Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35305276›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2022

Effectiveness of individualized training based on force-velocity profiling on physical function in older men.

Kolbjørn Lindberg, Hilde Lohne-Seiler, Sindre H Fosstveit, Erlend E Sibayan, Joachim S Fjeller, Sondre Løvold, Tommy Kolnes, Fredrik T Vårvik, Sveinung Berntsen, Gøran Paulsen and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Force-Velocity Profile for Jumping: What It Is and What It Is Not.Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kolbjørn LindbergDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5860-6273
Hilde Lohne-SeilerDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Sindre H FosstveitDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Erlend E SibayanDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Joachim S FjellerDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Sondre LøvoldDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Tommy KolnesDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Fredrik T VårvikDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Sveinung BerntsenDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Gøran PaulsenDepartment of Physical Performance, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Olivier SeynnesDepartment of Physical Performance, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas BjørnsenDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4010-8038
University of Agder · NONorwegian School of Sport Sciences · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of an individualized power training program based on force-velocity (FV) profiling on physical function, muscle morphology, and neuromuscular adaptations in older men. Forty-nine healthy men (68 ± 5 years) completed a 10-week training period to enhance muscular power. They were randomized to either a generic power training group (GPT) or an individualized power training group (IPT). Unlike generic training, individualized training was based on low- or high-resistance exercises, from an initial force-velocity profile. Lower-limb FV profile was measured in a pneumatic leg-press, and physical function was assessed as timed up-and-go time (TUG), sit-to-stand power, grip strength, and stair-climbing time (loaded [20kg] and unloaded). Vastus lateralis morphology was measured with ultrasonography. Rate of force development (RFD) and rate of myoelectric activity (RMA) were measured during an isometric knee extension. The GPT group improved loaded stair-climbing time (6.3 ± 3.8 vs. 2.3% ± 7.3%, p = 0.04) more than IPT. Both groups improved stair-climbing time, sit to stand, and leg press power, grip strength, muscle thickness, pennation angle, fascicle length, and RMA from baseline (p < 0.05). Only GPT increased loaded stair-climbing time and RFD (p < 0.05). An individualized power training program based on FV profiling did not improve physical function to a greater degree than generic power training. A generic power training approach combining both heavy and low loads might be advantageous through eliciting both force- and velocity-related neuromuscular adaptions with a concomitant increase in muscular power and physical function in older men.

Indexed as

Muscle StrengthResistance TrainingAdaptation, PhysiologicalAgedExercise TestHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalQuadriceps Muscleaginghealthneuromuscularperformance

Identifiers

PMID35305276
PMCPMC9313882
OpenAlexW4221120411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.