| Methods |
RCT with people randomised to variable intensity resistance training and high‐intensity resistance training NOTE: control group participants were not randomly assigned, and are not included in this review
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 2
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no |
| Participants |
Location: USA
N = 28
Sample: healthy male and female volunteers over 60
Age: mean 67.4 years in high intensity group
Inclusion criteria: normal body mass index, free of metabolic disorders or medications that might affect energy expenditure, non‐smokers, stable weight
Exclusion criteria: not reported |
| Interventions |
PRT (high versus variable resistance) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5 UL, 2LL, 2 Tr
Equipment: resistance training machines
Intensity: high intensity group: 80% of 1RM; variable resistance group: 50%, 65%, 80% of 1RM across the 3 training days each week
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/2
Duration: 25 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: not randomly assigned, not included in this review |
| Outcomes |
Strength (1RM and isometric)
Perceived exertion and HR during daily tasks
Submaximal aerobic capacity
Comments on adverse events: no |
| Notes |
Date from high intensity PRT and variable intensity PRT were compared |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Unclear risk |
B ‐ Unclear |
