Journal of Gerontology: MEDICAL SCIENCES 2008, Vol. 63A, No.

1, 83–91

Copyright 2008 by The Gerontological Society of America

Strength Versus Muscle Power-Specific Resistance Training in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Tim R. Henwood, Stephan Riek, and Dennis R. Taaffe
School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Background. Loss of muscle power due to normal aging has greater functional impact than loss of strength alone. The present study compared two resistance training programs, one aimed at enhancing muscle power and one at increasing muscle strength, on muscle function and functional performance in older adults. Methods. Sixty-seven healthy, independent older adults (65–84 years) were randomized to a high-velocity varied resistance (HV), constant resistance (ST), or nontraining control (CO) group. Participants trained twice weekly for 24 weeks using six exercises. Dynamic and isometric muscle strength, muscle power, movement velocity, muscle endurance, and a battery of functional performance tasks were assessed. Secondary outcomes included body composition, quality of life, and balance confidence. Results. Muscle strength increased significantly ( p , .001) and similarly in the training groups compared to controls (HV, 51.0 6 9.0%; ST, 48.3 6 6.8%; CO, 1.2 6 5.1%). Peak muscle power also increased with training ( p , .05), with no difference between training groups. The change in peak power was 50.5 6 4.1%, 33.8 6 3.8%, and À2.5 6 3.9% in the HV, ST, and CO groups, respectively. Training also improved selected functional performance tasks in the HV and ST groups compared to controls ( p , .05), and the HV group reported improved quality of life ( p ¼ .018). Conclusion. Muscle power and muscle strength improved similarly using either resistance training protocol, and these changes were accompanied by improvements in several functional performance tasks. However, improvements in the HV group occurred with less total work performed per training session. Key Words: Resistance training—Muscle power—Movement velocity—Functional performance—Muscle strength.

decrease in muscle mass characterizes normal aging and contributes to a decrease in muscle performance, frailty, and loss of independence (1). Resistance training has been reliably shown to be a safe and effective method for strength development in elderly persons as well as being an important contributor to improving physical function and maintaining independence (1,2). Recently, Foldvari and colleagues (3) reported that muscle power may be of greater importance than muscle strength for tasks such as rising from a chair and climbing stairs. In addition, maintaining an adequate level of muscle power could aid in the prevention of falls and fractures in older adults (4). Although it has been reported that adults in their 70s retain 50% of the strength and only 25% of the power of their younger counterparts (5), only a paucity of research has examined muscle power training in older adults. Constant resistance and moderate velocity training protocols have resulted in significant enhancement of muscle strength in older adults (1,2). Although this mode of training has also been used to increase muscle power (6,7), these changes most often occur through increased force capacity in the force–velocity relationship (8). Importantly, following strength training, muscle power changes at the highresistance end of the force–velocity spectrum do not transfer to lower forces that are associated with more rapid movements (8). Consequently, the effect of strength training on the muscle power requirements for tasks of daily living,

A

which occur at a range of velocities and resistances, is uncertain. Recently, the use of optimized training loads (low, moderate, and high resistances) in weight-training interventions for older adults has resulted in increased rates of force production and muscle power across a range of resistances (9,10). Previously used among younger athletes to increase muscle power, training protocols prescribing varied resistances (30%–70% one repetition maximum [1RM]) and maximal velocities are suggested to selectively target Type II muscle fibers (11). Due to the preferential loss of Type II fibers and the associated decrease in movement velocity with aging, incorporating explosive movements may be beneficial in the training regimens of older persons (4). Furthermore, programs that will increase both the muscle force and movement velocity should be prioritized due to the significant advantages during tasks such as rising from a chair or stair climbing (4). However, a direct comparison of the benefits of varied-resistance muscle power training to strength training in older persons on muscle and physical function has not been undertaken. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to compare strength training to a high-velocity varied-resistance muscle power program in older adults to assess which has the greater benefit on muscle function and physical performance. We hypothesized that muscle power training would have greater impact on power-based functional tasks,
83

(iii) neurological or musculoskeletal disease or impairment.and lower-body muscle power is achieved using maximal movement velocity at 40%–60% and 50%–75% 1RM. the order of testing within each battery. were separated by a minimum of 2 days and were performed under the direct supervision of an exercise instructor to ensure safety and the maintenance of the exercise protocols. Following baseline assessment. The intervention was divided into a conditioning (2 weeks) and training phase. Following conditioning. To avoid muscle fatigue. participants were invited to attend two familiarization sessions.—The HV protocol was based on previous work conducted in our laboratory (9). and movement velocity than would strength training.20% less work per exercise. Following the telephone interview.1-minute rest between sets. High-velocity training protocol. leg press. (iv) resistance training experience within the previous 12 months. information packages detailing the study and requesting that potential participants obtain their physicians’ approval for participation were sent.8 in their final set. During assessment. biceps curl. when participants could complete 10 or 11 repetitions their 1RM was increased by 5%. the test administrator. with Measures Data were collected for all variables at baseline and week 24. participants undertook a 1RM testing session. In comparison to the ST group. Having received this packet.8%. Conditioning training protocol. which we have described previously (13). All tests of muscle function were conducted on the same pin-weight equipment used by participants during training. the ST group continued training using three sets of eight repetitions at 75% 1RM. a short telephone interview took place to establish their eligibility for the study. respectively (12). community-dwelling older adults aged 65–84 years were recruited from the Brisbane city area by newspaper advertisement. supported row. Muscle Function Dynamic muscle strength and muscle endurance. 12 women) group for 24 weeks. as described previously (6). Brisbane. prone leg curl. the resistance was increased when the number of repetitions that a participant could complete was . and the time of day used for collection remained constant. during which exercise techniques were demonstrated and practiced. Due to the strenuous nature of this event. METHODS a . and when they could complete !12 repetitions their 1RM was increased by 10%. Training consisted of a 10-minute warm-up that included stretching. and (v) the inability to commit to a period of time equivalent to the duration of the study. Participants completed three sets of each exercise performing eight repetitions at 65% of their baseline 1RM for the first two sessions. using two lighter sets in addition to one high-intensity set as follows: Set 1: 8 reps @ 45% 1RM Set 2: 8 reps @ 60% 1RM Set 3: !8 reps @ 75% 1RM To ensure that the program was progressive for both exercise groups. with the 1RM value used to calculate the individual’s resistance at the beginning of the training phase. and 70% of their 1RM for the third and fourth sessions. it was considered a training session and consequently participants completed 43 sessions using either the HV or the ST protocol in the remaining 22 weeks. When potential participants (n ¼ 139) made contact. Training Protocol and Study Design Twice-weekly training was undertaken using Extek resistance equipment (Extek Pty. to examine short-term training effects. Briefly. six resistance training exercises (chest press. The movement speed of 3 seconds per concentric and eccentric phase was maintained for the duration of the study.—Following conditioning.3 seconds). then return through the eccentric phase at a slow and controlled pace (. The study was approved by the University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee. Resistance adjustments were undertaken following the final session each week. The exclusion criteria included (i) acute or terminal illness. 67 participants were randomized to either a high-velocity training (HV ¼ 23: 11 men. muscle power. Participants Independently living. All training sessions lasted approximately 1 hour. muscle strength..84 HENWOOD ET AL. and functional performance were assessed at week 8. and all participants provided written informed consent. Specifically. In addition. and leg extension) and concluded with a cool-down of abdominal crunches and the prone superman exercise to target core stabilizers. Strength training protocol. following the proposal that optimal upper. Briefly.5% to 8. (ii) unstable or ongoing cardiovascular and/or respiratory disorder. an individual’s 1RM is the maximum weight that can be moved through the full range of motion once with correct technique.3 seconds. strength training (ST ¼ 22: 10 men. The coefficient of variation (CV) for repeated 1RM measures in our laboratory ranged from 2. then baseline testing was undertaken. The CV values for . 12 women) or nontraining control (CO ¼ 22: 10 men. Concentric and eccentric movements were performed at a rate of . 12 women). muscle endurance.—The conditioning phase consisted of the first four training sessions to prepare participants for the training program (8). Ltd.— Dynamic concentric muscle strength for all exercises was measured using the 1RM method. weights were set so that the 1RM lift was achieved within 3–5 attempts (14). Muscle endurance for the leg press and chest press exercise was determined from the maximum number of repetitions performed at 70% 1RM (15). Australia). participants were instructed to produce the concentric portion of each repetition as rapidly as possible. the HV group performed .

0%. with an approximately 2-minute rest between trials. Body Composition and Bone Mineral Density Height in centimeters (cm) and body mass in grams (g) were obtained using a stadiometer and electronic scale. and the mean of the three resistances was calculated for analysis. and the functional reach test to measure static balance. and repetitions were separated by 30 seconds. U. Hologic Discovery W. OH). After all force and velocity data were finalized. MA). Repeated-measures ANOVA . All participants were given three attempts at each resistance.46. Data were sampled through an HMS-9401 load cell and HMS-9322a GP amplifiers (HMS Technologies) and collected through the DATAQ instruments computer program (Version 2. Data were sampled through HMS-9401 load cell amplifiers (HMS Technologies. Hologic Inc. Participants were instructed to move as fast as they could safely manage in each of the tests. Australia) and collected through the DATAQ instruments computer program (version 2.. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if any differences existed among groups at baseline. Statistical Analyses Data were analyzed using the SPSS (SPSS 13. week 8.. The CV values for functional performance tasks in this study ranged from 2. leg extension. leg curl) were calculated from measures of force (S-type load cells. Lifestyle Questionnaires Physical activity was assessed through the use of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (20). IL) statistical software package. Germany).2% and for maximal and average movement velocity from 1.6% to 8. The CV values for mean and maximal biceps curl and leg extension isometric muscle strength in our laboratory ranged from 5. electronic data were converted to an ASCII format and forwarded to the Spike2 program (Cambridge Electronic Design Limited. Covina. Participants were issued a package of questionnaires at the designated periods and were requested to return them within 1 week. Due to the contribution of the biceps brachii to the acceleration phase of the supported row movement. and for variables with two time points ANCOVA adjusted for baseline values and sex. and the machine arm for biceps curl was at 908 (16). repeated chair rise to standing (5 times). CA) collected during a maximal contraction at a predetermined angle.0% to 8.1. for which only one trial was performed. Muscle power and movement velocity. Subsequent to movement identification. files were forwarded to MatLab (The Mathworks. DATAQ Instruments Inc.4%. leg extension. For quantitative analysis. and 75% 1RM. Akron. and backwards 6-m walk. Functional Performance All participants undertook a battery of eight physical performance tests. Prior to testing. Natick. g/cm2) were determined by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA. Chicago. respectively. all electronic data were forwarded to the LabView 7 Express program (National Instruments Corporation. The CV for repeated body composition measures are . 60%. data related to the biceps curl. Cambridge.0. MA) for the calculation of power (force 3 velocity) and variables of interest. Three attempts were carried out with each maximal effort separated by 30 seconds. Whole body lean mass.—Isometric leg extension and biceps curl strength data were calculated from S-Type load cells (Celtron Technologies.0% to 7. Inc. For conversion and movement analysis. which assessed the amount of activity a participant undertook in the week prior to its completion. participants were informed of the importance of the rate of movement as a component of muscle power and were encouraged to move against each resistance as rapidly as possible. and total body and hip bone mineral density (BMD. TX). and week 24) a two-way (Group 3 Time) repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for sex was used to examine change among groups. Isometric muscle strength. All questionnaires were self-administered.—Peak and average muscle power and movement velocity from five exercises (chest press. percent body fat. Celtron Technologies). Munich.46. the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form was administered at baseline to assess general health (22). the exercise was deemed an invalid measure of upper-back power and not included. Austin. and leg curl. For variables with three time points (baseline.3%. the machine arm was set at 1358. DATAQ Instruments). except for the 400-m walk.MUSCLE POWER TRAINING IN OLDER ADULTS 85 repeated chest press and leg press endurance were 6. usual.4% and 4. Data were collected for all exercises at 45%. in which a varied radius cam length needed to be considered. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height squared in meters. Vishay Spectrol. and duration of movement (time) (18). 400-m walk. WA) for conversion.8%.19). with tests pre-scripted to ensure that participants received identical instructions.5%. fast. Seattle. Finally. participants completed a health history questionnaire at baseline to record past and present conditions and medications. The Activities-specific. For leg extension. The best of three trials was used in analysis. In addition. respectively. Participants were given a ‘‘go’’ command and instructed to undertake the contraction explosively and to maintain maximal torque for 3 seconds. biceps curl. to ensure the maximal peak torque phase of the contraction was incorporated (17). were forwarded to Excel (Microsoft Office Excel 2003. University of Queensland. Only data related to the movement in which the maximal torque occurred were retained for statistical analysis. except for the usual 6-m walk and functional reach. These tests were the floor rise to standing. The CV values for peak and average muscle power ranged from 2.).. All tests have been described in detail previously (9. Balance Confidence Scale was used to assess falls self-efficacy (21). and from 500 ms to 1500 ms.3% to 13.K. leg press. where full knee extension is 1808. stair climb. and the University of Queensland Quality of Life questionnaire was administered to assess health-related quality of life. fat mass. excursion (22-mm conductive plastic potentiometer. Mean and maximal isometric torque data were examined from the onset of force (time point 0 ms) to 500 ms.

however.3%.2%) for the training groups ( p . 33. respectively. ST: 1. Muscle Power and Movement Velocity Absolute values for peak and average muscle power are presented in Table 3. and at weeks 8 and 24 for the functional reach task ( p . and an a level of .8 6 0. In contrast.8 6 3. CO: 0. Within-group analysis revealed significant improvements in peak and average muscle power for the training groups (p . where only the HV group displayed greater power than CO ( p . Isometric muscle strength. respectively.05). ST: À0.3 kg) and percent fat (HV: À1.018). there was a significant effect for time ( p .001). and 1.4. Withingroup analysis revealed a significant decrease in maximal chest press and leg extension. only maximal movement velocity for the chest press displayed a significant difference among groups ( p ¼ .9% for the HV. Overall.8%. resulting in 53 participants completing the study (HV ¼ 19: 7 men.9%. All tests were two-tailed. and paired t tests were used to investigate within-group changes. Percent change was calculated on individual data as (final – baseline)/ baseline 3 100. .8 6 5.05).7 6 6.2. For the repeated chair rise and stair-climbing task. Average change in peak power was 50.86 HENWOOD ET AL.2 6 5. the HV group experienced a significant increase in maximal and average chest press. Where appropriate.05).3.0%.1% for the HV. where the HV group was slower than the ST group (12. .1 6 0. analyses were adjusted for sex. . 12 women. Baseline characteristics for those who completed the study are presented in Table 1. . training significantly increased maximal isometric bicep curl strength. No differences were observed between training groups for any measure of functional performance.05). ST ¼ 19: 10 men.05).7 ( p ¼ . with the HV and ST groups increasing their maximal strength for each exercise (Figure 1). .3.2 6 0. Reasons for dropping out included medical conditions and family problems. Functional Performance For the stair climb.2 6 0. In addition. respectively. and CO groups. in the ST group when compared to controls ( p ¼ .1% in the HV. chair rise. and there was no change in the control group. Following training.005) with the ST group having slower movement velocity than the HV and CO groups. and CO group.5 6 3. maximal isometric strength increased 29. there was no significant effect on body weight. .6 6 0. .1%.3%) ( p . There was no difference among groups for chest press or leg press muscle endurance following either short-term or long-term training. 9 women). and average biceps curl and leg press velocity of moment ( p . In contrast.05) for all exercises except the chest press. and 1.05). there was no difference among groups for any measured variable except for maximal and average leg press and maximal chest press movement velocity. the HV group had a significant. and for each muscle strength exercise.05).1 6 1.4 6 0. due to variation in the number of men and women within each group.— Following training.001).05 was required for significance.05). no participants indicated that the training protocol or intensity was the reason for leaving the study. there was a significant increase in lean mass for all groups (HV: 1. and increases in average chest press and leg curl movement velocity of the ST group ( p .001). 6 m fast walk.9%. The average change in total body muscle strength (across six exercises) was 51. In . CO ¼ 15: 6 men. . . No differences between exercise groups emerged following training. and there was no effect of the exercise program on BMD. CO: 0. and CO groups.0 6 9. 14. the Bonferroni post hoc procedure was used to locate the source of differences. increase in quality of life from 61.05) (Table 2).8%.037). DISCUSSION This study comprehensively compared the effects of a strength training program to that of a power-specific resistance training protocol on muscle function and functional performance in community-dwelling older adults.004). Following training. and functional reach task there was a significant Group 3 Time interaction ( p .5%. and À2. RESULTS Participants Eight participants withdrew from the study by week 8 and a further 6 by week 24. Average power was also significantly greater in the HV and ST groups than in the CO group following training ( p . the HV group performed significantly better than controls at week 8 ( p ¼ . In addition.—Maximal and mean isometric leg extension strength from 500 ms to 1500 ms postonset of force increased in the HV group compared to controls ( p . and also slower than CO for average chest press velocity (14.1%. In addition. However. and a decrease in fat mass (HV: À0. all groups displayed a significant decrease in maximal leg curl movement velocity ( p . Muscle Function Dynamic muscle strength and muscle endurance. however. . .2. .3 6 6. though modest.3 6 0. No differences were observed between training groups.003). CO: 0. ST. at week 8 the ST group performed better than controls for the 6 m fast walk.6 6 0. whereas the control group had an increase in average leg curl power ( p ¼ . and 17. All values are expressed as the mean 6 standard error.3 6 0. At baseline. Peak power increased significantly in exercise groups compared to controls ( p . 48. . 23.3 kg). with the mean of the group change reported. and both training groups performed better than CO for the 6 m fast walk and the chair-rise task at week 24 ( p . In addition.034) and a decrease in peak biceps curl power ( p ¼ . 9 women.3. ST.5 6 4. respectively) ( p . There was no difference between exercise groups for any measure of muscle strength.05) (Table 4). ST: À1. there was no change in self-assessed physical activity or balance confidence. 500 to 1500 ms. ST.9 6 1. . Those who dropped out were not distinguished from those who completed the study.5 6 4.7 to 63.05).001) and Group 3 Time interaction ( p .

5 6 15.724 91.3 6 34.2 317.8 292.8 6 6.7 239.0 2.3 71.7 6 0.1 6 13.1 6 4.3 1.543 .6 32.3 1.7 .303 .4 6 0.1 3.052 .5 27. *Possible range: quality of life.03 0.4 26.1 6 10.7 147.6 .0 54.3 6 6 6 6 1.4 25.1 6 7.0 .9 1.6 131.418 .0 105.8 9.0 14.8 3.2 31.2 2. CO ¼ control.3 6 2.0 6 9.8 6 13.1 1.3 p .184 .0 2.8 6.0 1.4 234.7 26.8 7.0 6 31.5 6 23.578 .359 11.9 132.8 1.2 44.7 68.8 80.7 6 21.2 6 0.2 6 6 6 6 0.7 2.3 1. kg/m2 Fat mass.2 6 25.0 1.4 35.155 .5 2.5 66.3 1.6 1.7 144.6 103.5 6 2.7 2.MUSCLE POWER TRAINING IN OLDER ADULTS 87 Table 1.170 .3 6 8.7 125.8 90. 0–100. these benefits occurred for the HV group using a reduced total workload per exercise session. the results indicate that both programs significantly and similarly enhanced multiple components of muscle function and functional performance.2 165.7 125.222 .8 6.9 1.4 1.233 .3 18.2 92.2 6 3.5 330.1 6 7.8 6 0.6 2.0 2.1 1. Mean and Maximal (Max.6 21.2 6 17.9 1.4 77.7 6 0. and Peak (P) and Average (A) Muscle Power at Baseline Variable Age.1 2.6 6 43. kg Body mass index.3 20.740 .1 .656 .8 2.4 6 6 6 6 3.332 268.4 1.9 6 3.0 6 49.7 142.90 6 0.0 143.8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1.612 .206 159.285 6.3 25.03 59.4 2.2 75.703 1. HV ¼ high-velocity varied resistance.4 36.1 43.4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1.7 6 3.802 .6 .2 145.0 2.03 0.4 6 34.7 26.1 27.6 6 10.0 1.5 .4 15.8 6 15.9 7.4 6 22.4 105.5 0. These findings support the efficacy of using high-velocity varied resistance training protocols in older adults as a means to enhance physical function.6 6 6 6 6 0.5 22.1 86.501 . z ST (n ¼ 18).7 . cm Weight.03 62.0 23.8 147.2 108.499 .1 8.3 6 3.7 6 10.1 98.551 .9 2. balance confidence.3 24.4 26. contrast to our hypothesis.2 6 24.4 23.497 .806 .2 74.9 71.2 163.3 6 9.5 84.8 2.2 6.9 165.058 .8 ST (N ¼ 19) 69.373 .7 6 9.3 6 23.91 6 0.9 6 0. Participant Characteristics.5 6 8.5 120.) Isometric Strength.85 6 0. 1–5.10 6 0.3 24. self-rated physical ability. kg % Body fat Bone mineral density.9 25.3 166.4 122.314 .0 115.11 6 0.4 6 13.7 46.383 HV (N ¼ 19) 71.9 25.5 28. self-rated general health. y Percent who fell in the year previous to baseline assessment.1 6 1.9 6 18.7 6 51. Importantly.655 . g/cm2 Whole body Total hip Quality of life* Balance confidence* Self-rated physical ability* Self-rated general health* Physical activity Number of medications Fallsy Isometric strength Biceps curl Mean 0–500 ms Mean 500–1500 ms Max 0–500 ms Max 500–1500 ms Leg extension Mean 0–500 ms Mean 500–1500 ms Max 0–500 ms Max 500–1500 ms Muscle power Chest press P A Biceps curlz P A Leg press P A Leg curl P A Leg extension P A 239.04 0.4 24.4 7. 5–80.3 167.330 .5 6 16.6 167.4 48.8 1.6 6 6 6 6 1.6 6 6.6 50.766 .2 6 20.0 296.9 6 2. Muscle Power and Movement Velocity The present study supports previous research that has reported increased muscle power following resistance . 16–160.05 6 0.03 61.0 CO (N ¼ 15) 69.6 76.5 27. y Height.393 Notes: Values are mean 6 standard error.7 6 6 6 6 5.7 16.4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1. ST ¼ strength training.5 3.489 . kg Lean mass.2 21.1 99.

0–500 ms Max.56 23.05. leg press (D). and leg extension (F). ST ¼ strength training.7 1.3 10.9 113. supported row (B).1 CO (N ¼ 15) 7.2z ST (N ¼ 19) 6. 0–500 ms Max.113 .001). .3 6 26.88 HENWOOD ET AL. *Between groups following training adjusted for baseline and sex (analysis of covariance). y Significant within-group difference from baseline ( p .and long-term changes in muscle strength for groups of older adults undertaking high-velocity varied resistance training (HV) or strength training (ST) or nontraining controls (CO) for bench press (A).5 23.289 .776 .185 . biceps curl (C).6y 1.4 116.5 2.7 1.5 3.4 103. Short.7 140. .2 30.7 83. However. CO ¼ control.7 30. Although no statistical differences between training groups emerged.2 6. The present study extends previous work from our laboratory (9) on lower-body muscle power by demonstrating that both upper-body and lower-body muscle power are enhanced following an extended period of training.8 1.5 31.6 1.9 28.1 1. de Vos and colleagues (10) investigated the optimal training load (20% [G20]. z Significant within-group difference from baseline ( p .8 6 27.7 7.3z 6.3y 1.3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0. training. Recently.) and Mean Isometric Muscle Strength (Nm) in Older Adults Following 24 Weeks of Resistance Training Adjusted for Baseline Values and Sex Variable Biceps curl Range Mean 0–500 ms Mean 500–1500 ms Max.2 94.5 119.0 6.145 .045 Leg extension Notes: Values shown are adjusted mean 6 standard error.4z 6.3z 3. relative percent change data indicate that the HV group had notably larger increases in peak muscle power than their ST counterparts. leg curls (E). Within-group comparisons are presented in each exercise.3z 3. HV ¼ high-velocity varied resistance.4 24. 500–1500 ms Mean 0–500 ms Mean 500–1500 ms Max.0 p Value* .4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0.3y 1.9 24.3z 9. or 80% [G80] 1RM) to increase muscle power in Table 2.035 .3 6 6 6 6 0. it is the first to compare power-specific training at varied resistances to strength training.05).6 6 23. 50% [G50].2y 9. p .1 129.037 . Maximal (Max. 500–1500 ms HV (N ¼ 19) 7. Figure 1.8 7.2 132. .0 32.

99 1.15 3.1 . ST .19 0.91 17.09 3.7 53.08 0.2 133. ST .79 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0.1 253.0 174.81 3.13 17. Functional Performance at Baseline and Following 8 and 24 Weeks of Resistance Training in Older Adults.09 0.023 Group 3 Time .4 6 15.001 .45 0.6 150.8 91.08 0.07 0. 24 .29 0. 0 0. p .08 0. 24 Chair rise (s) .58 6.9 .927 .44 0.29 0.93 3. 24 ..86 33.1 6 12. *Analysis of covariance adjusted for sex. However.15 245.17 29. 24 0 .21 0.91 3.07 0.81 236.4 6 9.0 403.51 10.61 Week 24 3..99 12.91 6. . CO HV.88 3.3 6 5.02 2. it is unclear if the increases were force or movement velocity dependent.38 0.69 3. CO 423.6 6 11.95 3.002 0 . HV ¼ high-velocity varied resistance training.83 18.7 160.09 1.513 .10 3.95 2.68 4.005 0.11 0.001 .14 1. .001 .4 6 9.07 0.37 0.9 6 4. absolute total-body peak power was greater in G50 than G20.3 112.23 0. z HV (n ¼ 18).41 0.8 48. 8.8 6 17. y Bonferroni post hoc between-group multiple comparisons. 8 .81 4.9 6 15. ST .08 0.29 12.8 Comparisony Stair climb (s) .70 5.017 400 m walk (s) .28 0. ST .58 3.20 0.04 3.001 HV .89 5.5 6 3.7 372.18 33.57 243. ST ¼ strength training (n ¼ 19).1 6 17.49 1. in contrast to the testing protocol used by de Vos and colleagues (10).09 0.08 1.56 5. 24 24 .77 12. ST .9 148. *Analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline values and sex.2 6 8.34 4.042 Usual 6 m walk (s) .54 3.435 .7 87.74 237.78 3.02 18.43 1.31 0.19 0.3 6 4.26 10.24 31.7 6 10.39 247.001 HV. 24 Backward 6 m walk (s) .284 0 .8 53.81 19.208 HV.97 0.3 6 10.6 292.08 0.38 0.8 0 . CO 155.94 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0.89 256.34 244. Peak (P) and Average (A) Muscle Power (W) in Older Adults Following 24 Weeks of Resistance Training Adjusted for Baseline Values and Sex Variable Chest press P A Biceps curlz P A Leg press P A Leg curl P A Leg extension P A 370.7 232.87 Week 8 3.4 6 4.6 6 5.11 1.3 .24 Time .66 16.86 3.48 253. CO ¼ controls (n ¼15).85 3.0 81.6 204. y Within-group multiple comparisons for weeks 0.10 31. ST . CO HV.3 6 9.49 3.08 0.91 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0.00 4.28 0.64 5. CO HV.5 6 9.93 30.014 . 8.9 153.05.82 30. 8.11 1.13 1.39 0. z ST (n ¼ 18).12 11.325 8. CO HV (N ¼ 19) ST (N ¼ 19) CO (N ¼ 15) p Value* Comparisony Notes: Values shown are adjusted mean 6 standard error.064 24 . HV ¼ high-velocity varied resistance training (n ¼ 19).1 . Following training. 8.4 6 10. ST . and 24. 8 Fast 6 m walk (s) .21 0.11 0.44 0.0 .41 0.13 0.25 4. CO 283.75 10. Table 4.13 3.57 4. Adjusted for Sex p Value* Variable Floor rise to standing (s)z Group HV ST CO HV ST CO HV ST CO HV ST CO HV ST CO HV ST CO HV ST CO HV ST CO Baseline (0) 3.383 .8 42.1 80.9 102.100 Notes: Values shown are adjusted mean 6 standard error.498 .11 1.06 1.38 12.11 0. 0 8.38 0. 24 Functional reach (cm) .687 .015 HV.9 6 8.598 .29 0.21 0.5 6 9.11 1.77 3..1 6 4..35 4.005 .19 5.96 4.97 15.9 6 9.51 247.2 170. CO 207.8 98.98 4.27 11.94 2.08 0. with no other differences observed.56 33.17 0.29 1.2 6 9. we removed the influence of regular 1RM assessment so specific power or strength training benefits could emerge..25 5.8 6 4.29 1. older adults. ST .32 0.1 6 17. CO HV.52 4.06 1.0 6 19. ST ¼ strength training.89 4.81 4.001 HV.42 17.93 3.46 1.35 33. Moreover.7 248. CO ¼ control..08 0.1 6 9. 0 0.9 6 3.19 15.17 0.MUSCLE POWER TRAINING IN OLDER ADULTS 89 Table 3.

In addition. Therefore. it is unclear why similar improvements were not detected in the ST group given the similar improvements in physical function and the social interactions experienced during the intervention. as the ST group also improved their chair-rise performance following training. School of Human Movement Studies. Evans WJ. or single-set high-intensity training (31.28).90 HENWOOD ET AL. it appears that. in particular frail and institutionalized elderly persons.64:1038–1044. 1990.edu. PhD. et al. J Gerontol Med Sci. participants in the study were highfunctioning and independently living. Furthermore.30). 2000. The exercise groups undertook differing total workloads per session. Knuttgen HG. their decrease in movement velocity suggests that the high-velocity training regimen may have an important impact on maintained contraction speed in older adults.au REFERENCES 1. In addition. which is not uncommon when comparing different exercise regimens. 2000. Although previous research indicates little or no change in self-assessed quality of life following training (36). important role for nonhypertrophy-related factors for enhancement of muscle strength and power. Had groups performed an equal volume of work. studies to date indicate that older adults retain the ability to increase movement velocity (17. care must be taken when applying these results to all groups of older adults. Association of muscle power with functional status in community-dwelling elderly women. Moreover. JAMA. In the present study. this has only been reported following interventions addressing rate of force development during maximal isometric contraction (27. In addition. Dynamic and Isometric Muscle Strength In general. The University of Queensland. differences may have emerged. Queensland. Secondary Outcomes Both exercise regimens resulted in similar improvement in body composition comparable to those previously reported in older adults undertaking resistance exercise (34. High-intensity strength training in nonagenarians. Evans WJ. These outcomes have important implications for the future design of training programs to safely and effectively enhance physical function in older persons. The modest change in lean mass indicates the Limitations Some potential limitations of the study are worthy of comment. it is unlikely that 24 weeks of training was sufficient to detect change (35). 3. Strength conditioning in older men: skeletal muscle hypertrophy and improved function. However. comparable to those of a multiple high-intensity set regimen. although high-velocity training is an effective means of increasing short. motor unit discharge. and may not reflect all older adults. Effects on skeletal muscle. was observed for the ST group.19).28). J Gerontol Med Sci. particularly given the similar changes experienced for muscle power and dynamic muscle strength (33). Even though an increase in force production. Summary Strength and high-velocity resistance training in healthy. . Ryan ND. Evans WJ. the HV group experienced important increases in isometric leg extension and biceps curl strength using a reduced workload per exercise session. Importantly. Training participants also experienced a decrease in fat mass but no change in BMD. Related to muscle fiber composition. Laviolette LC. 4072. the changes are similar to those obtained with strength training. and in contrast to the ST group. the limited change experienced by the ST group was unexpected.26). CORRESPONDENCE Address correspondence to: Tim Henwood. varied resistance training occurred with less total work performed per exercise session.55A:M192–M199. Although similar increases in isometric torque have been reported previously following explosive resistance training (27. our study also shows that improvement in power-orientated functional tasks are not exclusively related to explosive training. 4. Therefore. Clark M. 1988. O’Reilly KP. 2.and long-term functional ability. Exercise strategies should be designed to increase muscle power. and firing frequencies. and subsequently muscle power. These data suggest that high-velocity explosive training may have an important impact on the neural output of the muscle that has transferred to isometric strength and rate of torque development (27. E-mail: thenwood@hms.28). Foldvari M. given the time course of bone remodeling.25). however. changes in muscle function were accompanied by the enhancement of selected functional tasks. Australia.263:3029–3034.55A:M309–M310. significant dynamic muscle strength gains. Marks EC. we would especially like to thank the participants without whom this study would not have been possible. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We sincerely thank our many colleagues in the School of Human Movement Studies at The University of Queensland who volunteered their time and expertise to this project. Furthermore. Frontera WR. the HV group experienced significant increases in the initial 500 ms of the moments for all measures except maximal biceps curl. Lipsitz LA. Although a decrease in speed of contraction has been reported as the critical determinant in power loss with aging (23). Fiatarone MA. Meredith CN. significantly greater strength gains are reported following high-intensity multiple set training than following low-intensity or moderate-intensity training (29. well-functioning older adults significantly and similarly improved muscle power and muscle strength. was achieved in older adults using a single set of highintensity work with additional sets at a reduced load. the changes experienced following high-velocity. Meredith CN.32).35). Functional Performance The present study supports our previous work showing that high-velocity varied resistance training is an effective means of increasing functional ability in previously untrained older adults (9. a modest increase was observed in quality of life for the HV group. Brisbane. In addition. and research involving younger participants show enhanced velocity of contraction with training (24. we found only modest changes in movement speed postintervention.uq. J Appl Physiol.

Alvar BA. J Gerontol Med Sci. J Appl Physiol. 2006.4:59–70. Marcus R. J Gerontol Med Sci. Exercise heat stress does not reduce central activation to non-exercised human skeletal muscle. 2002. Ross DA. Hagerman FC. muscle fibre and force production characteristics during heavy resistance/power strength training in middle-aged and older men and women. Effects of maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength. Komi PV. Duchateau J. 8. power and related functional ability of healthy people aged 65–89 years.16:381–392. J Strength Cond Res. Clin Physiol. 13. Campbell WW. 32. Schlicht J. Pakarinen A. Changes in electromyographic activity. et al. 1998. Alen M.42:267–273. Taaffe DR. Newton RU. Refsnes PE. Pyka G. 1995. Smith KW. McNair PJ. MD. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. cross-sectional area. Swank AM. Marino FE. Taaffe DR. De Vito G. 2005. 1999. 14. Effect of resistance training on skeletal muscle-specific force in elderly humans. Influence of aging on the mechanical behavior of leg extensor muscles.11:341–368. Burkett LN. Hunter GR. Med Sci Sports Exerc.88:783–790. de Vreede PL. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 2003. Janney CA.MUSCLE POWER TRAINING IN OLDER ADULTS 91 5. Selective muscle hypertrophy. Narici MV. PhD . Duursma SA. Optimal load for increasing muscle power during explosive resistance training in older adults. Bamman MM. Cronin J. Pruitt L. 12. Fiatarone Singh MA.30: 337–343. Davies JM.56A:M281–M286. Walters SJ. fiber area. Hakkinen K.78:59–64. 2006 Accepted May 16.46:153–162.33:1759–1764. Singh NA. 2001. Developing explosive power: a comparison of technique and training. Guido D.and lower-body exercises. Gilders RM. Forte R. Is velocity-specific strength training important in improving functional performance? J Sports Med Phys Fitness. Camaione DN.33:1567–1576. Wittink HM. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Cronin JB. 2001. J Strength Cond Res. Macaluso A. Gerontology. Luecke TJ. 16.171:51–62. J Sci Med Sport. Fatouros I. Taaffe DR.88: 50–60. The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): development and evaluation. de Vos NJ.16:525–529. Washburn RA. Wetzstein CJ. J Gerontol Med Sci. J Appl Physiol. Siegel JA. et al. Shimp-Bowerman J. Received December 19. 28. Joseph L. Wheeler S. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. Resistance training effects on muscular strength of elderly are related to intensity and gender. 23. 35. Cannon J. Berning JM. 34. 2005. Kraemer WJ.51:108–115.60A:638–647. Munro JF. Newton RU. Strength. J Appl Physiol. 29.513(Pt 1):295–305. and force during strength training in middle-aged and older people. 2007 Decision Editor: Luigi Ferrucci. Determinants of maximal instantaneous muscle power in women aged 50–75 years. Greig CA. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005. Marshall RN. Resistance exercise dosage in older adults: single. Acta Physiol Scand. 30. Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. 11. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. Evans WJ. Pulejo C. Kay D. Hakkinen K.16:173–178. Alen M. Figura F. walking speed. J Sci Med Sport. 2006.96:885–892. J Physiol. Using the SF-36 with older adults: a cross-sectional community-based survey.50A:M28–M34. 1998. Changes in single motor unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed after dynamic training in humans. older African American women. McLafferty CL Jr. 1994. and sit-to-stand performance in older adults. and serum hormones during strength training in older women. 2005. 6. van Meeteren NL. 20. Abildgaard A. 2005.and low-intensity resistance training on thigh muscle strength.47:1208–1214. Age Ageing. Carson RG. 2002. Human muscle power output during upper. Reeves ND. Saboisky J. Hakkinen K. Powell LE. Rhea MR. et al. Barnard KL. 24. Zuckerman PA. Beneka A. Changes in power with resistance training in older and younger men and women. Owen SV.91:569–580. 25. vii. 2001. Staron RS. Henwood TR. Malliou P. 2000. Eur J Appl Physiol. Valkeinen H. The effect of functional tasks exercise and resistance exercise on health-related quality of life and physical activity.versus multiset effects on physical performance and body composition. Improved physical performance in older adults undertaking a short-term programme of high-velocity resistance training.75:193–199. Moss BM. Brazier JE. Wendeln HK. 21. Sevene-Adams PG. Age-related differences in rapid muscle activation after rate of force development training of the elbow flexors. 2001. Stavrinos TM.26:305–313. Jensen J. J Gerontol Biol Sci Med Sci.54A:M591–M596. Jozsi AC. 1980. 1998. Verhaar HJ. Kraemer WJ. Galvao DA. 26.162:122–132.84:1341–1349. changes in EMG and force. 2001. and tissue composition in elderly women. 31. load-power and load-velocity relationships. 17. Taaffe DR. 1997. Izquierdo M. Samson MM. 1996. Hakkinen A. 36. 18. 22. J Am Geriatr Soc. Ball SD. Henwood TR. Skelton DA. muscle CSA. Landers KA. 2001. 1999.53:2090–2097. Young A. Effect of intense strength training on standing balance. 2004. Barry BK. Kraemer WJ. Once-weekly resistance exercise improves muscle strength and neuromuscular performance in older adults. Nicolaysen K. Duret C. Exp Physiol. Van Cutsem M. 15. 1993. Taaffe DR. Exp Brain Res. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. Marcus R. 33. Davey SL.8:274–283. Orr R. McNair PJ. Comparative effects of high. Jette AM. 2001. Maganaris CN. Campos GE. Myers AM.45: 209–219. 9. Bernardi M. 10.23:371–377. Hainaut K. Training for muscular power. Adams KJ. 2002. 27. Short-term resistance training and the older adult: the effect of varied programmes for the enhancement of muscle strength and functional performance. High-resistance versus variable-resistance training in older adults. 19. A randomised controlled trial. Kallinen M. J Am Geriatr Soc. 7. Marshall RN. Bosco C. Age Ageing. Warman GE. Progressive strength training in sedentary. Gerontology. 2002.53:12–20. J Clin Epidemiol. Changes in agonistantagonist EMG.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful