Cited by 155Sports Performance and TrainingNutrition and Health in AgingCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Lower extremity muscle function after strength or power training in older adults.

Open access
Marsh, Anthony P., Miller, Michael E., Rejeski, W. Jack, Hutton, Stacy L., Kritchevsky, Stephen B.·2009·Journal of Aging and Physical Activity

Abstract

It is unclear whether strength training (ST) or power training (PT) is the more effective intervention at improving muscle strength and power and physical function in older adults. The authors compared the effects of lower extremity PT with those of ST on muscle strength and power in 45 older adults (74.8 ± 5.7 yr) with self-reported difficulty in common daily activities. Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: PT, ST, or wait-list control. PT and ST trained 3 times/wk for 12 wk using knee-extension (KE) and leg-press (LP) machines at ~70% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). For PT, the concentric phase of the KE and LP was completed “as fast as possible,” whereas for ST the concentric phase was 2–3 s. Both PT and ST paused briefly at the midpoint of the movement and completed the eccentric phase of the movement in 2–3 s. PT and ST groups showed significant improvements in KE and LP 1RM compared with the control group. Maximum KE and LP power increased approximately twofold in PT compared with ST. At 12 wk, compared with control, maximum KE and LP power were significantly increased for the PT group but not for the ST group. In older adults with compromised function, PT leads to similar increases in strength and larger increases in power than ST.

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 · 10.1123/japa.17.4.416

Cites

101 of 101 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?

  • Earles et al. reported a 50-141% increase in leg power following 12 weeks of high-velocity resistance training combined with moderate-intensity non-resistance exercise compared to a structured walking program in older men and women.

    “Earleset al. (17) reported a 50–141% increase in leg power following 12 weeks of high velocity resistance training in combination with moderate intensity non-resistance exercise compared to a structured walking program in older men and women.”

    From Skeletal Muscle Power (2012) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Discussion reports that Earles et al. found a 22% increase in leg-press power after 12 weeks, not the claimed 50–141%. It does describe a significant power difference between the training and walking groups, but that does not support the claimed magnitude. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A 12-week program of high-velocity resistance training resulted in a 22% increase in leg power with a corresponding increase of 20 meters in total distance walked during the six-minute walk test and a 0.7 unit increase in SPPB score in healthy older adults, and these improvements were greater than those from a self-paced walking program.

    “A 12-week program of high velocity resistance training resulted in a 22% increase in leg power with a corresponding increase of 20 meters in total distance walked during the six-minute walk test and a 0.7 unit increase in SPPB score in healthy older adults (17). These improvements in function were greater than those elicited from a self-paced walking program.”

    From Skeletal Muscle Power (2012) · cites this paper as [17]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All analysis code, data, sensitivity analyses, and data visualizations are available.

    “All analysis code, data, sensitivity analyses, and data visualizations are available.29”

    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 [29]

    The Methods > Statistical Analyses passage describes the analyses and says measurements were plotted, but it does not say that code, data, sensitivity analyses, or visualizations are available. Searches for the quoted availability statement and for data-sharing and supplementary-material terms found no passage addressing their availability; no page number was provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Five RCTs confirmed via email communication with the authors that assessors were blinded.

    “Although not reported in the articles, 5 RCTs confirmed (via our email communication with the authors) that assessors were blinded.31,35,38,46”

    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 [35]

    The Methods (Participants) describe randomization, and the Results (Recruitment, Retention, Adherence, and Adverse Events) describe follow-up assessments, but neither says whether assessors were blinded. Searches for blinded assessors and assessors unaware of group assignment found no confirmation in our copy. The citing sentence says the information came from the citing authors’ email correspondence, which this paper cannot verify. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marsh, A. P., Miller, M. E., Rejeski, W. J., Hutton, S. L., & Kritchevsky, S. B.
Affiliations
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Venue
Journal of Aging and Physical Activity
Published
2009-10
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
416-443
ISSN
  • 1063-8652 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-267X
OpenAlex
W123894298
Cited by
155
References
101
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Aging and Physical Activity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wake Forest University (M01 RR07122)
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG021332)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR-07122, M01RR007122)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
resistance training, power training, older adults, lower extremity muscle function, muscle strength, muscle power, knee extension, leg press, physical function, exercise intervention
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Body Composition, Female, Humans, Leg, Male, Pilot Projects, Exercise, Muscle Strength, 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