Author(s): BROOKE-WAVELL, K., MARQUES, E.A., CALISKAN, O., FOLLAND, J.P., Institution: LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY, Country: UNITED KINGDOM, Abstract-ID: 2232

INTRODUCTION:
Resistance training (RT) has been endorsed as a key component in the prevention and management of osteoporosis and osteoarthritis, both being prevalent in postmenopausal women. Both low-load ballistic (high-velocity, propulsive; BRT) and high-load conventional (low velocity) RT (CRT) are generally acknowledged as safe and effective in improving physical fitness outcomes in young adults. However, little is known about the feasibility of BRT in older populations. Assessing the adherence and satisfaction of postmenopausal women to this RT approach compared to CRT is thus crucial for understanding its acceptability and potential for wider implementation.
METHODS:
The Resistance Exercise Programme on Risk of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis in Females (REPROOF) study was a randomised, three-arm intervention trial enrolling healthy postmenopausal women (mean age = 62.8 ± 3.8 years, mean BMI = 24.4 ± 3.4 years, with no recent RT participation), designed to compare the efficacy of BRT and CRT on several risk factors for osteoporosis and osteoarthritis relative to control. RT groups (38 BRT, 39 CRT) were prescribed similar training sessions (same exercises and repetitions, but different loads, velocities and ballistic intent) twice a week for 32 weeks. We assessed the retention rate and adherence to the RT programs via attendance records. Participants satisfaction was measured by questionnaire at the end of the study. Results are reported descriptively, and between-group comparisons of participants experiences were analysed using chi-square tests.
RESULTS:
The same proportion of participants (74%) assigned to BRT and CRT completed the study (n=28 and n=29, respectively) and had a similar adherence rate of 98%, while 78% allocated to control completed the study (n=25). Overall satisfaction with the exercise programs was high and no differences were found between groups. Almost all participants (94.7%) would recommend the programme they completed to friends and family, and the endorsement was supported mainly by perceived health benefits (57.9%). Almost all participants in BRT and CRT enjoyed the sessions (96.4 vs 96.5%) and enjoyed exercising with other people (85.7 vs 96.6%). Similarly, they reported liking the exercise (100 vs 93%), feeling interested (89.3 vs 93.1%), feeling good physically while doing it (96.4 vs 89.7%), and that it gave them a strong sense of accomplishment (92.9 vs 96.6%).
CONCLUSION:
These findings indicate that both BRT and CRT are feasible in a university research setting. Also, the success of a wider-scale application may benefit from considering some key aspects perceived by participants as positive such as trained staff, one-to-one approach, flexible training schedule, and short sessions. The high intervention adherence and participant satisfaction suggest that a BRT is as acceptable and feasible as CRT in this population.