Spinal-flexibility-plus-aerobic versus aerobic-only training: Effects of arandomized clinical trial on function in at-risk older adults

Citation
Mc. Morey et al., Spinal-flexibility-plus-aerobic versus aerobic-only training: Effects of arandomized clinical trial on function in at-risk older adults, J GERONT A, 54(7), 1999, pp. M335-M342
Citations number
25
Categorie Soggetti
Public Health & Health Care Science","Medical Research General Topics
Journal title
JOURNALS OF GERONTOLOGY SERIES A-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND MEDICAL SCIENCES
ISSN journal
10795006 → ACNP
Volume
54
Issue
7
Year of publication
1999
Pages
M335 - M342
Database
ISI
SICI code
1079-5006(199907)54:7<M335:SVATEO>2.0.ZU;2-8
Abstract
Background As exercise is associated with favorable health outcomes, impair ed older adults may benefit from specialized exercise interventions to achi eve gains in function. The purpose of this study was to determine the added benefit of a spinal flexibility-plus-aerobic exercise intervention versus aerobic-only exercise on function among community-dwelling elders. Methods. We employed a randomized clinical trial consisting of 3 months of supervised exercise followed by 6 months of home-based exercise with teleph one follow-up. A total of 210 impaired males and females over age 64 enroll ed in this study. Of these, 134 were randomly assigned to either spinal fle xibility-plus-aerobic exercise or aerobic-only exercise, with 116 individua ls completing the study. Primary outcomes obtained at baseline, after 3 mon ths of supervised exercise, and after 6 months of home-based exercise inclu ded: axial rotation, maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2)max); functional reach, ti med-bed-mobility; and the Physical Function Scale (PhysFunction) of the Med ical Outcomes Study SF-36. Results. Differences between the two interventions were minimal. Overall ch ange scores for both groups combined indicated significant improvement far: axial rotation (p = .0011), VO(2)max (p = .0001), and PhysFunction (p = .0 016). Secondary improvements were noted for overall health (p = .0025) and reduced symptoms (p = .0008). Differences between groups were significant o nly for VO(2)max (p = .0014) at 3 months with the aerobic-only group improv ing twice as much in aerobic capacity as the spinal flexibility-plus-aerobi c group. Repeated measures indicated both groups improved during the superv ised portion of the intervention but tended to return toward baseline follo wing the home-based portion of the trial. Conclusions, Gains in physical functioning and perceived overall health are obtained with moderate aerobic exercise. No differential improvements were noted for the spinal flexibility-plus-aerobic intervention.