Christopher Byrne1, Charles Faure2, David J Keene3, Sarah E Lamb3. 1. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Christopher.byrne@ndorms.ox.ac.uk. 2. Ecole Normale Supérieure de Rennes, Bruz, France. 3. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The physiological impairments most strongly associated with functional performance in older people are logically the most efficient therapeutic targets for exercise training interventions aimed at improving function and maintaining independence in later life. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to (1) systematically review the relationship between muscle power and functional performance in older people; (2) systematically review the effect of power training (PT) interventions on functional performance in older people; and (3) identify components of successful PT interventions relevant to pragmatic trials by scoping the literature. METHODS: Our approach involved three stages. First, we systematically reviewed evidence on the relationship between muscle power, muscle strength and functional performance and, second, we systematically reviewed PT intervention studies that included both muscle power and at least one index of functional performance as outcome measures. Finally, taking a strong pragmatic perspective, we conducted a scoping review of the PT evidence to identify the successful components of training interventions needed to provide a minimally effective training dose to improve physical function. RESULTS: Evidence from 44 studies revealed a positive association between muscle power and indices of physical function, and that muscle power is a marginally superior predictor of functional performance than muscle strength. Nine studies revealed maximal angular velocity of movement, an important component of muscle power, to be positively associated with functional performance and a better predictor of functional performance than muscle strength. We identified 31 PT studies, characterised by small sample sizes and incomplete reporting of interventions, resulting in less than one-in-five studies judged as having a low risk of bias. Thirteen studies compared traditional resistance training with PT, with ten studies reporting the superiority of PT for either muscle power or functional performance. Further studies demonstrated the efficacy of various methods of resistance and functional task PT on muscle power and functional performance, including low-load PT and low-volume interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Maximal intended movement velocity, low training load, simple training methods, low-volume training and low-frequency training were revealed as components offering potential for the development of a pragmatic intervention. Additionally, the research area is dominated by short-term interventions producing short-term gains with little consideration of the long-term maintenance of functional performance. We believe the area would benefit from larger and higher-quality studies and consideration of optimal long-term strategies to develop and maintain muscle power and physical function over years rather than weeks.
BACKGROUND: The physiological impairments most strongly associated with functional performance in older people are logically the most efficient therapeutic targets for exercise training interventions aimed at improving function and maintaining independence in later life. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to (1) systematically review the relationship between muscle power and functional performance in older people; (2) systematically review the effect of power training (PT) interventions on functional performance in older people; and (3) identify components of successful PT interventions relevant to pragmatic trials by scoping the literature. METHODS: Our approach involved three stages. First, we systematically reviewed evidence on the relationship between muscle power, muscle strength and functional performance and, second, we systematically reviewed PT intervention studies that included both muscle power and at least one index of functional performance as outcome measures. Finally, taking a strong pragmatic perspective, we conducted a scoping review of the PT evidence to identify the successful components of training interventions needed to provide a minimally effective training dose to improve physical function. RESULTS: Evidence from 44 studies revealed a positive association between muscle power and indices of physical function, and that muscle power is a marginally superior predictor of functional performance than muscle strength. Nine studies revealed maximal angular velocity of movement, an important component of muscle power, to be positively associated with functional performance and a better predictor of functional performance than muscle strength. We identified 31 PT studies, characterised by small sample sizes and incomplete reporting of interventions, resulting in less than one-in-five studies judged as having a low risk of bias. Thirteen studies compared traditional resistance training with PT, with ten studies reporting the superiority of PT for either muscle power or functional performance. Further studies demonstrated the efficacy of various methods of resistance and functional task PT on muscle power and functional performance, including low-load PT and low-volume interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Maximal intended movement velocity, low training load, simple training methods, low-volume training and low-frequency training were revealed as components offering potential for the development of a pragmatic intervention. Additionally, the research area is dominated by short-term interventions producing short-term gains with little consideration of the long-term maintenance of functional performance. We believe the area would benefit from larger and higher-quality studies and consideration of optimal long-term strategies to develop and maintain muscle power and physical function over years rather than weeks.
Authors: Nathaniel D M Jenkins; Samuel L Buckner; Haley C Bergstrom; Kristen C Cochrane; Jacob A Goldsmith; Terry J Housh; Glen O Johnson; Richard J Schmidt; Joel T Cramer Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Maria Reyes Beltran Valls; Ivan Dimauro; Andrea Brunelli; Eliana Tranchita; Emanuela Ciminelli; Paolo Caserotti; Guglielmo Duranti; Stefania Sabatini; Paolo Parisi; Attilio Parisi; Daniela Caporossi Journal: Age (Dordr) Date: 2013-10-18
Authors: Incare Correa De Jesus; Francisco José de Menezes Junior; Paulo Cesar Barauce Bento; Astrid Wiens; Jorge Mota; Neiva Leite Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2019-04-20 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Régis Radaelli; Gabriel S Trajano; Sandro R Freitas; Mikel Izquierdo; Eduardo L Cadore; Ronei S Pinto Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Marzo E Da Silva-Grigoletto; Marceli M A Mesquita; José C Aragão-Santos; Marta S Santos; Antônio G Resende-Neto; Josimari M de Santana; David G Behm Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Itamar P Vieira; Patrícia C B Lobo; James Fisher; Rodrigo Ramirez-Campilo; Gustavo D Pimentel; Paulo Gentil Journal: Sports Health Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Mary E Winger; Paolo Caserotti; Rachel E Ward; Robert M Boudreau; Lars G Hvid; Jane A Cauley; Sara R Piva; Tamara B Harris; Nancy W Glynn; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 4.032