![]() 03, all except affected-side leg).ĭespite being prescribed 40% less AT, AT+RT resulted in similar and significant improvement in mobility and VO 2peak, superior improvements in VO 2VT and muscular strength, and an almost 5-fold greater increase in lean mass compared with AT. 046), and upper- and lower-limb muscular strength ( P <. AT+RT produced greater improvements than AT alone for total body lean mass (1.23 ± 2.3 vs 0.27 ± 1.6 kg, P =. ![]() AT+RT and AT yielded similar and significant improvements in 6MWD (39.9 ± 55.6 vs 36.5 ± 63.7 m, P =. ![]() Outcomes included those related to body composition by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, mobility (6-minute walk distance, sit-to-stand, and stair climb performance), cardiorespiratory fitness (VO 2peak, oxygen uptake at the ventilatory threshold ), and muscular strength.Ī total of 68 (93.2%) participants (age, mean ± SD = 63.7 ± 11.9) completed the study. Participants (n = 73) were randomized to 6 months of AT (5 d/wk) or AT+RT (3 and 2 d/wk, respectively). To examine the effects of AT+RT versus AT on physiological outcomes in chronic stroke with motor impairments. Aerobic and resistance training (AT and RT) each have the potential to improve deficits, yet there is limited evidence on the utility of combined training. Stroke is associated with muscle atrophy and weakness, mobility deficits, and cardiorespiratory deconditioning.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |