Cited by 138Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionNutrition and Health in AgingFrailty in Older Adults

Increased velocity exercise specific to task training versus the National Institute on Aging's strength training program: changes in limb power and mobility

Open access
Bean, J. F., Kiely, D. K., LaRose, S., O'Neill, E., Goldstein, R., Frontera, W. R.·2009·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate the benefits of InVEST (Increased Velocity Specific to Task) training on limb power and mobility among mobility-limited older adults. METHODS: We conducted a single blinded, randomized controlled trial among 138 mobility-limited community-dwelling older adults, evaluating two 16-week supervised exercise programs. The intervention group participated in InVEST training, and the control group participated in the National Institute on Aging's (NIA) strength training program. Primary outcomes were changes in limb power per kilogram and mobility performance as measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). RESULTS: After 16 weeks, InVEST produced significantly greater improvements in limb power than NIA (p=.02). There was no significant difference in strength improvements. Both groups had significant changes in SPPB of greater than 1 unit. Self-reported function was also significantly improved in both groups. Differences between groups were not statistically different. In a post hoc analysis when participants were categorized by the manifestation of baseline leg velocity impairments (N=68), InVEST training produced effect size differences in SPPB that were clinically meaningful (SPPB Group x Time difference 0.73 units, p=.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among mobility-limited older adults, both NIA and InVEST produce robust changes in observed physical performance and self-reported function. These improvements were not meaningfully different by statistical or clinical criteria. Compared with NIA, InVEST training produced greater improvements in limb power and equivalent improvements in strength. Observed differences between NIA and InVEST based upon baseline leg impairment status are informative for futures studies.

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 · 10.1093/gerona/glp056

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Previous analyses included studies with multiple cointerventions across groups.

    “Furthermore, previous analyses included studies with multiple cointerventions across groups. For example, the largest study used standing functional exercises for PT, and the control group used seated exercises.20”

    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 [20]

    The Discussion (p. 6) says that both interventions retained standing and chair-rise elements, supporting the point that exercise components overlapped across groups. But the Interventions section (p. 2) says both groups exercised seated or with a chair or rail for support; it does not support the example's contrast between standing exercises in one group and seated exercises in the control group. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The effects of power training on physical functioning appeared even larger than after strength training and endurance training.

    “The effects appeared even larger than after strength training and endurance training [3, 4, 7, 8, 17–20].”

    From Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Results table (p. 6) shows a numerically larger improvement in physical performance after InVEST power training than after NIA strength training (SPPB: 1.75 versus 1.42 points). The Discussion (p. 6) says the between-group difference was not statistically significant, and the study did not compare power training with endurance training. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Strong Bodies compliance appeared low overall compared with a previous study of the same intervention in adults and other studies with elders.

    “However, SB compliance appeared low overall compared to a previous study of the same intervention in adults (21, 47) and other studies with elders (66).”
  • Power training improved physical functioning in daily life.

    “Power training consequently also improved physical functioning in daily life.”
  • In community-dwelling older adults with objective mobility limitations, leg power consistently explained a greater proportion of variance (2-8%) on all measures of physical performance than muscle strength did.

    “Compared to muscle strength, leg power consistently explained a greater proportion of the variance (2–8%) on all measures of physical performance (stair climb and chair stand performance, gait speed and the SPPB) assessed in these mobility-limited participants.”

    From Skeletal Muscle Power (2012) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Outcome Measures section (p. 3) describes measurements of limb power, strength, and the SPPB, but our copy does not report how much variance in physical performance each explains. Searches for the 2–8% figure and for comparisons across stair climbing, chair stands, gait speed, and the SPPB found no such analysis. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    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. [17]17. older men and women . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2004 ; 59 ( 11 ): 1200 - 1206 .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bean, J. F., Kiely, D. K., LaRose, S., O'Neill, E., Goldstein, R., & Frontera, W. R.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Hebrew SeniorLife (US)
  • Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Published
2009-05-04
Volume
64A
Issue
9
Pages
983-991
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
OpenAlex
W2165515391
Cited by
138
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
26.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series A (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (K23AG019663)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
resistance training, older adults, muscle strength, mobility (physical function), Short Physical Performance Battery, exercise intervention, self-reported function
MeSH terms
Aged, Exercise Therapy, Extremities, Female, Humans, Locomotion, Male, Exercise, Single-Blind Method, Muscle, Skeletal, Resistance Training

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