Cited by 86Nutrition and Health in AgingBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionSports Performance and Training

Effects of resistance training concentric velocity on older adults’ functional capacity: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Open access
da Rosa Orssatto, Lucas Bet, de la Rocha Freitas, Cintia, Shield, Anthony J., Silveira Pinto, Ronei, Trajano, Gabriel S.·2019·Experimental Gerontology

Abstract

Reduced levels of functional capacity in older adults are related to lower quality of life, frailty, and sarcopenia, and can increase risk of falling, fractures and hospitalisation. Resistance training is an effective method to attenuate age-related functional declines. Based on the findings that muscle power and explosive strength are strongly associated with functional performance in older adults, it has been suggested that fast-intended-velocity resistance training may elicit greater improvements in functional capacity when compared to moderate-velocity resistance training. However, currently, there is no high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis supporting this assertion. The present study compared the magnitude of functional capacity improvements following resistance training performed with fast-intentional velocity versus moderate velocity. Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to January 2019. The following eligibility criteria for selecting studies was adopted: Participants aged ≥60 years; resistance training based intervention for lower limbs performed solely with slow to moderate concentric velocity (≥2 s for each concentric phase) or solely with the intention of maximising velocity (i.e., as fast as possible); and at least one functional test for lower limbs, with pre- and post-intervention measurements. When studies employed multiple functional tests, a single (pooled) standardised mean difference was calculated and presented as combined functional capacity. In addition, functional tests were grouped accordingly to their specificity for the sub-groups meta-analyses. Fifteen studies were selected (high quality, n = 3; and pre-registered, n = 2). The results presented heterogeneity and small-studies publication bias, leading to a biased advantage for fast-intended-velocity resistance training (95%CI = 0.18, 0.65; I 2 = 45%). Short physical performance battery indicated an advantage for fast-intended-velocity resistance training (95%CI = 0.10, 0.94; I 2 = 0%). There was no difference for timed up and go (95%CI = -0.07, 0.94; I 2 = 48%), 30-s chair stand (95%CI = -0.24, 1.39; I 2 = 71%), 5-times chair stand (95%CI = -1.63, 1.27; I 2 = 57%) stair climb (95%CI = -1.89, 2.81; I 2 = 0%), short walk (95%CI = -0.99, 0.96; I 2 = 21%) and long walk (95%CI = -0.59, 1.00; I 2 = 0%). These results suggest that there is inconclusive evidence to support the superiority of fast-intended-velocity resistance training to improve functional capacity when compared to moderate-velocity resistance training. These results may have been influenced by the lack of high-quality and pre-registered studies, high heterogeneity, and small-studies publication bias. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019122251.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.exger.2019.110731

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Walking performance is positively affected by power training compared with other resistance training prescription variables.

    “In comparisons between distinct RTx, walking performance was positively affected by power training (106,157).”

    From American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [157]

    The Results (§3.6; page unavailable) found no statistically significant difference between fast-intended-velocity and moderate-velocity resistance training for short walks (p = 0.952) or long walks (p = 0.243). The Summary of main results (§4.1; page unavailable) says the two approaches produced similar improvements in both walking tests, contrary to the claimed comparative advantage for power training. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Multicomponent function is affected by power training compared with other resistance training prescription variables.

    “In comparisons between distinct RTx, multicomponent function was affected by elastic band RT (61) and power training (105,157,160), but was not affected by time under tension (24) or volume (91).”

    From American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [157]

    Section 3.6 reports better results for fast-intended-velocity resistance training than moderate-velocity training on combined functional tests and the Short Physical Performance Battery. But its publication-bias-adjusted result for combined tests was not statistically significant, and the Conclusions say the evidence for a superior effect is inconclusive. The claim omits that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported that power training is more beneficial than traditional resistance training for improving physical function.

    “Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported that PT is more beneficial than traditional resistance training for improving physical function.15,16”

    From Comparison of Power Training vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Summary of main results (section 4.1; page unavailable) reports an apparent advantage for fast-intended-velocity training on some functional tests. But it calls that advantage unclear, and the Conclusions (section 5; page unavailable) say evidence of superiority over moderate-velocity resistance training is inconclusive. The claim omits that uncertainty and presents the benefit too definitively. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported effect sizes of SMD 0.41 (95% CI, 0.18-0.65) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.06-0.65) for power training.

    “Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported similar effect sizes of SMD (0.41; 95% CI, 0.18-0.65)15 and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.06-0.65)16 for PT.”

    From Comparison of Power Training vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [16]

    Section 3.6 (page unavailable) reports that a meta-analysis found greater general functional-capacity improvement with fast-intended-velocity resistance training than with moderate-velocity training in older adults. Our copy does not give the cited SMD of 0.32 or its 95% CI of 0.06–0.65; it reports a separate, bias-corrected estimate of 0.23. The 0.41 estimate is attached to the other citation in the citing sentence, so it is not assessed against this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several systematic reviews have made direct comparisons of the effectiveness of these modalities on older adults' functional performance but did not fully address the quality of intervention reporting.

    “To date, several systematic reviews have made direct comparisons of the effectiveness of these modalities on older adults ' functional performance 24,37,46 -49 but did not fully address the quality of the intervention reporting, which limits the translation and application into practice.”

    From High-velocity power training has similar effects to traditional resistance training for functional performance in older adults: a systematic review (2023) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Introduction and Section 2.2 establish that this is a systematic review directly comparing resistance-training velocities and older adults’ functional capacity. Section 2.4 assesses trial methodological quality with PEDro, but the passages do not establish whether the review fully addressed the quality of intervention reporting or whether that limited translation into practice. No page numbers were provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Higgins, J.P., Green, S., 2008. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Collaboration. doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
da Rosa Orssatto, L. B., de la Rocha Freitas, C., Shield, A. J., Silveira Pinto, R., & Trajano, G. S.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Venue
Experimental Gerontology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
127
Pages
110731
ISSN
0531-5565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2971989276
Cited by
86
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental Gerontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
resistance training, concentric velocity, older adults, functional capacity, muscle power, explosive strength, lower limb strength, Short Physical Performance Battery, Timed Up and Go test, chair stand, fall risk, sarcopenia, frailty, age-related functional decline, publication bias, effect size heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Walking Speed, Stair Climbing, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Humans, Middle Aged, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training, Sarcopenia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review