An interventional study of Higher Intensity Resistance Training and Lower Intensity Resistance Training in Frail Elderly, sponsored by McMaster University. Completed at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 60 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-04-18.
Sponsored by McMaster University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
Exercise programs, particularly resistance training programs using weights or resistance bands, can help improve or maintain mobility and function in older adults, preserve independent living, and improve quality of life. This study will examine the safety and feasibility of a novel, higher intensity resistance training program in older adults, and compare the effects with standard care, lower intensity training. It is anticipated that both programs will be safe and feasible, but higher-intensity training will lead to greater improvements in quality of life, mobility and strength, which are part of the physical phenotype definition of frailty and markers of mobility disability.
It is critically important to identify effective strategies to reduce the risk and impact of mobility disability and frailty in older adults. Exercise, particularly resistance training (RT), has the potential to influence a person's ability to navigate around their environment and impact the components of the frailty phenotype which include weakness, physical inactivity, and slowness. Higher training intensities have been used with athletes and younger adults to achieve greater gains in strength, but the feasibility and effectiveness is less established in older persons who exhibit preclinical disability, or are at-risk for mobility decline where conservative protocols are typically employed. Higher intensity RT may be an innovative and effective strategy in preclinical disability pre-frailty to reduce the risk and impact of future frailty and mobility decline.
This study aims to examine: 1) the safety and feasibility of a 12-week higher intensity RT protocol in community dwelling older adults at risk for mobility disability, and 2) the effects of this protocol on walking, balance, muscle strength, quality of life compared to lower intensity RT
It is hypothesized that the higher intensity RT: 1) is safe and feasible for at-risk community-dwelling older adults, 2) more effective in improving walking, balance, muscle strength, and quality of life than lower intensity RT
McMaster University is the lead sponsor of 720 studies on the registry; 124 are open to participants now.
Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 2 (33%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants will take part in a 12-week higher-intensity resistance training protocol.
Behavioral: Higher Intensity Resistance Training
Participants will take part in a 12-week lower-intensity resistance training protocol that will serve as the active comparator.
Behavioral: Lower Intensity Resistance Training
Bi-weekly resistance training for 12 weeks using multi-joint movements involving both upper and lower extremities (e.g squats). Participants will perform 3-5 sets of 3-6 repetitions at Rating of Perceived Exertion 8/10. The intervention will be administered by a Physical Therapist or trained fitness professional.
Also known as: HEaRT
Bi-weekly resistance training for 12 weeks using single-joint movements involving both upper and lower extremities (e.g leg extension). Participants will perform 3-5 sets of 8-10 repetitions at Rating of Perceived Exertion 5/10. The intervention will be administered by a Physical Therapist or trained fitness professional.
Also known as: LRT
Occurrence of adverse events
Time frame: Entire duration of the intervention (12 weeks)
Attendance rate
Time frame: Entire duration of the intervention (12 weeks)
Attrition rate
Time frame: Entire duration of the intervention (12 weeks)
Timed Up and Go Test
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
Short Physical Performance Battery
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
Berg Balance Scale
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
Activities-Specific Balance Confidence scale
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
Muscle strength
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
Short Form-36
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
Caregiver Burden Interview Short Form
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
Healthcare Utilization Questionnaires
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
Peripheral Quantitative Computed Tomography analysis of muscle and bone quality
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
EQ-5D-5L
Time frame: 0, 12, 20 weeks
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
McMaster University