20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A Comparison of Bone‐Targeted Exercise Strategies to Reduce Fracture Risk in Middle‐Aged and Older Men with Osteopenia and Osteoporosis: LIFTMOR‐M Semi‐Randomized Controlled Trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d9384891e119">The Lifting Intervention For Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation for Men (LIFTMOR-M) trial examined efficacy and safety of two novel exercise programs in older men with low BMD. Men with low hip and/or LS BMD were randomized to high-intensity progressive resistance and impact training (HiRIT) or machine-based isometric axial compression (IAC) and compared to a nonrandomized matched control (CON). Outcomes included: hip and LS BMD; calcaneal ultrasound parameters; anthropometry; body composition; function (timed up-and-go [TUG], five-times sit-to-stand [FTSTS]); back extensor strength (BES); leg extensor strength (LES); compliance and adverse events. Ninety-three men (67.1 ± 7.5 years; 82.1 ± 11.6 kg; 175.2 ± 6.7 cm; FN T-score -1.6 ± 0.6) were randomized to HiRIT (n = 34) or IAC (n = 33), or allocated to CON (n = 26). HiRIT improved trochanteric BMD (2.8 ± 0.8%; -0.1 ± 0.9%, p = .024), LS BMD (4.1 ± 0.7%; 0.9 ± 0.8%, p = .003), BUA (2.2 ± 0.7%; -0.8 ± 0.9%, p = .009), stiffness index (1.6 ± 0.9%; -2.0 ± 1.1%, p = .011), lean mass (1.5 ± 0.8%; -2.4 ± 0.9%, p = .002), TUG, FTSTS, BES, and LES (p &lt; .05) compared with CON. IAC improved lean mass (0.8 ± 0.8%; -2.4 ± 0.9%, p = .013) and FTSTS (-4.5 ± 1.6%; 7.5 ± 2.0%, p &lt; .001) compared with CON. HiRIT improved LS BMD (4.1 ± 0.7%; 2.0 ± 0.7%, p = .039), stiffness index (1.6 ± 0.9%; -1.3 ± 0.9%, p = .025), and FTSTS (-10.7 ± 1.6%; -4.5 ± 1.7%, p = .010) compared with IAC. Exercise compliance was high (HiRIT 77.8 ± 16.6%; IAC 78.5 ± 14.8%, p = .872). There were five minor adverse events (HiRIT, 2; IAC, 3). HiRIT was well-tolerated and improved bone, function and fracture risk more than CON or IAC. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. </p>

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Contributors
          (View ORCID Profile)
          (View ORCID Profile)
          Journal
          Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
          J Bone Miner Res
          Wiley
          0884-0431
          1523-4681
          August 2020
          March 30 2020
          August 2020
          : 35
          : 8
          : 1404-1414
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Menzies Health Institute QueenslandGriffith University Gold Coast Australia
          [2 ]School of Allied Health SciencesGriffith University Gold Coast Australia
          [3 ]The Bone Clinic Brisbane Australia
          Article
          10.1002/jbmr.4008
          32176813
          ff806fdd-03eb-4610-9385-d913697b094d
          © 2020

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

          http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          Related Documents Log