Annals of Applied Sport Science

Background. Depression is one of the major public health concerns among older adults. Participation in preferred leisure activities has been found to be effective for reducing the symptoms of depression among this population.
Objectives. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the association between leisure participation and depression.
Methods. A systematic review of PubMed, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar yielded 12 studies published between 2010 and 2020 (total participants = 10,681) that met the criteria for a meta-analysis. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (CMA) was used to conduct the data analysis, and the correlation coefficient r was used as the effect size.
Results. The average effect size across all 12 studies was -.221 (Fisher’s Z = -5.696, P < .001), indicating that participation in leisure activities had a significant negative effect on depression for the elderly. In addition, the Q-value (116.003, P < .001) and the I-squared value (90.517) proved substantial heterogeneity between the 12 studies in the meta-analysis. The symmetrical funnel plot produced by the CMA analysis demonstrated a possible absence of publication bias.
Conclusion. This meta-analytic study reinforced the effectiveness of leisure participation in reducing the symptoms of depression among older adults.

Background. Enhancing balance function is crucial for fall prevention and maintaining quality of life among the elderly.
Objectives. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of balance training using natural rubber pads compared to Airex® foam pads and firm surfaces in healthy older adults.
Methods. Ninety healthy older adults aged 55-65 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: training on natural rubber pads, Airex® foam pads, or firm surfaces. Participants completed a 4-week balance training program. Balance performance was assessed before and after the intervention using the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Thai Falls Efficacy Scale-International (Thai FES-I), Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), One-Leg Standing Test (OLST), Chair Stand Test (CST), and Tandem-Stance Test (TST). Data were analyzed using a two-way mixed-model ANOVA to evaluate differences in balance performance among the three groups.
Results. The natural rubber pad group exhibited significant improvements in balance performance across all assessment tools (BBS, Thai FES-I, TUGT, OLST, CST, and TST) after the 4-week intervention (p<0.05). Notably, this group performed better in the TUGT and CST than the Airex® foam pad group (p<0.05).
Conclusion. The findings suggest that natural rubber pads are an effective and cost-efficient alternative to Airex® foam pads for balance training in healthy older adults. The natural rubber pads provided an unstable yet supportive training environment, leading to significant improvements in balance performance compared to firm surfaces and offering benefits comparable to those of commercial foam pads, potentially at a lower cost.

Background. Recent evidence suggests that multi-component exercises, especially those involving a dual-task of both motor and cognitive elements, are superior to single-task methods by concurrently stimulating both skill sets. However, the optimal movement velocity within these dual-task programs remains unclear.
Objectives. This research aimed to compare the effect of high-velocity dual-task resistance training (HVDRT) and low-velocity dual-task resistance training (LVDRT) on the functional fitness of older adults.
Methods. Forty-five participants were randomly assigned to HVDRT, LVDRT, or a Control (Con) group (n=15 each). Functional fitness was assessed using the 30-second Chair Stand Test, Arm Curl Test, 6-Minute Walk Test, Chair Sit-and-Reach Test, Back Scratch Test, and 8-Foot Up-and-Go Test. The 8-week training program for HVDRT and LVDRT comprised 24 sessions, each lasting 60–70 minutes.
Results. Mixed-model ANOVA revealed that both HVDRT and LVDRT had a significant effect compared to the control group on upper body strength, aerobic endurance, and balance and agility (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in lower body strength, lower body flexibility, and upper body flexibility between groups (p > 0.05). Furthermore, HVDRT demonstrated a significantly greater effect on upper body strength compared to LVDRT (p=0.038), but no other significant differences were found between the two training velocities.
Conclusion. Both HVDRT and LVDRT significantly improve specific factors of functional fitness in older adults compared to a control group. While HVDRT led to greater increases in upper body strength, there is no substantial difference between the two training velocities for most functional outcomes. Therefore, trainers can utilize either method to enhance functional fitness in this population, though high-velocity movements may provide additional benefits for specific strength parameters.