Does High-Velocity Resistance Exercise Elicit Greater Physical Function Benefits Than Traditional Resistance Exercise in Older Adults? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of 79 Trials

• Published in: The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences Vol. 78; no. 8; pp. 1471 - 1482
• Main Authors: Lopez, Pedro, Rech, Anderson, Petropoulou, Maria, Newton, Robert U, Taaffe, Dennis R, Galvão, Daniel A, Turella, Douglas J P, Freitas, Sandro R, Radaelli, Régis
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: US Oxford University Press 02.08.2023
• Subjects: Aged; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Muscle Strength - physiology; Resistance Training; Walking; Muscle power; Strength training; Physical function
• ISSN: 1079-5006; 1758-535X
• DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glac230

Abstract Background A systematic review and network meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the effectiveness of different modes of resistance exercise velocity in fast walking speed, timed-up and go, 5-times sit-to-stand, 30-second sit-to-stand, and 6-minute walking tests in older adults. Methods CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, PubMed, Scielo, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to February 2022. Eligible randomized trials examined the effects of supervised high-velocity or traditional resistance exercise in older adults (ie, ≥60 years). The primary outcome for this review was physical function measured by fast walking speed, timed-up and go, 5-times sit-to-stand, 30-second sit-to-stand, and 6-minute walking tests, while maximal muscle power and muscle strength were secondary. A random-effects network meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the effects of different resistance exercise interventions. Results Eighty articles describing 79 trials (n = 3 575) were included. High-velocity resistance exercise was the most effective for improving fast walking speed (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00 to 0.87), timed-up and go (SMD −0.76, 95% CI: −1.05 to −0.47), and 5-times sit-to-stand (SMD −0.74, 95% CI: −1.20 to −0.27), while traditional resistance exercise was the most effective for 30-second sit-to-stand (SMD 1.01, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.34) and 6-minute walking (SMD 0.68, 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.03). Conclusion Our study provides evidence that resistance exercise velocity effects are specific in older adults, as evidenced by physical function test dependence. We suggest that prescriptions based on the velocity of contraction should be individualized to address the specific functional needs of participants.