Key numbers
566
Community-living older adults in 20 randomized trials (2022 review)
377
Older adults in 11 trials (2011 review)
What the trials compared
Both reviews compared two ways of lifting weights in older people living in the community. In power training the weight is lifted as fast as possible and lowered under control. Traditional strength training moves the weight more slowly.
The 2022 review pooled 20 randomized clinical trials with 566 older adults, and its main outcomes were measures of physical function. The 2011 review found eleven trials with 377 participants and also looked at secondary outcomes such as balance, gait and strength.
What they found
In the 2022 review, power training was associated with a modest improvement in physical function compared with traditional strength training in healthy, community-living older adults. The evidence was downgraded two levels for high risk of bias and imprecision.
For self-reported function the picture was less clear. Three trials with 85 participants gave a standardized mean difference of 0.38, with a 95% confidence interval from -0.62 to 1.37, a range that includes no difference at all. That result was downgraded for very serious imprecision.
The 2011 review reached a similar conclusion: power training was feasible for older people and had a small advantage for functional outcomes. It could not draw a firm conclusion about whether power training is as safe as conventional training.
What resistance training does for leg power
A 2016 meta-analysis asked a related question: how much does resistance training of any kind change leg power in adults aged 50 or older? Across randomized trials measuring leg press or knee extension power, the effect was small to moderate (Hedges' d 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.43), or about 54.90 watts. That is the effect of resistance training against no training, measured on leg press and knee extension machines, not a comparison of power training with strength training.
Training volume changed the size of the effect. These were leg press and knee extension tasks, not the Systematic broad jump, and the review did not compare power training with traditional training directly.
The evidence
Each cited source is labeled according to how it supports the particular claim on this page. Direct test evidence, underlying-capacity findings and population reference values are distinguished from Systematic-defined protocols and standards. Historical development notes are retained internally rather than presented as public evidence. A study of an underlying capacity is never presented as validation of the Systematic test itself.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Balachandran et al. (2022). Comparison of Power Training vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA network open.
What it found. Power training was associated with a modest improvement in physical function compared with traditional strength training in healthy, community-living older adults, with low-certainty evidence.
What it does not show. It does not show that power training is better for everyone, a mortality benefit, or anything about the Systematic broad jump standards.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Tschopp et al. (2011). Is power training or conventional resistance training better for function in elderly persons? A meta-analysis. Age and ageing.
What it found. Power training was feasible for older people and had a small advantage over conventional strength training for functional outcomes.
What it does not show. It does not show a firm conclusion about safety, or that power training is better on every outcome.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Straight et al. (2016). Effects of Resistance Training on Lower-Extremity Muscle Power in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.).
What it found. Resistance training had a small-to-moderate effect on leg press and knee extension power in adults aged 50 or older.
What it does not show. It does not measure the Systematic broad jump, predict mortality, or compare power training with traditional training directly.
The Systematic Healthspan Assessment is a physical baseline. It is not a diagnosis, and it does not estimate a biological age, a disease risk or a lifespan.