Effects of High-Speed vs. Low-Speed Resistance Training on Neuromuscular and Functional Capacities in Institutionalized Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the effects of high-velocity resistance training to slow-velocity re-sistance training on neuromuscular and functional parameters and to analyze the relationship between changes in walking speed and improvements in neuromuscular parameters following intervetions. Methods: 40 participants were randomly assigned to either a high-speed resistance training group (GHS, n = 18; age = 80.41 ± 10.12 years; BMI = 23.81 ± 3.45 kg/m²) or a low-speed resistance training group (GLS, n = 22; age = 82.89 ± 5.32 years; BMI = 23.81 ± 3.45 kg/m²). Before and after the interventions, gait speed (m/s) was assessed using a 10-minute walking test, and relative maximal force (Relative F max, N/kg) was evaluated during maximal voluntary isometric con-traction of the plantar flexors. From the force-time curve, early (0 – 50 ms) and late (100 – 200 ms) rates of force development (RFD) were extracted from the linear slopes (Δ force / Δ time). Results: Gait speed significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05). However, the improvement was more pronounced in the GHS compared to the GLS (p < 0.05). Relative Fmax showed a more significant increase in the GLS than in the GHS (p < 0.05). Moreover, a significant 10% increase in early RFD in the GLS and a 20.1% increase in the GHS were observed (p < 0.05). The improvement in early RFD was greater in the GHS (p < 0.05). Additionally, late RFD improved significantly only in the GHS (+20.4%, p < 0.05). Conclusion: High-velocity resistance training appears particularly effective in improving the ability to rapidly generate force, which is essential for many daily activities re-quiring explosive movements and quick responses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".