Mingyang Zhang

Context: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of concurrent strength and aerobic exercise training (CET) on cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults with physiological conditions (e.g., type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, frailty, fibromyalgia) or neurocognitive disorders (e.g., mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease [AD]). Evidence Acquisition: Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, CNKI, WanFang, and Google Scholar from inception to July 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining CET (≥4 weeks) in clinical populations, reporting global cognition via validated tools (e.g., Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE], Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]). Non-RCTs, acute interventions, healthy populations, and lack of control were excluded. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment independently using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool; discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level II. Results: A total of 22 RCTs involving 3463 participants (age range, 43.9-92.1 years; 48% female) were included. Of these, 714 participants had physiological disorders (e.g., diabetes, fibromyalgia, frailty) and 2442 had neurocognitive disorders (e.g., dementia, AD). CET significantly improved global cognitive function compared with controls (SMD = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.50; P < 0.001; I ² = 67%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated significant improvements in both physiological disorders (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.49; P < 0.01) and neurocognitive disorders (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.55; P < 0.01). No publication bias was detected (Egger’s test P = 0.62). Conclusion: CET is an effective nonpharmacological intervention for enhancing cognitive health in middle-aged and older adults with physiological or neurocognitive disorders. Strength-of-Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): Moderate.

Zhang, M, Chen, L, Dai, J, Yang, Q, Huang, Z, He, J, Ji, H, Sun, J, and Li, D. Application of a new monitoring variable: Effects of power loss during squat training on strength gains and sports performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(4): 656–670, 2024—This study aimed to compare the effects of power loss (PL) autoregulated volume (PL10 and PL20) with standardized fixed-load (FL) prescription on strength, sports performance, and lean body mass (LBM). Thirty-five female basketball players from a sports college were randomly assigned to 3 experimental groups (PL10, n = 12; PL20, n = 12; and FL, n = 11, respectively) that performed a resistance training (RT) program with wave-like periodization for 10 weeks using the back squat exercise. Assessments performed before (Pre) and after (Post) intervention included assessed 1 repetition maximum (1RM), body composition, 20-m sprint (T20M), change of direction (COD), and jump performance, including countermovement jump with arm swing, maximum vertical jump, and reactive strength index. Three groups showed significant improvements in strength (effect size [ES]: PL10 = 2.98, PL20 = 3.14, and FL = 1.90; p < 0.001) and jump performance (ES: PL10 = 0.74, PL20 = 1.50, and FL = 0.50; p p p p p <0.01–0.001). Moreover, PL10 resulted in similar gains to PL20 and beneficial improvements compared with FL in LBM, despite performing the least repetitions. Overall, the study indicates that power loss–based autoregulation induces greater gains in LBM and sports performance, as well as eliciting a higher efficiency dose response than standardized FL prescriptions, particularly for PL10. Therefore, incorporating PL monitoring in training programs is recommended, and further studies on power-based RT would be worthwhile.

The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on anaerobic ability, sprint performance, and jumping ability. Eighteen female basketball players from a Sport College were randomly divided into two groups: VBRT (n = 10) and PBRT (n = 8). The six-week intervention consisted of two sessions per week of free-weight back squats with linear periodization from 65% to 95%1RM. In PBRT, the weights lifted were fixed based on 1RM percentage, while in VBRT, the weights were adjusted based on individualized velocity profiles. The T-30m sprint time, relative power of countermovement jump (RP-CMJ), and Wingate test were evaluated. The Wingate test assessed peak power (PP), mean power (MP), fatigue index (FI), maximal velocity (Vmax), and total work (TW). Results showed that VBRT produced a very likely improvement in RP-CMJ, Vmax, PP, and FI (Hedges’ g = 0.55, 0.93, 0.68, 0.53, respectively, p < 0.01). On the other hand, PBRT produced a very likely improvement in MP (Hedges’ g = 0.38) and TW (Hedges’ g = 0.45). Although VBRT showed likely favorable effects in RP-CMJ, PP, and Vmax compared to PBRT (p < 0.05 for interaction effect), PBRT produced greater improvements in MP and TW (p < 0.05 for interaction effect). In conclusion, PBRT may be more effective in maintaining high-power velocity endurance, while VBRT has a greater impact on explosive power adaptations.