“…In the present study, the training type did not have effect on muscle strength gains, when the training was performed using high-intensity and low velocity of contraction or low-intensity and high velocity of contraction. Our systematic search identified two studies that directly compared resistance training protocols of different intensities (Lopes et al, 2014(Lopes et al, , 2016. In both studies, the different training types (i.e., heavy strength training and power training) induced to similar increase in muscle strength.…”
Rapid force capacity, identified by rate of rise in contractile force at the onset of contraction, i.e., the rate of force development (RFD), has been considered an important neuromuscular parameter of physical fitness in elderly individuals. Randomized control studies conducted in adults have found that resistance training may elicit different outcomes in terms of RFD and muscle strength. Thus, the main purpose of this study was to review systematically the literature for studies regarding the influence of resistance training on muscle strength and RFD in elderly persons. A literature search was performed in major electronic databases from inception to March 2017. Studies including health individuals with a mean age≥60years, describing the effect of resistance training on RFD and muscle strength were found eligible. The outcomes were calculated as the difference in percentage change between control and experimental groups (% change) and data were presented as mean±95% confidence limits. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model and, in addition, simple and multiple meta-regression analyses were used to identify effects of age, training type, sessions per week and training duration on % change in RFD and muscle strength. Thirteen training effects were collected from 10 studies included in the meta-analysis. The resistance training program had a moderate beneficial effect on both muscle strength (% change=18.40%, 95% CL 13.69-23.30, p<0.001) and RFD (% change=26.68, 95% CL 14.41-35.52, p<0.001). Results of the meta-regression revealed that the variables age, training type (i.e., strength and explosive), training duration (4-16weeks) and sessions per week had no significant effects on muscle strength and RFD improvement. Moreover, there was no significant relationship (p=0.073) between the changes in muscle strength and RFD. It can be concluded that explosive training and heavy strength training are effective resistance training methods aiming to improve both muscle strength and RFD after short-to-medium training period. However, muscle strength and RFD seem to adapt differently to resistance training programs, suggesting caution for their interchangeable use in clinical assessments of the elderly.
“…In the present study, the training type did not have effect on muscle strength gains, when the training was performed using high-intensity and low velocity of contraction or low-intensity and high velocity of contraction. Our systematic search identified two studies that directly compared resistance training protocols of different intensities (Lopes et al, 2014(Lopes et al, , 2016. In both studies, the different training types (i.e., heavy strength training and power training) induced to similar increase in muscle strength.…”
Rapid force capacity, identified by rate of rise in contractile force at the onset of contraction, i.e., the rate of force development (RFD), has been considered an important neuromuscular parameter of physical fitness in elderly individuals. Randomized control studies conducted in adults have found that resistance training may elicit different outcomes in terms of RFD and muscle strength. Thus, the main purpose of this study was to review systematically the literature for studies regarding the influence of resistance training on muscle strength and RFD in elderly persons. A literature search was performed in major electronic databases from inception to March 2017. Studies including health individuals with a mean age≥60years, describing the effect of resistance training on RFD and muscle strength were found eligible. The outcomes were calculated as the difference in percentage change between control and experimental groups (% change) and data were presented as mean±95% confidence limits. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model and, in addition, simple and multiple meta-regression analyses were used to identify effects of age, training type, sessions per week and training duration on % change in RFD and muscle strength. Thirteen training effects were collected from 10 studies included in the meta-analysis. The resistance training program had a moderate beneficial effect on both muscle strength (% change=18.40%, 95% CL 13.69-23.30, p<0.001) and RFD (% change=26.68, 95% CL 14.41-35.52, p<0.001). Results of the meta-regression revealed that the variables age, training type (i.e., strength and explosive), training duration (4-16weeks) and sessions per week had no significant effects on muscle strength and RFD improvement. Moreover, there was no significant relationship (p=0.073) between the changes in muscle strength and RFD. It can be concluded that explosive training and heavy strength training are effective resistance training methods aiming to improve both muscle strength and RFD after short-to-medium training period. However, muscle strength and RFD seem to adapt differently to resistance training programs, suggesting caution for their interchangeable use in clinical assessments of the elderly.
“…for 24 wks 50–75% 1RM 19 71.2 (1.3) 12 (63%) Muscle power Chest press ST 2x/wk. for 24 wks 75% 1RM 19 69.6 (1.1) 12 (63%) Leg press Activity test: emphasis on movement speed Chair Rise (s) Walking speed Stair climb (s) Floor Rise to Stand (s) Activity test: generic tests 400 m Walk Test Lopes et al (2014) [ 33 ] PT 3x/wk. for 12 wks 70–90% 1RM 11 63.3 (3.9) not reported Muscle power Leg press ST 3x/wk.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 . In conclusion, 47% of the studies were considered to be low risk of bias [ 3 , 29 , 30 , 34 – 36 , 38 ] while the remaining studies were scored as being unclear to high [ 4 , 5 , 7 , 19 , 31 – 33 , 37 ]. Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The PEDro score of each of the selected studies is illustrated in Additional file 8. Five studies were considered to have 'good' internal validity [3,30,33,35,38], 8 studies were classified as 'poor' to 'fair' [4,5,9,29,31,32,37,39], and 1 study was classified as having 'poor' interal validity [7].…”
Background
Research suggests that muscle power is a more critical determinant of physical functioning in older adults than muscle strength. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of power training compared to strength training in older adults on tests for muscle power, two groups of activity-based tests under controlled conditions: generic tests and tests with an emphasis on movement speed, and finally, physical activity level in daily life.
Methods
A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing effects of power training to strength training in older adults was performed in PubMed, Embase, Ebsco/CINAHL, Ebsco/SPORTDiscus, Wiley/Cochrane Library and Scopus. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool, and quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Standardized mean differenences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes separately using a random effects model.
Results
Fifteen trials and 583 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated a statistically significant benefit of power training on all reported outcomes (muscle power SMD: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.44, p < 0.001; generic activity-based tests SMD: 0.37, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.68; p = 0.02, activity-based tests emphasizing movement speed SMD: 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.62, p < 0.001). None of the included studies used physical activity level in daily life as outcome.
Conclusions
Power training offers more potential for improving muscle power and performance on activity tests in older adults compared to strength training. Future research should assess exercise parameters for power training in older adults. In addition, the validity and reliability of the tests used must be evaluated to establish a standardized test protocol. This protocol should also include measurements of physical activity in daily life.
“…Seven studies (70%) [ 27 , 71 – 76 ] mixed both male and female participants. Most studies recruited from links with community-dwelling adults and organisations [ 27 , 71 – 77 ]. All participants came from the same cohort of recruitment, with a similar number of participants per group.…”
The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of different methods of resistance training (RT) on functional capacity in older adults. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov databases, from inception to December 2021. Eligibility criteria consisted of randomised control trials (RCT’s) involving maximal-intent resistance training (MIRT), where participants (aged 60+) had specific instruction to move ‘as fast as possible’ during the concentric phase of the exercise. Twelve studies were included within the meta-analysis. Divided into functional capacity and strength-related outcomes; Improvements were evident for timed-up-and-go (p = 0.001, SMD: − 1.74 [95% CI − 2.79, − 0.69]) and knee extension one-repetition maximum (1RM) (p = 0.01, SMD: − 1.21, [95% CI − 2.17, − 0.25]), both in favour of MIRT, as well as in 30 s sit-to-stand in favour of T-STR (p = 0.04, SMD: 3.10 [95% CI 0.07, 6.14]). No statistical significance was found for combined functional capacity outcomes (p = 0.17, SMD: − 0.84, [95% CI − 2.04, 0.37]), with near-significance observed in strength-related outcomes (p = 0.06. SMD: − 0.57, [95% CI − 1.16, 0.02]) favouring MIRT. Heterogeneity for FC-outcomes was observed as Tau2 = 4.83; Chi = 276.19, df = 14, I2 = 95%, and for strength-outcomes Tau2 = 1.290; Chi = 109.65, df = 115, I2 = 86%. Additionally, MIRT elicited substantial clinically meaningful improvements (CMI) in Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) scores but fell short of CMI in 400 m walk test by 0.6 s. In conclusion, this systematic review highlights the lack of sufficient and quality evidence for maximal- versus submaximal-intent resistance training on functional capacity and strength in community-dwelling older adults. Study limitations revolved around lack of research, low quality (“low” PEDro score), and largely due to the fact many comparison studies did not match their loads lifted (1500 kg vs. 500 kg), making comparisons not possible.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
