Leg Power & Sit-to-Stand Training
Sit-to-stands, step-ups and fast-tempo leg work: one way to carry out what the sources on the concept entry report, that power deficits are more pronounced with aging than strength loss (McKinnon 2017) and that power training improved functional capacity related to fall risk in older adults (Jiménez-Lupión 2023).
Screen blood pressure/joints; master form before adding speed or load.
- Two or more falls in the past 12 months, or any fall with injury
- Dizziness, lightheadedness, or fainting during standing or movement
- New or worsening unsteadiness, neurological symptoms, or numbness in the feet
- Fear of falling severe enough to restrict daily activity
How to do it
What the evidence says
This practice is one way to carry out what the sources on the concept entry (phys.neuromotor.concept-aging-balance-decline) studied: the age-related loss of force and power and the training that addresses it. McKinnon 2017 (narrative review) reports that deficits in muscle power are more pronounced with aging than strength loss and may be a more sensitive marker of neuromuscular degeneration, and that high-velocity power training may better improve functional performance and mitigate fall risk than conventional strength training. Byrne 2016 (systematic review, 44 studies) reports that muscle power is strongly related to physical function and is a valid target for pragmatic power-training interventions in older people. Jiménez-Lupión 2023 (meta-analysis, 12 studies, 478 participants) reports that power training improved functional capacity related to fall risk, measured with the 30-second sit-to-stand and Timed Up and Go. Schaun 2021 (narrative review) reports that high-velocity resistance training appears effective for improving muscle power, functional performance and mobility, with mobility-limited older adults possibly improving more than healthy counterparts. On stopping, Carvalho 2008 (randomised trial) reports that training improved chair stand by 27.3% and up-and-go by 11% in older women, and that strength and flexibility declined significantly after 3-month detraining. The full account, source by source, is on the concept entry this practice links to (phys.neuromotor.concept-aging-balance-decline).
- 'Older adults shouldn't move fast' (power declines faster than strength with age, which is why high-velocity power training is studied)
- Does not guarantee prevention of any fall or injury
- Not a substitute for medical evaluation of dizziness, syncope, or unexplained falls
- Does not replace balance-specific training
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 15 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- A source states a certainty rating for 1 outcome.
- Authors
- Sources share authors: Kelly Westlake (first author of 2 sources); E. Culham (senior author of 2 sources).
- How the sources were read
- Some sources are based on abstracts, not full texts.
What each source measured and concluded (15)
- What it measured
- Strength, power and postural control changes with ageing and training/fall prevention
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Quadriceps strength, proprioceptive acuity (joint position sense), postural stability and functional performance
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Neuromuscular adaptations underlying age-related loss of muscle power and effect of high-velocity power training
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Neural and musculotendinous mechanisms of age-related force reduction; effects of training
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Relationship between muscle power and functional performance; effect of power training on function
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and scoping review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 44 studies
- What it measured
- Functional capacity tests related to fall risk (30s Sit-to-Stand, Timed Up and Go)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 12 studies, 478 subjects (meta-analysis subsets: 6 studies/217 for 30s-STS, 4 studies/142 for TUG)
- What it measured
- Effects of high-velocity resistance training on muscle power and functional performance
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Balance, functional exercise capacity, cognitive function, fear of falling.
- How it measured it
- Timed Up and Go test (validated), Six-Minute Walk Test (validated), tracking task (validated).
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis of 35 studies within a systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=2,936 participants across 35 studies
- What it measured
- Functionality, balance, gait velocity, risk of falls
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 13 RCTs qualitative, 11 quantitative
- What it measured
- Muscle strength.
- How it measured it
- 5-Chair Stands (objective), Timed Up and Go (objective), Tinetti test (objective).
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “WBV training proves to be a healthy method, adequate and effective in the strength of the elderly population, but with similar results to conventional resistance exercise.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What it measured
- Cognitive, physical and dual-task functions
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Overview of systematic reviews/meta-analyses
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 18 reviews
- What it measured
- Cardiorespiratory fitness and health profiles (lipid, glycemic, hemodynamic).
- How it measured it
- Six-minute walk test (6MWT) with Cosmed K4b2.
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What it measured
- Functional fitness test battery after multicomponent training and detraining
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Center-of-pressure (COP) velocity change score after proprioceptive perturbation
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What it measured
- Ankle proprioception (threshold to passive movement, passive joint position sense, velocity discrimination)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
Certainty ratings the sources state (1)
- Rating, as the source states it
- Low
- Framework
- not named by the source
- Applies to
- Low quality of evidence due to small sample sizes and limited methodological quality.
- Stated by
- Howes et al. (2017)
Every source below is shown with its study design and links to the original study. This is the audit trail.
“Abstract only” means the review read that paper’s abstract, not its full text; “screened only” means it was included at re-screening and not extracted. Both stay in the trail with their DOI, because how a source was read is part of the audit.