Protocol
Power (high-velocity) resistance training versus traditional strength training
Lifting weights fast in the concentric phase, against lifting them slowly, in adults 60 and over.
Grade C: human trials exist, but they are small, mixed or not yet repeated. This is not a finding that it does not work. How to read a grade →
Compare this record with another, side by side →
How this letter has changedLatest: October 2026 · Corrected.
The record was named plyometric and power training and listed box jumps and medicine ball throws, but its one citation (Balachandran et al., JAMA Netw Open, 2022; PMID PubMed ID: the permanent number the US National Library of Medicine gives a published paper. Each one links to that paper's record on PubMed. 35544136) pooled fast-velocity resistance training against traditional lifting, mostly on machines, and found a small low-certainty advantage with self-reported function null. Added: Morrison et al. (2023; PMID 37328359), which calls the effects similar, and the Lopez et al. network meta-analysis A study that pools the numbers from several trials into one combined estimate. (2023; PMID 36378500), which finds traditional training better on two tests; jump training in older adults (Moran et al., 2018; PMID 30341594) is cited as a power outcome, not function. The uncited opening claim about power declining faster than strength is removed, and the track field now names the tests the trials used. C unchanged. Applied the written grade definition under the editor's standing instruction of October 2026 (Arnold Sandlow, D.C.).PMID 30341594 PMID 35544136 PMID 36378500 PMID 37328359
Every change to a letter on this site is dated and published. The full evidence log →
This protocol is power training. You lift lighter weights as fast as you safely can, instead of slowly. In adults over 60, a review of 20 studies found a small edge for power training on everyday physical tasks. A second review found small gains on two tests and called the two styles about the same overall.
Lifting weights fast in the concentric phase, against lifting them slowly, in adults 60 and over. Pooled head-to-head trials give a small, low-certainty advantage for power training on physical function, which one review calls similar to traditional training and a network meta-analysis finds test-dependent, with traditional training better on some tests. The trials used machine or free-weight resistance exercises, not jump training; plyometric jumping in older adults has its own small trials measuring power, not function.
Why this gradeGrade C, small or unreplicated trials. The reasoning, and what the grade does not cover.
Grade C on physical function in adults 60 and over, power training against traditional strength training. A meta-analysis of 20 randomized trials found a small advantage for power training (SMD 0.30) at low certainty (Balachandran et al., 2022; PMID 35544136). A second review found small advantages on two tests and called the effects similar overall (Morrison et al., 2023; PMID 37328359), and a network meta-analysis of 79 trials found the advantage test-dependent, with traditional training better on the 30-second sit-to-stand and 6-minute walk (Lopez et al., 2023; PMID 36378500). A small, low-certainty, inconsistent head-to-head difference is C.
WHAT THIS GRADE DOES NOT COVERpower training against no exercise, a different question where resistance exercise of any velocity improves function; falls, fractures or mortality; younger adults; and plyometric jump training, whose trials in older adults are few, small and measure power rather than function (Moran et al., 2018; PMID 30341594).
A grade describes the human evidence for a named use. It is not advice, and it is not a judgment on any individual prescription. How the letters are decided →
The evidence, in fullFour papers, each linked to its PubMed record.
Balachandran et al. (JAMA Network Open, 2022; PMID 35544136): meta-analysis of 20 randomized trials, 566 community-living adults aged 60 and over; power training improved physical function more than traditional strength training (standardized mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.54, 13 trials), low certainty for high risk of bias and imprecision; self-reported function did not differ (SMD 0.38, 95% CI -0.62 to 1.37). Morrison et al. (J Physiother, 2023; PMID 37328359): 19 trials, 1,055 participants; small advantages on the Short Physical Performance Battery (SMD 0.27) and timed up and go (SMD 0.35), low quality, other outcomes very uncertain, overall effects called similar. Lopez et al. (J Gerontol A, 2023; PMID 36378500): network meta-analysis of 79 trials, 3,575 participants; high-velocity training best for fast walking, timed up and go and five-times sit-to-stand, traditional training best for 30-second sit-to-stand and 6-minute walk. Moran et al. (Sports Med, 2018; PMID 30341594): jump training in adults 50 and over, 9 small studies; muscular power improved against control (effect size How large a difference the treatment made, as distinct from whether the difference could be detected at all. 0.66), a power outcome rather than function. Grade C.
The Short Physical Performance Battery or timed up and go at baseline and 12 weeks, the functional tests the head-to-head trials used. Movement velocity on the concentric phase is the process measure that distinguishes this training from traditional lifting. Joint pain and session volume, since fast loading in beginners raises injury risk.
Evidence notes: meta-analysis
Endpoint The outcome a trial measures to decide whether the treatment worked, such as heart attacks, blood pressure or a symptom score. graded: Physical function in adults 60 and over, power versus traditional strength training (functional)
Last reviewed: July 2026
Educational use only · Not medical advice · EBL grades published human evidence and does not recommend treatment. Stopping a prescription is a decision for your physician.
Evidence Based Longevity, Inc. is owner-operated and edited by Arnold Sandlow, D.C., a California-licensed chiropractor. Evidence Based Longevity publishes in English only · Machine translations are not produced or reviewed by EBL for accuracy
© Evidence Based Longevity, Inc.. All rights reserved
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Any grade on this page describes the strength of published human trial evidence in the populations studied. It is not a recommendation for any individual and is not medical advice. Starting, stopping or changing any supplement or medication is a decision for your physician.
Grades move when new trials publish. A free monthly email lists every grade EBL moved, with the reason and the trial behind it: the sign-up is on the Evidence Log →