Effects of maximal-versus submaximal-intent resistance training on functional capacity and strength in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of different methods of resistance training (RT) on functional capacity in older adults. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov databases, from inception to December 2021. Eligibility criteria consisted of randomised control trials (RCT’s) involving maximal-intent resistance training (MIRT), where participants (aged 60+) had specific instruction to move ‘as fast as possible’ during the concentric phase of the exercise. Twelve studies were included within the meta-analysis. Divided into functional capacity and strength-related outcomes; Improvements were evident for timed-up-and-go (p = 0.001, SMD: − 1.74 [95% CI − 2.79, − 0.69]) and knee extension one-repetition maximum (1RM) (p = 0.01, SMD: − 1.21, [95% CI − 2.17, − 0.25]), both in favour of MIRT, as well as in 30 s sit-to-stand in favour of T-STR (p = 0.04, SMD: 3.10 [95% CI 0.07, 6.14]). No statistical significance was found for combined functional capacity outcomes (p = 0.17, SMD: − 0.84, [95% CI − 2.04, 0.37]), with near-significance observed in strength-related outcomes (p = 0.06. SMD: − 0.57, [95% CI − 1.16, 0.02]) favouring MIRT. Heterogeneity for FC-outcomes was observed as Tau2 = 4.83; Chi = 276.19, df = 14, I2 = 95%, and for strength-outcomes Tau2 = 1.290; Chi = 109.65, df = 115, I2 = 86%. Additionally, MIRT elicited substantial clinically meaningful improvements (CMI) in Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) scores but fell short of CMI in 400 m walk test by 0.6 s. In conclusion, this systematic review highlights the lack of sufficient and quality evidence for maximal- versus submaximal-intent resistance training on functional capacity and strength in community-dwelling older adults. Study limitations revolved around lack of research, low quality (“low” PEDro score), and largely due to the fact many comparison studies did not match their loads lifted (1500 kg vs. 500 kg), making comparisons not possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".