↓ Skip to main content

Effects of resistance training, detraining, and retraining on strength and functional capacity in elderly

Overview of attention for article published in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 1,868)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
73 X users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
Title
Effects of resistance training, detraining, and retraining on strength and functional capacity in elderly
Published in
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40520-018-0970-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raphael Luiz Sakugawa, Bruno Monteiro Moura, Lucas Bet da Rosa Orssatto, Ewertton de Souza Bezerra, Eduardo Lusa Cadore, Fernando Diefenthaeler

Abstract

The interruption of training (detraining) results in loss of the gains acquired. Partial retention could occur after detraining, and variation in training stimuli may optimize retraining adaptations. To evaluate the effect of a resistance-retraining program on strength and functional capacity performance after a detraining period. Ten elderly men and women (63-68 years) completed 12 weeks of training, 16 weeks of detraining, and 8 weeks of retraining. One-repetition maximum (1-RM) at 45° leg press, maximum isometric knee extension torque, rate of torque development (RTD), 30-s sit-to-stand, timed up and go, and stair ascent and descent tests were assessed. The 1-RM increased after training (p < 0.01) and remained higher after a detraining period when compared to pre-training (p < 0.01). Post-retraining values were not different from post-training period (p > 0.05). For RTD and 30-s sit-to-stand, there was an increase after retraining when compared to pre-training values (p < 0.05). For timed up and go and stair ascent and descent, reductions were observed between pre-training and post-training periods (p < 0.05), only timed up and go increased after the detraining period (p < 0.01). After 16 weeks of detraining, the maximum strength did not return to baseline levels, and a retraining with explosive strength exercise sessions can recover maximum strength gains, RTD, and functional capacity at the same level obtained after a detraining period. The inclusion of an explosive strength session in retraining period improves RTD and 30-s sit-to-stand performance and can accelerate the recovery of strength after a detraining period.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 175 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 18%
Student > Master 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Researcher 10 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 3%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 64 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 59 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 5%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 76 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,017,609
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#50
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,155
of 342,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,434 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.