvements in BM, %FM (via DEXA), and total FM. Results reinforce the complementary role exercise and diet play in healthy weight loss and upper limit of RT-alone to effect body composition | Dropouts: 30 (21.9%) AEs: 3 Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR Adherence to intervention: see Table 3 |
Campbell et al. [10] | Frequency: 3x/wk for 16 weeks Modality: Pneumatic resistance exercise machines targeting the whole body (2–3 sets of 8–12 repetitions per exercise @ approx. 80% 1RM) | RT did not lead to any additional in weight loss or %BF changes compared to the non-exercising control. Results reinforce the complementary role exercise and diet play in healthy weight loss and upper limit of RT-alone to effect body composition | Dropouts: 0 AEs: NR Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
Cavalcante et al. [26] | Frequency: 2x/wk vs. 3x/wk for 12 weeks Modality: Combination of machines and free weights targeting whole body muscle groups (one set of 10–15 repetitions per exercise) | Both exercise frequencies (2 × weekly, 3 × weekly) led to significant (p < 0.05) reductions in %BF (–1.7%, –2.7%, respectively; via DEXA) over the course of the study. No significant changes in BM were observed in either RT group or the non-exercising control. Results suggest 2 days per week may be the optimal RT frequency for obese older women | Dropouts: 4 (9.5%) AEs: NR Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
Chen et al. [33] | Frequency: 2x/wk (Week 1–8), 0x/wk (Week 9–12) Modality: Selectorized weight training machines targeting large systemic muscle groups (shoulder press, bicep curl, triceps curl, bench press, deadlift, leg swing, squat, standing row, unilateral row, and split front squat) at 60–70% 1RM (three sets of 8–12 repetitions) | Total body weight and FM significantly lower than non-exercising control at Weeks 8 and 12 (p < 0.05). No significant differences in any body composition measure at study conclusion between RT-only group and AT-only and AT-AT combined groups | Dropouts: 7 (31.8%) AEs: NR Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
Cunha et al. [27] | Frequency: 3x/wk for 12 weeks Modality: Eight selectorized resistance exercise machines targeting whole-body muscle groups (either 1 set or 3 sets of 10–15 repetitions per exercise, depending on intervention group) | Significant reductions in %BF (− 6.3%, p < 0.05; via DEXA) were observed in the 3 sets/exercise group but not the 1 set/exercise group or non-exercising control. Results indicate higher training volumes of RT may lead to greater improvements in body composition | Dropouts: 5 (10/8%) Adherence to intervention: ≥ 85% of the total sessions for all participants AEs: NR Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
de Oliviera Silva et al. [19] | Frequency: 2x/wk for 16 weeks Modality: Ten selectorized resistance exercise machines targeting whole-body muscle groups (3 sets per exercise progressing from 12–14 repetitions in Weeks 1–4 to 6–8 repetitions in Weeks 13–16) | Significant changes in post-intervention %BF (− 2.2%, p = 0.006; via DEXA) and FM (F = 5.22, p = 0.03) observed in non-SO group but not SO-group. Results suggest that adaptations induced by 16 weeks of RT are attenuated in elderly woman with SO, compromising improvements in adiposity indices and gains in LMM | Dropouts: 0 AEs: NR Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
Gadelha et al. [17] | Frequency: 3x/wk for 24 weeks Modality: Eight selectorized resistance exercise machines targeting whole-body muscle groups (3 sets progressing from 12 repetitions at 60% 1RM in Weeks 1–4 to 8 repetitions at 80% 1RM in weeks 9–12) | Significant increase in fat-free mass (0.6 + 0.15 kg, p < 0.01), but no change in BM or %BF (all via DEXA). Authors conclude RT is an effective approach to promote body composition alterations in older women, particularly those with SO | Dropouts: 0 AEs: NR Tolerability: NR Feasibility: NR |
Straight et al. [28] | Frequency: 2x/wk for 8 weeks Modality: Combination of free weights, elastic tubing and ankle weights targeting whole body muscle groups (three sets of 8–12 repetitions per exercise) | Exercise intervention facilitated significant improvements in BM (–1.0 ± 1.8 kg, p < 0.001), BMI (–0.4 ± 0.8 kg/m2, p < 0.001; via BIA), %FM (–0.5 ± 1.4%, p < 0.001; via BIA), and FM (–0.8 ± 1.6 kg, p < 0.001; via BIA) relative to baseline | Dropouts: 14 (12.8%) AEs: 1 (strained muscle leading to dropout Tolerability: potentially enhanced by use of RPE to monitor RT intensity [39] Feasibility: enhanced by use of portable and inexpensive RT modalities such as ankle weights, elastic tubing |
Verreijin et al. [31] | Frequency: 3x/wk for 10 weeks Modality: Squats, lunges, chest press, shoulder press, biceps curls, triceps extensions, standing rows, step-ups and crunches (2 sets per exercise progressing to 3 sets) | Significant decrease in BM and FM across all groups (p < 0.05; both via ADP), highest in exercise cohorts although the between-group difference was non-significant. There was no significant effect of high protein and exercise on change in FFM and FM, but RT significantly decreased body fat percentage with 0.8% (p = 0.048) | Dropouts: 32 (32%) Adherence to intervention: mean adherence = 2.8 ± 0.3 times/week AEs: 1 Tolerability: low considering high dropout rate Feasibility: low considering degree of exercise supervision and dietary control required |