Skip to main content
. 2009 Jul 8;2009(3):CD002759. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002759.pub2

Pollock 1991.

Methods RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and aerobic training group 
 Method of randomisation: rank ordered then randomly stratified into 3 groups, with the restriction that more would be assigned to training groups 
 Assessor blinding: no 
 Participant blinding: no 
 Loss to Follow‐up: 8 total (4 in PRT and control) 
 Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no 
 Post‐program follow up: no, but 6 month exercise program
Participants Location: USA 
 N = 57 in total (36 in PRT and control) 
 Sample: sedentary men and women 
 Age: mean 72 years 
 Inclusion criteria: free from overt evidence of coronary heart disease or any other conditions that would limit their participation in vigorous exercise; aged 70‐79, sedentary for one year 
 Exclusion criteria: blood pressure >160/100; ECG changes or cardiac symptoms during exercise testing
Interventions PRT versus control and versus aerobic 
 1. PRT 
 Type of Ex: 5UL, 2LL, 3 Tr 
 Equipment: variable resistance machines (Nautilus) 
 Intensity: initially light to moderate, by week 14 encouraged to train to fatigue 
 Frequency: Ex3 
 Reps/Sets: 8‐12/ 1 
 Program Duration: 26 weeks 
 Setting: gym 
 Supervision: not reported 
 Adherence: 97.8% sessions attended (excluding drop‐outs), 87% stayed with program 
 2. Control Group: not reported 
 3. Aerobic Training Group: 3 sessions per week of walk/jog program for 26 weeks, aimed for duration of 35‐45min minutes at 75‐85% VO2 max by week 26
Outcomes Strength 
 VO2 max 
 Adverse events 
 Reaction time 
 Comments on adverse events: yes (a priority outcome, well‐ defined)
Notes Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Allocation concealment? Unclear risk B ‐ Unclear