| Methods |
RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: N/A
Post‐program follow‐up: no |
| Participants |
Location: Spain
N = 10 in PRT, N = 11 in endurance training
Sample: healthy men
Age: mean 64.8 years (SD = 2.6)
Inclusion criteria: had not participated in regular resistance/endurance training or competitive sports for the last 5 years
Exclusion criteria: cardiovascular, neuromuscular, arthritic, pulmonary, other debilitating diseases |
| Interventions |
PRT versus endurance training (aerobic)
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4LL/3UL
Equipment: resistance machines (Technogym)
Intensity: first 8 weeks, 50‐70% of 1 RM; last 8 weeks, 70‐80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: first 8 weeks: 10‐15/3; last 8 weeks: 5‐6/3‐5
Duration: 16 weeks + 4 weeks for baseline testing
Setting: training facility
Supervision: full by researchers
Adherence: at least 90% to be considered compliant and remain in the study
2. Endurance training group: mean age =68.2 years, endurance cycling at 60 rpm, the work‐rate level was increased or decreased accordingly |
| Outcomes |
Muscle strength (1RM‐half squat)
Cycling test
Comments on adverse events: no |
| 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 |
