PainSci summary of Foley 2011?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★☆☆?3-star ratings are for typical studies with no more (or less) than the usual common problems. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.
Groups of study subjects in the later stages of recovery from various medical conditions did the same intense workout either one or twice per week. Another group did no exercise at all. Both exercise groups were clearly superior to none, but there was no difference between exercising once and twice weekly:
The overall finding of no significant differences between the two intervention groups for all outcomes measured gives support to the effectiveness of once-a-week exercise in maintaining outcomes at 3 months post rehabilitation. Further research is warranted given the once-a-week exercise intervention should cost less, had higher compliance and was nominated as the preferred exercise frequency by most of the participants.
~ Paul Ingraham
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether high-intensity, progressive gym-based exercise performed once a week is as effective as twice weekly for maintaining both subjective and objective outcomes in older adults post discharge from a metropolitan day rehabilitation centre (DRC).
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Community-based exercise centre for older adults, located in Metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia. Participants 21 men and 85 women who completed the DRC programme were assessed and randomly allocated to a study group.
INTERVENTION: The two experimental interventions were gym-based exercise programmes (including resistance, aerobic, flexibility and balance training) varying only in frequency of delivery: either once or twice a week, directly compared with usual care (control).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Lower limb strength (one-repetition maximum), balance (Berg Balance Scale), physical function (gait speed, 30-s chair stand test, timed up and go test (primary outcome) and 6-min walk test), self-reported pain (Glasgow Pain Questionnaire), activities of daily living (Barthel Index and Older Americans Resources and Services Multidimensional Functional Assessment Questionnaire), perceived benefits of and barriers to exercise (Exercise Benefits Barriers Scale), quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life Questionnaire) and exercise frequency preference.
RESULTS: Most of the outcomes (69%, 11/16) were maintained over the intervention period with no significant group effects detected between the two intervention groups or compared to the control group. Physical activity levels recorded in the control group showed a significant proportion of participants were actively exercising once weekly. A per-protocol analysis was undertaken to take this potential contamination effect into account. This showed that the control group participants, who did not exercise, did not maintain outcomes to the extent of the intervention groups, with significant group-by-time effects detected between the two intervention groups and the control group. Most of all participants (66%, 62/94) nominated once a week as their preferred exercise frequency.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall finding of no significant differences between the two intervention groups for all outcomes measured gives support to the effectiveness of once-a-week exercise in maintaining outcomes at 3 months post rehabilitation. Further research is warranted given the once-a-week exercise intervention should cost less, had higher compliance and was nominated as the preferred exercise frequency by most of the participants.
One article on PainScience.com cites Foley 2011 as a source:
- PS Strength Training Frequency — Less is more than enough: go to the gym less frequently but still gain strength fast enough for anyone but a bodybuilder
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.
- Incidence of Spontaneous Resorption of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis. Zhong 2017 Pain Physician.
- How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Soligard 2016 Br J Sports Med.
- Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for migraine: a three-armed, single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial. Chaibi 2016 Eur J Neurol.