Home-based resistance training performed at either fast or slow speeds improves power output in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the effect of an unsupervised, body mass- home-based resistance training program in older adults performed at either a fast or slow contractile speed on changes to muscle-power, -volume, -architecture, and fatigue resistance of the knee extensors. METHODS: Thirty-two male older adults (age 65-88 years) were separated into 1) fast-speed exercise (Fast-group), 2) slow-speed exercise (Slow-group), and 3) no exercise (Control-group) groups. Participants in the exercise groups performed 30-45 repetitions of knee-extension and sit-to-stand exercises 3 times a week for 8 weeks with different exercise speed between the groups. Before and after the intervention period, the following variables were measured: Isotonic power, isometric strength, twitch contractile properties, muscle-activity, -architecture, and -quality, neuromuscular fatigue resistance of the knee extensors, and thigh muscle volume. RESULTS: Peak power was increased in both the Fast-group (+24 %, P < 0.01, d = 0.65) and Slow-group (+12 %, P < 0.05, d = 0.33) but not in the Control-group. Training increased pennation angle of the vastus lateralis in both the Fast-group (+8 %, P < 0.01, d = 0.42) and Slow-group (+8 %, P < 0.01, d = 0.42), while only the Fast-group showed increase in pennation angle of the rectus femoris (+12 %, P < 0.01, d = 0.64) and thigh muscle volume (+16 %, P < 0.01, d = 0.52). There was no time × group interaction effect for the other neuromuscular measures. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised, body mass- and home-based resistance training performed at either fast or slow speeds can improve muscle power in older adults, while fast-speed exercise may be preferable over slow-speed owing to the relatively greater improvement of muscle-power, -volume, -architecture, and better time efficiency.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".