Cited by 112Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyMuscle metabolism and nutrition

A comparison of high-speed power training and traditional slow-speed resistance training in older men and women.

Sayers, Stephen P, Gibson, Kyle·2010·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

Muscle power, the product of force × velocity, is a critical determinant of function in older adults. Resistance training (RT) at high speed has been shown to improve peak muscle power in this population; however, different functional tasks may benefit from the improvement of power at values other than "peak" values, for example, tasks that require a greater velocity component or a greater force component. This study compared the effect of high-speed RT on muscle performance (peak power [PP] and its components [PP force and PP velocity] and overall peak velocity [VEL]) across a broad range of external resistances. Thirty-eight older men and women were randomized to high-speed power training at 40% of the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) (n = 13 [74.1 ± 6.4 years]); traditional RT at 80% 1RM (n = 13 [70.1 ± 7.0 years]); or control (n = 12 [72.8 ± 4.1 years]). Measures of muscle performance were obtained at baseline and after the 12-week training intervention. Muscle power and 1RM strength improved similarly with both high-speed and traditional slow-speed RT. However, speed-related muscle performance characteristics, PP velocity and overall VEL, were most positively impacted by high-speed power training, especially at lower external resistances. Because gains in speed-related measures with high-speed training compared to traditional RT do not come at the expense of other muscle performance outcomes, we recommend using an RT protocol in older adults that emphasizes high-speed movements at low external resistances.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181f00c7c

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sayers, S. P., & Gibson, K.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2010-12
Volume
24
Issue
12
Pages
3369-3380
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031147368
Cited by
112
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
FWCI
7.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R03AG025141)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
muscle power, older adults, peak velocity, peak power, external resistance, muscle performance, aging
MeSH terms
Aged, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Exercise, Chi-Square Distribution, Treatment Outcome, Torque, 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