EFFECTS OF KARATE-DŌ TRAINING IN OLDER ADULTS COGNITION: RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

The aim of this study was to verify the effectiveness of a Karate-Dō training, Wadō-ryū style, on cognition in healthy older adults. We conducted a single-blind randomized controlled trial with 33 older adults divided into Karate Group (KG) and Control Group (CG). In the pre and post-intervention, participants answered a sociodemographic questionnaire, a battery of neuropsychological tests, scales of subjective cognitive complaints, depressive and anxiety symptoms. The intervention was conducted twice per week for 12 weeks (lasting 60 minutes). The CG did not perform any physical activity or cognitive stimulation during the intervention period. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and inferences statistics. Performance comparisons in neuropsychological tests and scales of subjective cognitive complaints, within and between groups, pre and post-intervention, was performed by Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests. KG shows better results than CG in visual memory tasks, executive functions and memory complaints in post-intervention analysis. The results suggest that 3 months of Karate-Dō practice is related to a significant improvement of the cognitive functions in healthy older adults.

Keywords:
Ageing; Cognition; Combat sports; Physical activity

Authorship

Brandel José Pacheco Lopes Filho

Pontifícia Universidade Católica. Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.Pontifícia Universidade CatólicaBrazilPorto Alegre, RS, BrazilPontifícia Universidade Católica. Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6666-9637

Camila Rosa de Oliveira

Faculdade Imed. Passo Fundo-RS, Brasil.Faculdade ImedBrasilPasso Fundo, RS, BrasilFaculdade Imed. Passo Fundo-RS, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2115-604X

Maria Gabriela Valle Gottlieb

Pontifícia Universidade Católica. Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.Pontifícia Universidade CatólicaBrazilPorto Alegre, RS, BrazilPontifícia Universidade Católica. Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7694-0336

Author adress:
Brandel José Pacheco Lopes Filho. Rua Maurício Cardoso, 110/601. Email: brandelfilho@gmail.com.

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Pontifícia Universidade Católica. Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.Pontifícia Universidade CatólicaBrazilPorto Alegre, RS, BrazilPontifícia Universidade Católica. Porto Alegre-RS, Brasil.

Faculdade Imed. Passo Fundo-RS, Brasil.Faculdade ImedBrasilPasso Fundo, RS, BrasilFaculdade Imed. Passo Fundo-RS, Brasil.

Figures | Tables

Figures (1)
Tables (3)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Flow chart of the randomized controlled trial

Thumbnail

Table 1
Sociodemographic characteristics and clinical data of KG and CG.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Comparison of cognitive performance, pre and post-intervention, between groups (KG versus CG) and within groups

Thumbnail

Table 3
Comparison of subjective cognitive complaints and functional capacity, pre and post-intervention, between groups (KG versus CG) and within group

Figure 1 Flow chart of the randomized controlled trial

Source: Authors

Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics and clinical data of KG and CG.

	KG (n = 16)	CG (n = 17)	p
Age (years)	69,06±7,40	68,35±6,89	0,790
Education (years)	13,88±4,86	13,00±4,53	0,510
SES	26,81±6,39	25,94±7,34	0,581
Subjective perception of health	3,00±0,52	2,71±0,47	0,217
MMSE (score)	26,94±2,27	27,47±2,10	0,488
GDS-15 (score)	2,06±2,21	2,59±3,47	0,845
BAI (score)	5,44±6,37	3,47±3,34	0,606
Female	15	16	0,965
Male	1	1

Note: SES = Social Economic Status; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; GDS-15 = Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 points; BAI = Beck Anxiety Inventory; degrres of freedom (df) = 31; The “sex” variable was analyzed using Chi Square test. The other variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test
Source: Authors

Table 2 Comparison of cognitive performance, pre and post-intervention, between groups (KG versus CG) and within groups

	Between groups performance Pre-intervation comparison			Between groups performance Post-intervation comparison			Within group performance comparison (pre x post-intervation)
	Between groups performance Pre-intervation comparison			Between groups performance Post-intervation comparison			p		Cohen’s d
	KG	CG	p	KG	CG	p	KG	CG
Digit Span (forward)	6,94±1,84	7,29±1,93	0,557	6,94±1,00	7,41±2,15	0,763	0,842	0,593	0,000
Digit Span (backward)	4,38±1,82	5,12±1,69	0,260	5,00±1,10	5,35±1,77	0,790	0,138	0,248	-0,412
RAVLT A1-A5	43,88±7,74	43,00±11,43	0,631	49,06±8,06	43,47±11,33	0,102	≤0,001*	0,465	-0,656*
RAVLT A7	9,19±2,64	9,12±3,74	0,901	9,50±2,92	8,82±3,52	0,510	0,553	0,190	-0,111
RAVLT Recognition	9,38±5,75	11,82±3,45	0,245	10,38±4,10	11,76±3,49	0,309	0,178	0,655	-0.200
VF fonemic (FAS)	41,81±7,16	40,06±11,65	0,444	43,00±10,78	39,18±9,98	0,157	0,509	0,515	-0,130
VF semantic (animals)	17,75±4,24	18,41±5,79	0,736	18,69±4,77	19,41±6,12	0,631	0,468	0,166	-0,208
ROCF - Copy (time)	252,85±95,47	215,36±145,22	0,204	237,58±93,52	219,17±143,16	0,345	0,877	0,068	-0,162
ROCF - Copy (score)	27,97±4,86	24,50±4,65	0,025*	26,63±3,42	24,26±4,36	0,045*	0,210	0,398	0,319
ROCF - Delayed recall (time)	118,72±35,59	98,47±75,14	0,008*	112,61±32,31	97,03±77,09	0,005*	0,756	0,523	-0,180
ROCF - Delayed recall (score)	11,78±6,12	10,00±3,37	0,488	14,38±5,35	10,03±3,43	0,019*	0,041*	0,917	-0,452*
Sequential Motor Task	1,19±1,60	1,00±0,79	0,790	0,94±0,77	0,88±0,86	0,763	0,744	0,414	-0,199
VMS Forward	6,50±2,31	7,94±1,30	0,014*	7,31±1,74	8,18±1,38	0,168	0,128	0,285	-0,360
VMS Backward	5,88±2,25	6,18±1,51	0,581	6,63±1,09	6,35±1,32	0,581	0,132	0,405	-0,424
WCST-64 Conceptual responses	21,88±15,07	30,47±15,14	0,094	31,88±14,91	29,65±14,68	0,958	0,024*	0,064	-0,667*
WCST-64 Categories	1,63±1,50	1,76±1,15	0,557	2,38±1,41	1,65±1,06	0,231	0,072	0,317	-0,515
WCST-64 Perseverate errors	18,50±12,44	15,12±12,16	0,382	13,19±5,68	15,65±11,93	0,790	0,063	0,285	-0,549
WCST-64 Non perseverate errors	13,25±9,06	11,71±11,48	0,326	12,44±6,54	12,00±11,30	0,276	0,836	0,218	-0,079
WCST-64 Failure to maintain the context	0,13±0,34	1,18±1,42	0,014*	0,38±0,72	1,41±1,42	0,028*	0,234	0,102	0,444
TMT-A Time(s)	45,23±20,72	51,35±25,16	0,363	42,23±19,47	50,22±24,31	0,326	0,079	0,193	-0,149
TMT-A Errors	0,00±0,00	0,24±0,75	0,581	0,13±0,50	0,06±0,24	0,986	0,317	0,180	0,368
TMT-B Time(s)	146,98±92,74	147,61±89,50	0,631	121,39±70,71	148,33±89,33	0,292	0,017*	0,112	-0,310*
TMT-B Errors	1,31±1,54	1,35±1,41	0,817	1,00±1,03	1,41±1,54	0,533	0,609	0,739	-0,237

Note. TMT-A = Trail Making Test part A; TMT-B = Trail Making Test part B; RAVLT = Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; WCST-64 = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, 64 cards version; VF = Verbal fluence; ROCF = Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure; VMS = Visual Memory Span; deegres of freedom (df) = 31; Cohen’s d = Effect size calculated for Karate Group in within group evaluation (pre x post-intervention). It was used the Mann-Whitney U Test to between groups comparisons and the Wilcoxon Test for within group comparisons.
Source: Authors

Table 3 Comparison of subjective cognitive complaints and functional capacity, pre and post-intervention, between groups (KG versus CG) and within group

Between group performance Pre-intervention

Between group performance Post-intervention

Whitin group performance (pre x post-intervation)

Cohen’sd

PTA-II participant

11,00±6,45

12,29±9,48

0,958

10,13±7,16

11,76±8,77

0,683

0,449

0,350

-0,128

PRMQ participant

17,94±7,43

20,65±11,02

0,709

17,63±8,30

20,35±10,43

0,657

0,706

0,586

-0,039

DEX participant

17,63±6,78

18,24±12,04

0,929

17,50±8,27

17,29±12,61

0,557

0,850

0,178

-0,017

PTA-II informant

7,69±6,55

7,53±8,53

0,606

6,88±5,30

7,94±7,99

0,958

0,491

0,266

-0,136

MAC-Q informant

24,63±3,12

24,47±4,93

0,557

19,69±5,61

24,41±5,12

0,008*

0,003*

0,959

-1,088*

DEX informant

14,13±10,59

15,18±12,53

0,929

10,69±8,46

14,94±12,71

0,423

0,093

0,723

-0,359

Note. PTA-II = Attention questionnaire; PRMQ = Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire; DEX = Dysexecutive Questionnaire; MAC-Q = Memory Complaint Questionnaire; deegres of freedom (df) = 31; Cohen’s d = Effect size calculated for Karate Group in within group evaluation (pre x post-intervention). It was used the Mann-Whitney U Test to between groups comparisons and the Wilcoxon Test for within group comparisons.
Source: The authors

How to cite

copy

Universidade Estadual de Maringá Avenida Colombo, 5790 - cep: 87020-900 - tel: 44 3011 4315 - Maringá - PR - Brazil
E-mail: revdef@uem.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

EFFECTS OF KARATE-DŌ TRAINING IN OLDER ADULTS COGNITION: RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] Author adress:
Brandel José Pacheco Lopes Filho. Rua Maurício Cardoso, 110/601. Email: brandelfilho@gmail.com.