O primeiro apresentou melhora no sentar/levantar (p=0,022), no equilíbrio com pés seguidos (p=0,039) e enfileirados (p=0,001). RESULTADOS: A média da idade dos pacientes no Grupo Resistido foi de 68,8 anos e de 69,1 no Grupo Aeróbio.
![why the people like aerobick why the people like aerobick](https://post.healthline.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/legs_running_track-1200x628-facebook1-1200x628.jpg)
No aeróbio, 50 compareceram na primeira avaliação e 12 permaneceram até a terceira.
![why the people like aerobick why the people like aerobick](https://worldwideinterweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/fat-flash-cosplay-1.jpg)
No resistido, 46 compareceram na primeira avaliação e 20 permaneceram até a terceira. Foram randomizados 96 participantes, 46 no Grupo Resistido e 50 no Grupo Aeróbio. A avaliação funcional (tempo 0,6 e 12 meses) foi realizada pelos seguintes parâmetros: Short Physical Performance Battery (tempo de sentar/levantar, velocidade da marcha e equilíbrio), flexibilidade, teste de caminhada de 6 minutos. MÉTODOS: Ensaio clínico, randomizado, prospectivo, com idosos sedentários, sem contraindicações para atividade física, distribuídos em dois grupos: o Grupo Resistido realizou 6 exercícios por treino, 2 vezes por semana e o Grupo Aeróbio realizou atividade por 30 minutos, 2 vezes por semana.
![why the people like aerobick why the people like aerobick](https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/newscms/2017_36/2144546/170905-working-out-group-ac-512p.jpg)
OBJETIVO: Comparar os efeitos das atividades físicas resistida e aeróbia sobre a aptidão física e funcionalidade de idosos em dois programas de atividade supervisionada: exercícios resistidos e caminhada. Motor activity Pliability Postural balance Muscular strength Resistance training Aged Health of the elderly No statistical difference was seen when groups was compared in the short physical performance battery, flexibility, and six-minute walking test. CONCLUSION: Both groups showed improvement in physical fitness. Both groups had improvement in the six-minute walking test, but no significant improvement was seen in the Aerobic Exercise Group (p=0.033). Concerning flexibility, the Resistance Training Group had improvement (p=0.001), whereas in the Aerobic Exercise Group, no significant difference was seen (p=0.359). The second showed a statistical difference in speed and balance with the feet lined up and the feet together (p=0.008 p=0.02 and p=0.043, respectively). The Resistance Training Group showed improvement in the sit/stand (p=0.022), balance with feet in a row (p=0.039) and queued (p=0.001). RESULTS: Mean age was 68.8 years in the Resistance Training Group and 69.1 years in the Aerobic Exercise Group.
![why the people like aerobick why the people like aerobick](https://images.emedicinehealth.com/images/slideshow/top-10-fitness-facts-s1-photo-of-group-exercise-in-gym.jpg)
In the Aerobic Exercise Group, 50 attended the first assessment and 12 attended until the third assessment. In the Resistance Training Group, 46 attended the first assessment and 20 attended until the third section. We randomly selected 96 patients: 46 in the Resistance Training Group and 50 in the Aerobic Exercise Group. Functional assessment (time 0,6 and 12 months) was measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery (time to sit or stand, gait speed, and balance), flexibility test, and the six-minute walking test. Participants were divided into two groups: group one performed 6 exercises of resistance training twice a week, and group two participated in walking activity for 30 minutes twice a week.
WHY THE PEOPLE LIKE AEROBICK TRIAL
METHODS: This study is a randomized, prospective clinical trial composed of sedentary elderly people who did not have contraindications to exercise. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of physical fitness and function on older adults in two programs of supervised exercise activity: resistance training and aerobic exercise.