Ni 2016

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001730 Parkinson's Force-Velocity 1
3 High-speed resistance training modifies load-velocity and load-power relationships
4 in Parkinson’s disease
5
Meng Ni, PhD, PT1, Joseph F. Signorile, PhD2,3
D
6
7
1
8 Harvard Medical School, Department of PM&R, Boston, MA
TE
9 2University of Miami, Laboratory of Neuromuscular Research and Active Aging,
10 Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, Coral Gables, FL
11 3Miller School of Medicine, Center on Aging, University of Miami, Miami, FL
12
EP
13 Corresponding author and address for reprints:
14 Joseph F. Signorile, PhD
15 Professor
16 Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences

C
17 University of Miami
C
18 1507 Levante Ave, Max Orovitz, Rm 114
19 Coral Gables, FL 33146

A
20 Phone: 305-284-3105
21 Fax: 305-284-4183
22 Email: jsignorile@miami.edu
23
24 Running Title: Parkinson's Force-Velocity
25
Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Parkinson's Force-Velocity 2
26 ABSTRACT
27 Muscle power is a major neuromuscular factor affecting motor function and
28 independence in patients with Parkinson's disease; and it is commonly targeted using
29 high-speed exercise. This study examined the changes in velocities (Vpp) and percent
30 loads (%1RMpp) at peak power, as well as load-velocity (L-V) and load-power (L-P)
31 relationships, resulting from resistance training due to exercise choice and loading in
D
32 older Parkinson's patients. Fourteen older adults with mild to moderate Parkinson's
TE
33 disease participated in a 12-week randomized controlled power training trial. Changes in
34 L-V and L-P relationships for the biceps curl, chest press, leg press, hip abduction, and
35 seated calf were assessed using pneumatic resistance machines at loads ranging from 30
36 through 90% of subjects' 1RM for each exercise. Significant increases in Vpp were seen
EP
37 for biceps curl, leg press, hip abduction, and seated calf and decreases in %1RMpp for
38 biceps curl and hip abduction. Additionally, unique patterns of change were seen in these
39 relationships across exercises with biceps curl, chest press and leg press showing the
C
40 greatest shifts at the lower load end of the loading spectrum, and hip abduction and seated
41 calf showing their greatest responses at the higher end. The patterns of change in L-V and
C
42 L-P relationships provide evidence for the unique responses of the specific muscle groups
43 and joints to the exercises evaluated, and offer a framework for more exacting exercise
A
44 prescriptions in patients with Parkinson's disease.
45
46 Key Words: weight-training, bradykinesia, elderly, optimal loading, weakness,
47 movement velocity
48

49 INTRODUCTION
50 Muscle power (force × velocity) is the product of muscle weakness and bradykinesia
51 (slowness of movement); two major symptoms of Parkinson’ disease (PD). Movement
52 velocity deteriorates to a greater degree at light loads than at heavy loads in Parkinson’s
53 patients with mild to moderate symptoms (1) . Additionally, leg muscle power is a
D
54 significant determinant of gait speed and is associated with fall incidents in these patients
55 (2) .
TE
56
57 Resistance training has been widely used in patients with PD to enhance muscle function
58 and physical performance (5) ; however, only a single study, to our knowledge, has
EP
59 employed high-speed resistance training (power-training) techniques to address this
60 deficit and improve physical function in patients with PD (17) . This is surprising since
61 high-speed power training techniques have been used extensively to address physical
62 function in independently-living (9, 12, 22) and frail older persons (13) , persons with
C
63 sarcopenic obesity (3) and individuals with mental illness (28) .
64
C
65 A number of studies have reported the impact of speed and resistance levels on the load-
A
66 velocity relationship in healthy populations. The load-velocity (L-V) curve, is a graphic
67 representation of the non-linear, inverse relationship between these variables in skeletal
68 muscle. Because power is the product of load and velocity, a load-power (L-P) curve is
69 commonly included with the L-V curve. It has been shown that patterns of change in the
70 L-P and L-V curves vary with training protocols, with greater improvements toward the
71 load end of the curve for with high resistance/low velocity training and the greatest

72 improvements at the velocity end of the curve with low resistance / high speed training
73 (14-16, 27) . However, the changes in L-P and L-V patterns due to resistance training
74 have not been previously reported in patients with PD. Clearly the nature of this disease
75 should dictate very different responses to training as reflected in the load-velocity
76 relationship. Clarifying these relationships has the potential to underscore effective
D
77 therapeutic strategies. Additionally, force and power responses to high-speed power
78 training in older persons (24) , and optimal loads for maximal power during pneumatic
TE
79 training (20) vary by joint and muscle group.
80
81 Given the influence of power and movement speed on independence and fall risk in
82 persons with PD (2) , we employed high-speed training techniques, using individuals'

EP
83 optimal loads for different exercises, to reduce bradykinesia and increase strength and
84 power in older patients with PD. The diverse loading patterns and exercises used allowed
85 us to examine the specific changes in L-V and L-P curves resulting from power training
C
86 in these participants. We hypothesized that:
87
C
88 1. The shifts in the L-V and L-P curves would be specific to the loading patterns used;
89 2. Shifts would favor the velocity end of the curve given the low baseline movement
A
90 velocities of these individuals due to bradykinesia; and,
91 3. Changes would be moderated by joint and muscle structure differences.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
D
This is a secondary analysis of results from a randomized controlled study, details of
which are published elsewhere (17) . Subjects were PD patients (Hoehn & Yahr stages I-
TE
III) able to meet specific physical and mental parameters with no resistance training
history within the previous year. The participants in the exercise group completed a 12-
week power training (PWR) program that included three circuits of 10–12 repetitions on
11 pneumatic resistance machines. Each session used maximal speed concentric and
EP
controlled eccentric phases. The control group (CON) received health education classes
over the 12 weeks. To ascertain the unique specific shifts in the L-V and L-P
relationships in these Parkinson’s patients, an analyses of differences in L-V and L-P

C
curves were assessed using the velocities (Vpp) and loads (%1RMpp) at which peak power
occurred, and in the velocities and power outputs at each relative load from 30-90%
C
1RM. For each of the five exercises 2 (pretest/post-test) x 2 (PWR/CON) repeated
measures ANCOVA with pretest values as a covariate and Bonferroni post hoc analyses
A
were used to determine differences. Effect size was calculated using η2 and the
significance level was set a priori at .05. These analyses allowed us tos examine our
hypotheses of specific changes in the curves due to load, joint (movement) and the
specific symptoms of the disease.

Subjects
The study was approved by the University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and all
D
subjects were informed of the benefits and risks of the investigation prior to signing an
institutionally approved informed consent document to participate in the study. Each
TE
participant also completed a physical activity readiness questionnaire and health history
questionnaire prior to participation. Subjects were: 60-90 years of age, diagnosed
idiopathic PD (Hoehn & Yahr stages I-III); capable of ambulating at least 50 feet with or
without an assistive device; able to get up and down from the floor with minimal
EP
assistance, and had no cognitive impairment (MMSE ≥ 24). Exclusion criteria were
unstable cardiovascular disease or other uncontrolled chronic conditions that would affect
their safety, testing, or interpretation of results. All subjects were non-smokers and
C
reported no use ergogenic supplements. Additionally, they could not have resistance
trained regularly (once or more weekly) within the past year and were instructed to
C
refrain from any regular formal exercise outside of the study protocol. None of the
subjects tested had any prior experience with pneumatic exercise equipment used during
A
training and testing. Baseline characteristic of participants are presented in Table 1, and a
study flow chart is presented in Figure 1.

Interventions
Power Training: The PWT program has been described in detail elsewhere (17). Briefly
D
we used evolving optimal loads, which were systematically increased using plateaus in
power output across two consecutive training days. Load increases were 5% for lower
TE
body and 2.5% for upper body. The optimal loads had been determined before the start
of training on the 11 pneumatic machines (Keiser A420, Keiser Health Equipment,
Fresno, CA), including: biceps curl, triceps push-down, chest press, seated row, lat pull-
down, shoulder press, leg press, leg curl, hip abduction, hip adduction, and seated calf
EP
(20) . Each session included 3 circuits of 10–12 repetitions on each machine, twice
weekly, for 12 weeks. Training occurred during the spring.

C
After a one-week acclimatization period, training loads for each exercise were increased
using the aforementioned power plateaus. For each exercise, participants performed the
C
concentric phase as quickly as possible and moved slowly (1-2s) through the eccentric
phase. Two 2-week translational recovery cycles (weeks 5 and 11) that utilized balance
A
and agility activities were included in the program. Cycles were based on the drills
presented in the Bending the Aging Curve text (23) .

During all training sections subjects were encouraged to remain hydrated and filter water
was available within 1 meter of the training area. Additionally, subjects were instructed
not to change their diets throughout the training and testing periods.
Control: One hour health education classes concerning the improvement of life style
through exercise and nutrition were provided once per month over the 12 weeks.
D
Testing
TE
All tests were performed using five computerized pneumatic resistance machines: arm
curl (AC), chest press (CP), leg press (LP), hip abduction (HA) and calf raise (CR)
(Keiser A420, Keiser Health Equipment, Fresno, CA). This equipment has been used
extensively in scientific investigation (3, 20, 22, 29) . All machines were professionally
EP
services immediately before the start of the study, and reliability as measured by
interclass correlation coefficients across testing days ranged from .82 to .96 with
confidence intervals ranging from 0.912 to 0.999.

C
One-Repetition Maximum Testing. Since 1RM was expected to change with training,
C
tests were performed before and after the training period. The 1RM protocol used began
with a 10-repetition warm-up at a low resistance. The tester and subject then agreed on a
A
load close to the subject’s predicted maximum. The weight was then increased or
decreased between 2 and 5 kg depending on the subject’s ability to perform the repetition
using proper technique. All participants’ 1RM were determined in less than five attempts.
A 30s rest was provided between attempts and a 2 min rest between exercises. The 1RM

values for the LP, HA, and CR were determined on day one, while the 1RM values for
the CP and AC were determined on day two.
D
Power Testing. After the completion of strength testing, participants rested for 20
TE
minutes. Power testing began with a warm-up of 10 repetitions at 30%1RM, a 1 minute
recovery, and a second five repetition high-speed warm-up at 30%1RM. Peak power was
then assessed at 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% 1RM and loads were
randomized to minimize any order effect. Subjects were instructed to perform the
EP
concentric phase of the lift as fast as possible with the eccentric phase performed over
app. 2-3 seconds. Repetitions were begun with a “3…2…1…Go!” verbal cue (20) . Any
repetition not performed properly was repeated after a 1 minute break. Power output was
C
recorded from the display of each machine and cross-referenced with the electronic
spreadsheets.
C
Curve-related Descriptor Variables. L-V and L-P curves were constructed using the data
A
derived from the Keiser collection software (Keiser Health Equipment, Fresno, CA).
Analyses of differences in L-V and L-P curves were made using a number of specific
variables. The first two were the velocities (Vpp) and loads (%1RMpp) at which peak
power occurred. The second set of variables was the peak velocities and powers at each

relative load from 30-90% 1RM. These values were derived for each machine and
intervention group.
D
TE
Data Analyses
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (Version 22, IBM Corp., Chicago,
IL). Group and time were the independent variables. Differences in change scores
between the PWR and CON groups for the Vpp and %1RMpp, and power and velocity at
EP
each load, for each of the five exercises were assessed using 2 (pretest/post-test) x 2
(PWR/CON) repeated measures ANCOVA, with pretest values as a covariate. Post hoc
analyses were performed using Bonferroni adjustments. Effect size was calculated using
C
η2. The significance level was set a priori at .05.

C
RESULTS
Changes in Vpp and %1RMpp for each exercise are presented in Figures 2A and 2B,
A
respectively. Figures 3A - E present L-V curves and Figures 3A’- E’ present L-P curves
all five exercises. The within group change and interactions for velocity and power for
each machine are presented in Table 2 for the upper body and Table 3 for the lower body.
Biceps Curl

Significant time (η2=.283; p=.019) and time x group (η2=.428; p=.002) differences were
seen for Vpp (Figure 2A). Pairwise analysis indicated a significant increase in Vpp for
PWR and a significant decrease for CON. Similarly, for %1RMpp (Figure 2B), significant
time (η2=.469; p=.001) and time x group (η2=.348; p=.001) differences were evident.
Pairwise analysis indicated a significant decline in %1RMpp for PWR and no significant
D
change for CON.
TE
Figures 3A and 3A’ present the L-V and L-P curves, respectively. For PWR (Table 2A),
significant declines were seen in velocity at 80%1RM and 90%1RM. A significant group
x time interaction was seen at 60%1RM with the PWR group showing an improvement
approaching significance and a decline in performance that approached significance for

EP
CON (Table 2A).
Chest Press
C
A significant time difference (η2=.537; p<.001) was seen for CP Vpp (Figure 2A);
however, neither PWR nor CON showed significant changes individually. For %1RMpp
C
significant time (η2=.524; p<.001), group (η2=.556; p<.01), and time x group (η2=.194;
p=.046) differences were seen; but pairwise analyses indicated no significant changes for
A
PWR or CON.
The L-V curves for CP are presented in Figure 3B. Significant group x time interactions
were seen for 30% through 60%1RM (p<.05), with a significant improvement at
30%1RM for PWR (Table 2B). The CP L-P curve is presented in Figure 3B’. There was

a significant group x time interaction for L-P at 70%1RM and significant increases in
power at loads from 30%1RM through 80%1RM with diminishing improvement as loads
increased (Table 1B).
D
TE
Leg Press
Significant time (η2=.331; p=.006) and time x group (η2=.438; p=.001) differences were
seen for Vpp. Pairwise analysis indicated that PWR increased Vpp with no significant
impact for CON (Figure 2A). For %1RMpp a significant time (η2=.358; p=.004) effect
EP
was seen; but no time x group interaction (η2=.010; p=.665). Pairwise analyses indicated
no significant changes for PWR; but a significant decrease for CON (Figure 2B).
The L-V curves for LP (Figure 3C, Table 3A) showed significant interactions favoring
C
PWR for loads between 30%1RM and 70%1RM and significant improvements for PWR
between 30%1RM and 80%1RM. Additionally, there were significant declines for CON
C
at 70%1RM and 90%1RM. L-P curves (Figure 3C’, Table 3A) showed significant
interactions between 30%1RM and 80%1RM with significant improvements for PWR for
A
all loads but 90%1RM.
Hip Abduction
A significant time x group interaction (η2=.438; p=.001) was seen for HA. Pairwise
analysis indicated that PWR increased Vpp with no significant change for CON. For the

%1RMpp significant time (η2=.287; p=.015) effects were seen; however, no time x group
differences occurred. Pairwise comparisons indicated a significant decline in %1RMpp for
PWR, but no significant change for CON.
The L-V analyses are presented in Figure 3D (Table 3B). Significant interactions were
seen at 50%1RM (η2=.217; p=.038) and 60%1RM (η2=.220; p=.037); and significant
D
improvements in velocity were seen for PWR at 30%1RM and 50%1RM. Figure 3D’ and
Table 3B present the L-P relationships for HA. Significant interactions were seen at all
TE
loads with the exception of 80%1RM and improvements were seen at all loads with the
exception of 90%1RM.
Seated Calf
EP
There was no significant differences detected during the seated calf for time (η2=.148;
p=.077), nor time x group (η2=.135; p=.092) for Vpp. Pairwise analysis, however,
indicated that PWR increased Vpp with no significant impact for CON. For the %1RMpp
C
a significant time (η2=.319; p=.006) effect was seen with no time x group interaction
(η2=.002; p=.835).
C
The L-V curves for the SC at different relative loads are presented in Figure 3E with
A
further results in Table 3C. Significant group x time interactions were seen for 60%1RM
(η2=.208; p=.033) and 70%1RM (η2=.196; p=.039), with a significant improvement at
30% for PWR and significant declines for CON from 60%1RM through 80%1RM. The
L-P curve results are presented in Figure 3E’ and Table 3C. While there were no

significant group x time interactions, significant increases for the PWR group were seen
for 30%1RM, 40%1RM, 60%1RM and 70%1RM.
D
TE
DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this is the first investigation to examine the capacity for power
training to generate changes in the L-V and L-P relationships for selected resistance
EP
training exercises in individuals with PD. The major findings across the 12-week
progressive power training period using pneumatic resistance machines supported our
hypotheses. First, the shifts in the L-V and L-P curves were specific to the loading
C
patterns as evidenced by the increases in Vpp and reductions in %1RMpp in all exercises
but the chest press. Second, shifts did favor the velocity end of the curve as seen by the
C
increases in Vpp and decreases in %1RMpp and the patterns of change in the L-V and L-P
curves, where the majority of significant differences occurred at the low load end of the
A
curves. And finally, changes showed different patterns depending on the joint and muscle
structures targeted by each exercise. Therefore, our study is unique since it expands the
information on pneumatic power training in older populations to include subjects with a
specific neurological disorder, PD. This is also the first isoinertial study to demonstrate
that changes in L-V and L-P relationships can vary due to joint and muscle structure.

As noted above, the L-V and L-P curves showed their greatest shifts at the low-load end
of the curves, specifically for the AC, CP and LP; while HA and CR improvements
favored higher loading patterns. Joint specificity needs to be considered as a modulator of
responses in the L-V and L-P relationships among exercises. Signorile et al (25) found
that low-speed training favored power increases for the plantar flexors and high-speed
D
training favored the knee extensors. They attributed these differences to the nature of the
skeletal levers at each joint, and possibly, fiber type distributions in the working muscles.
TE
Similarly, the current findings reflect the principle of joint specificity, and clinicians need
to take into consideration these varying responses when prescribing a resistance training
program for PD patients. High-speed resistance training, with low to moderate loading,
would maximize muscle power improvements at the velocity end of the spectrum for the
EP
BC, CP and LP, but moderate to high loads would maximize power improvements at the
load end for HA and CR.

C
Specifically, for the LP, our results compare favorably with those reported in earlier
studies that examined the impact of training on L-V and L-P curves. Using a controlled-
C
speed, hypertrophy-based program (8-12 RM) with subjects 60-75 years of age, Petrella
et al (19) showed patterns of improvement for power and velocity that were highest at
A
the lowest loads with decreasing improvements throughout the 30-60%1RM testing range.
In another study comparing high-load (90%1RM), moderate load (48-58%1RM) and low
load (20-37%1RM) training using the leg press, knee extension/flexion, half-squat, bench
press, abdominal exercises, back extensions, and jumping exercises with 43 men (age:
22.7±2.5 years), Smilios et al (27) noted that the greatest shifts in the L-V and L-P curve

occurred at loads between 65 and 80%1RM during jump-squat activity for those who
underwent high and moderate load interventions. In cotrast, the greatest changes seen in
our subjects' L-V curve was at the lower end of the loading spectrum. The greater
improvements at the lower load areas of the curves in our study compared to theirs may
be attributable to three components. First, our participants were older (mean age: 71.6y)
D
and their muscle adaptation to training differs from young adults. This is in line with a
previous study that indicated that improvements in younger subjects' power were
TE
primarily due to increases in strength, while older adults relied on both strength and
velocity during leg extension (19) . Second, given the disease state in our older PD
patients, it is likely that L-V and L-P curves shift downward along the loading spectrum
may have been due to the bradykinesia associated with PD and selective atrophy of fast
EP
twitch Type II muscle fibers (11, 21) , changes in tendon properties (18) , and the
reduced motor unit number and recruitment capacity (6) associated with aging. Thirdly,
the variations in methodology, including training loads and power testing procedures,
C
make the studies difficult to compare with reference to changes in the shapes of the L-V
and L-P curves.

C
This study had some limitations. First, the small sample size may have reduced the
A
statistical power and capacity to detect significance. Second, for individual’s baseline
peak power and the starting training loads varied from 40% to 80% 1RM among
participants. Though the training load was not consistent among participants, we believe
these results are relevant, since peak power can be improved similarly using light,
moderate, or heavy loads (8) . Third, the duration of the study was relatively short. A

study of longer duration, or one using greater exercise volume, might have revealed
further modifications in L-V and L-P relationships. Finally, as this analysis only includes
data from older adults with mild to moderate PD (H&Y stage I-III), the results may not
be applicable to individuals with more severe PD symptoms (i.e., H&Y stage IV-V).
D
TE
In conclusion, this is the first study to report patterns of change in the L-V and L-P
relationships for multiple exercises in response to high-speed resistance training in older
adults with PD. The patterns of change seen provide a clearer picture of the unique
EP
responses of the specific muscle groups and joints associated with the exercises
evaluated, and provide a framework for more exacting exercise prescriptions in this
population.
C
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
C
Our results provide a scientific framework for prescribing high-speed resistance training
for patients with PD based on the shift patterns in L-V and L-P curves. The increased Vpp
A
and decreased %1RMpp after high-speed resistance training demonstrate the increased
movement speed at lower loads and prevalent upward shift at the low load end of the L-P
curve. However, clinicians and personal trainers should be aware that xercises like the
CR and HA appear not to be as responsive to high-speed training. One cardinal symptom
of PD, bradykinesia, is considered to be a major cause of these patients’ reduced muscle

power at lighter loads (1) . This reinforces the assertion that our training protocol, which
targeted velocity rather than strength, should be an important training cycle included in
any resistance training program to improve neuromuscular function in PD patients.
Moreover, if walking is the physical disability of interest, high-speed, low to moderate
resistance training may be the most effective strategy; since it has been suggested that
D
walking tasks may be related to power produced at lower loads and higher velocities (7)
Given the association between leg muscle power and walking speed (2) , and the critical
TE
role of power in maintaining independence (4, 10, 26) and reducing fall risk (2) , these
results can help clinicians and personal trainers better prescribe optimal resistance-
training interventions for individuals with PD.

EP
Financial Disclosure/Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest to
declare
C
C
A

Reference:
1. Allen NE, Canning CG, Sherrington C and Fung VS. Bradykinesia, muscle weakness
and reduced muscle power in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 24: 9: 1344-1351, 2009.
2. Allen NE, Sherrington C, Canning CG and Fung VS. Reduced muscle power is
D
associated with slower walking velocity and falls in people with Parkinson's disease.
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 16: 4: 261-264, 2010.
TE
3. Balachandran A, Krawczyk SN, Potiaumpai M and Signorile JF. High-speed circuit
training vs hypertrophy training to improve physical function in sarcopenic obese adults:
A randomized controlled trial. Exp Gerontol. 60: 64-71, 2014.

EP
4. Bassey EJ, Fiatarone MA, O'neill EF, Kelly M, Evans WJ and Lipsitz LA. Leg
extensor power and functional performance in very old men and women. Clin Sci. 82: Pt
3: 321-327, 1992.
C
5. Brienesse LA and Emerson MN. Effects of Resistance Training for People With
C
Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 30;14(4):236-41.2013.
6. Brown WF, Strong MJ and Snow R. Methods for estimating numbers of motor units in
A
biceps‐brachialis muscles and losses of motor units with aging. Muscle Nerve 11: 5:
423-432, 1988.
7. Cuoco A, Callahan DM, Sayers S, Frontera WR and et al. Impact of Muscle Power and
Force on Gait Speed in Disabled Older Men and Women. J.Gerontol.A Biol.Sci.Med.Sci.
59: 11: 1200-6, 2004.

8. de Vos NJ, Singh NA, Ross DA, Stavrinos TM, Orr R and Fiatarone Singh MA.
Optimal load for increasing muscle power during explosive resistance training in older
adults. J.Gerontol.A Biol.Sci.Med.Sci. 60: 5: 638-647, 2005.
9. Fielding RA, LeBrasseur NK, Cuoco A, Bean J, Mizer K and Singh MAF. High‐
velocity resistance training increases skeletal muscle peak power in older women.
D
J.Am.Geriatr.Soc. 50: 4: 655-662, 2002.
TE
10. Foldvari M, Clark M, Laviolette LC, Bernstein MA, Kaliton D, Castaneda C, Pu CT,
Hausdorff JM, Fielding RA and Singh MA. Association of muscle power with functional
status in community-dwelling elderly women. J.Gerontol.A Biol.Sci.Med.Sci. 55: 4:

EP
M192-9, 2000.
11. Grimby G. Muscle performance and structure in the elderly as studied cross-
sectionally and longitudinally. J.Gerontol.A Biol.Sci.Med.Sci. 50 Spec No: 17-22, 1995.

C
12. Häkkinen K, Kraemer WJ, Pakarinen A, Tripleltt-Mcbride T, Mcbride JM, Häkkinen
A, Alen M, McGuigan MR, Bronks R and Newton RU. Effects of heavy resistance/power
C
training on maximal strength, muscle morphology, and hormonal response patterns in 60-
75-year-old men and women. Can J Appl Physiol. 27: 3: 213-231, 2002.
A
13. Izquierdo M and Cadore EL. Muscle power training in the institutionalized frail: a
new approach to counteracting functional declines and very late-life disability.
Curr.Med.Res.Opin. 30: 7: 1385-1390, 2014.

14. Kanehisa H and Miyashita M. Specificity of velocity in strength training.
Eur.J.Appl.Physiol.Occup.Physiol. 52: 1: 104-106, 1983.
15. Moffroid MT and Whipple RH. Specificity of speed of exercise. Phys.Ther. 50: 12:
1692-1700, 1970.
D
16. Moss B, Refsnes P, Abildgaard A, Nicolaysen K and Jensen J. Effects of maximal
effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area,
TE
load-power and load-velocity relationships. Eur.J.Appl.Physiol.Occup.Physiol. 75: 3:
193-199, 1997.
17. Ni M, Signorile JF, Balachandran A and Potiaumpai M. Power Training Induced

EP
Change in Bradykinesia and Muscle Power in Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinsonism
Relat.Disord. 2015.
18. Onambele GL, Narici MV and Maganaris CN. Calf muscle-tendon properties and
C
postural balance in old age. J.Appl.Physiol.(1985) 100: 6: 2048-2056, 2006.

C
19. Petrella JK, Kim J, Tuggle SC and Bamman MM. Contributions of force and velocity
to improved power with progressive resistance training in young and older adults.
A
Eur.J.Appl.Physiol. 99: 4: 343-351, 2007.
20. Potiaumpai M, Gandia K, Rautray A, Prendergast T and Signorile JF. Optimal Loads
for Power Differ by Exercise in Older Adults. J.Strength Cond Res. 30: 10: 2703-2712,
2016.

21. Proctor DN, Sinning WE, Walro JM, Sieck GC and Lemon PW. Oxidative capacity
of human muscle fiber types: effects of age and training status. J.Appl.Physiol.(1985) 78:
6: 2033-2038, 1995.
22. Sayers SP. High-speed power training: a novel approach to resistance training in
older men and women. A brief review and pilot study. J.Strength Cond Res. 21: 2: 518-
D
526, 2007.
TE
23. Signorile JF. Bending the Aging Curve. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics, 2011, p.
24-25.
24. Signorile JF, Carmel MP, Czaja SJ, Asfour SS, Morgan RO, Khalil TM, Ma F and
EP
Roos BA. Differential increases in average isokinetic power by specific muscle groups of
older women due to variations in training and testing. J.Gerontol.A Biol.Sci.Med.Sci. 57:
10: M683-90, 2002.

C
25. Signorile JF, Carmel MP, Czaja SJ, Asfour SS, Morgan RO, Khalil TM, Ma F and
Roos BA. Differential increases in average isokinetic power by specific muscle groups of
C
older women due to variations in training and testing. J.Gerontol.A Biol.Sci.Med.Sci. 57:
10: M683-90, 2002.

A
26. Skelton DA, Greig CA, Davies JM and Young A. Strength, power and related
functional ability of healthy people aged 65-89 years. Age Ageing 23: 5: 371-377, 1994.
27. Smilios I, Sotiropoulos K, Christou M, Douda H, Spaias A and Tokmakidis SP.
Maximum power training load determination and its effects on load-power relationship,

maximum strength, and vertical jump performance. J.Strength Cond Res. 27: 5: 1223-
1233, 2013.
28. Strassnig MT, Signorile JF, Potiaumpai M, Romero MA, Gonzalez C, Czaja S and
Harvey PD. High velocity circuit resistance training improves cognition, psychiatric
symptoms and neuromuscular performance in overweight outpatients with severe mental
D
illness. Psychiatry Res. 229: 1: 295-301, 2015.
TE
29. Strassnig MT, Signorile JF, Potiaumpai M, Romero MA, Gonzalez C, Czaja S and
Harvey PD. High velocity circuit resistance training improves cognition, psychiatric
symptoms and neuromuscular performance in overweight outpatients with severe mental
illness. Psychiatry Res. 229: 1: 295-301, 2015.

EP
Figure Legends
C
Figure 1. CONSORT flow chart.
Figure 2. (A) Velocity at the peak power before and (B) percent 1RM where peak power
C
occurred after 3-month training. *Significantly different from pretest, †significant

change difference between groups. Power training pretest (■) and post-test ( ); Control
A
pretest ( ) and post-test (□). Bars represent mean and SE.
Figure 3. Velocity and power (‘) for loads at each percentage of 1RM before and after 3-
month training. (A, A’) biceps curl; (B, B’) chest press; (C, C’) leg press; (D, D’) hip
abduction; (E, E’) seated calf. *Significantly different from pretest, †significant change
difference between groups. Power training pretest ( ● ) and post-test ( ▲ ); Control
pretest (--○--) and post-test (--∆--). Values indicate mean and SE.

Table 1. Participant characteristics at the baseline. Data presented as mean±SD.
PWR (n=14) CON (n=10)
Age (yr) 71.6±6.6 74.9±8.3
Gender (male/female) 9/5 4/6
Height (cm) 173.2±12.0 163.8±9.9
D
Weight (kg) 78.0±18.9 71.5±13.4
Disease duration (yr) 6.6±4.4 5.9±6.2
TE
H & Y stage 2.2±0.6 2.1±0.7
Exercise level (hr/wk) 3.8±3.3 3.3±3.2
UPDRS motor score 32.9±12.0 27.6±7.8

EP
H & Y stage = Hoehn & Yahr ; PWR = Power-based resistance training; CON = Control
group.
C
C
A

Table 2. Results of upper body load-velocity and power-velocity analyses.
Within Condition x Time
Baseline Changes at Post-test (post minus pre) P Adjusted Effect size P
D
PWR CON PWR CON PWR CON η2p Adjusted
TE
A. Biceps Curl
Load-Velocity
EP
30% .268±.032 .295±.025 .030 (-.005, .065) -.009 (-080, .061) .090 .774 .089 .299
40% .251±.026 .233±.024 .004 (-.028, .036) -.014(-.059, .032) .795 .532 .029 .511
50% .223±.028 .209±.031 -.002 (-.024, .020) -.009 (-.036, .017) .852 .479 .011 .665
60% .193±.027 .186±.012

C
-.002 (-.029, .025) -.030 (-063, .003) .889 .075 .101 .185
C
70% .179±.024 .147±.003 -.011 (-.030, .007) -.015 (-.038, -.008) .218 .192 .004 .808
80% .144±.024 .138±.005 -.029 (-.052, -.005)* -.019 (-.048, .010) .020 .186 .018 .584
A
90% .123±.018 .121±.010 -.033 (-.061, -.004)* -.020 (-.056, .051) .029 .240 .019 .577
Load-Power
30% 79.7±12.5 67.5±13.1 14.5 (-2.81, 26.5)* -6.7 (2.5, 16.3) .022 .534 .226 .101

40% 83.8±12.1 64.6±14.7 10.7 (-9.7, 31.2) -5.5 (-36.1, 25.1) .278 .704 .064 .364
50% 96.8±14.5 94±12.3 14.2 (2.3, 26.1)* -2.1 (-16.9, 12.8) .022 .774 .149 .102
60% 97.8±17.8 96.5±15.0 10.4 (-0.4, 21.1) -12.9 (-26.1, 0.4) .056 .056 .317 .012
D
70% 98.2±17.0 81.5±4.0 5.01 (-6.1, 16.2) -7.0 (-20.8, 6.9) .356 .304 .100 .187
80% 90.44±13.8 68.3±6.1 -4.5 (-18.8, 9.7) -6.8 (-24.6, 11.1) .512 .434 .002 .846
TE
90% 73.5±13.2 56.5±5.0 -3.1 (-23.7, 17.5) -5.4 (-30.5, 19.7) .751 .651 .002 .887
B. Chest Press
EP
Load-Velocity
30% .373±.034 .352±.036 .075 (.033, .118)* -.022 (-073, .029) .001 .374 .331 .006
40% .356±.032 .325±.032 .037 (-.009, .084) -.060 (-.116, -.004) .111 .038 .288 .012
50% .314±.031 .298±.029

C
.021 (-.017, .059) -.041 (-.086, .005) .263 .079 .198 .043
C
60% .292±.024 .262±.029 .028 (-.006, .062) -.033 (-.074, .007) .098 .102 .235 .026
A
70% .244±.020 .228±.025 .018 (-.014, .051) -.016 (-.055, .023) .250 .416 .093 .179
80% .198±.024 .208±.028 -.010 (-.040, .019) -.033 (-.068, .002) .471 .062 .055 .305
90% .209±.021 .186±.021 -.025 (-.052, .003) -.014 (-.047, .018) .073 .369 .013 .619

Load-Power
30% 147.1±6.5 132.4±10.7 56.4 (31.7, 81.0)* -6.7 (-40.9, 18.4) <.001 .437 .002 .414
40% 167.4±7.0 136.6±11.6 39.8 (-10.7, 68.9)* -6.5 (-41.6, 28.5) .010 .702 .048 .190
D
50% 179.3±7.5 140.3±10.1 50.5 (17.1, 83.8)* -4.3 (-44.5, 35.9) .005 .824 .042 .200
60% 177.5±7.1 141.1±10.9 48.9 (2102, 76.5)* -4.5 (-37.9, 28.9) .002 .780 .019 .255
TE
70% 160.5±6.5 146.7±10.3 48.8 (21.7, 75.8)* --8.7 (-41.3, 23.9) .001 .593 .297 .011
80% 147.2±6.6 122.7±8.2 35.6 (4.3, 66.9)* -9.2 (-46.9, 28.5) .028 .615 .160 .073
EP
90% 114.0±4.8 97.7±6.7 17.0 (-17.6, 51.5) -5.7 (-47.3, 35.9) .316 .777 .039 .392
All results are mean±SE CON = control; PWR = Power-based resistance training; Changes at Post-test are Mean Differences with
C
lower and upper bounds of 95% confidence intervals for difference). *significant pretest to post-test differences in pairwise
comparisons.
C
A

Supplementary Table 3. Results of the lower body load-velocity and power-velocity analyses.
Within Condition x Time
Baseline Changes at Post-test (post minus pre) P Adjusted Effect size P
D
PWR CON PWR CON PWR CON η2p Adjusted
TE
A. Leg Press
Load-Velocity
EP
30% .379±.033 .320±.031 .131 (.089, .173)* -.012 (-.069, .044) <.001 .652 .480 .001
40% .369±.037 .335±.034 .089 (.043, .135)* -.052 (-.113, .008) .001 .087 .442 .001
50% .340±.026 .252±.029 .078 (.042, .115)* -.046 (-.096, .003) <.001 .065 .464 .001
60% .316±.025 .252±.025

C
.049 (.010, .089)* -.026 (-.079, .027) .016 .318 .222 .031
C
70% .284±.029 .240±.035 .033 (.006, .060)* -.043 (-.079, -.007) .020 .021 .392 .002
A
80% .227±.024 .192±.030 .040 (.003, .077)* .003 (-.046, .052) .034 .893 .076 .226
90% .209±.027 .186±.039 -.011 (-.041, .018) -.052 (-.091, -.013)* .433 .012 .136 .100
Load-Power
30% 399.5±44.6 345.5±78.0 193.8 (131.8,255.7)* -10.9 (-93.1, 71.3) <.001 .784 .475 .001

40% 424.7±50.3 346.9±68.9 234.1 (141.8,326.4)* -16.8 (-139.6,105.9) <.001 .777 .377 .003
50% 465.5±51.4 381.5±80.2 212.5 (133.6,291.3)* -13.5 (-118.3, 91.4) <.001 .791 .401 .002
60% 492.1±49.6 399.4±74.7 189.6 (112.1,267.0)* 11.4 (-91.8, 114.7) <.001 .819 .300 .010
D
70% 461.7±45.0 337.2±61.0 194.4 (110.5,278.3)* 23.9 (-89.0, 136.8) <.001 .663 .242 .023
80% 436.9±41.1 317.5±49.2 172.5 (85.5,259.6)* 13.9 (-103.7,131.5) .001 .807 .202 .041
TE
90% 405.1±41.1 304.4±43.7 80.4 (-8.3, 169.1) -.817 (-120.1,118.4) .073 .989 .061 .280
B. Hip Abductors
EP
Load-Velocity
30% .198±.009 .175±.014 .022 (.006, .038)* -.003 (-.023, .018) .010 .781 .175 .067
40% .187±.007 .177±.014 .010 (-.004, .025) -.013 (-.032, .006) .154 .174 .181 .062
50% .169±.008 .165±.016

C
.018 (.002, .035)* -.010 (-.030, .011) .028 .334 .217 .038
C
60% .169±.008 .154±.016 .008 (-.004, .021) -.014 (-.031, .002) .185 .079 .220 .037
A
70% .152±.010 .143±.015 .007 (-.010, .025) -.015 (-.037, .007) .382 .166 .136 .109
80% .131±.009 .131±.015 .010 (-.006, .026) -.013 (-.033, .007) .191 .186 .170 .071
90% .122±.010 .118±.015 .002 (-.014, .018) -.024 (-.044, -.003)* .767 .027 .193 .052

Load-Power
30% 71.2±10.0 63.2±11.0 27.7 (15.1, 40.4)* -.9 (-17.0, 15.2) <.001 .908 .322 .009
40% 78.9±9.3 73.4±15.6 37.7 (24.0, 51.4)* -1.4 (-18.9, 16.1) <.001 .870 .431 .002
D
50% 94.4±10.6 76.3±14.1 29.0 (12.5, 45.6)* -2.1 (-23.3, 19.3) .002 .845 .241 .028
60% 103.4±10.4 85.4±17.8 25.6 (10.9, 40.4)* -1.6 (-20.5, 17.3) .002 .860 .238 .029
TE
70% 103.8±9.9 84.6±15.9 28.3 (12.8, 43.8)* -3.6 (-23.4, 16.3) .001 .712 .276 .017
80% 100.5±11.7 85.5±16.3 28.4 (7.0, 49.9)* -2.3 (-29.7, 25.1) .012 .863 .159 .082
EP
90% 102.3±12.9 86.6±18.0 18.0 (-.1, 36.1) -11.9 (-35.1, 11.2) .051 .293 .201 .048
C. Seated Calf
Load-Velocity
30% .307±.027 .294±.029

C
.057 (.010, .105)* -.004 (-.063, .055) .020 .894 .124 .109
C
40% .295±.030 .277±.025 .031 (-.014, .075) -.020 (-.076, .036) .169 .464 .097 .157
A
50% .278±.033 .269±.023 .000 (-.039, .039) -.037 (-.086, .012) .990 .130 .069 .237
60% .249±.029 .237±.022 .007 (-.023, .036) -.045 (-.082, -.008)* .631 .019 .208 .033
70% .225±.025 .212±.020 .012 (-.018, .042) -.039 (-.076, -.001)* .403 .043 .196 .039

80% .206±.023 .196±.015 .005 (-.028, .038) -.041 (-.082, -.001)* .751 .050 .141 .085
90% .172±.024 .161±.012 .018 (-.017, .052) -.021 (-.065, .023) .307 .328 .091 .172
Load-Power
D
30% 123.2±20.2 136.9±24.1 55.8 (16.4, 95.2)* 21.9 (-27.3, 71.2) .008 .363 .059 .277
40% 143.4±24.6 166.8±29.2 54.5 (16.5, 92.6)* 10.3 (-37.2, 57.9) .007 .655 .102 .147
TE
50% 166.8±30.0 144.2±18.5 28.2 (-8.5, 64.9) 17.4 (-28.5, 63.2) .125 .438 .007 .706
60% 160.5±27.1 159.9±26.9 45.1 (5.8, 84.5)* 21.7 (-27.4, 70.8) .027 .367 .029 .447
EP
70% 162.9±19.9 169.3±30.1 51.8 (23.9, 79.6)* 17.1 (-17.6, 51.9) .001 .316 .116 .121
80% 165.3±23.8 196.7±35.1 38.4 (-4.0, 80.8) -7.6 (-60.6, 45.5) .073 .769 .089 .177
90% 164.4±29.6 157.4±27.6 29.5 (-19.9, 78.9) -3.6 (-63.0, 55.8) .226 .900 .041 .381
C
All results are mean±SE CON = control; PWR = Power-based resistance training; Changes at Post-test are Mean Differences with
C
lower and upper bounds of 95% confidence intervals for difference). *significant pretest to post-test differences in pairwise
comparisons.
A

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Ni 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ni 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ni 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001730 Parkinson's Force-Velocity 1

3 High-speed resistance training modifies load-velocity and load-power relationships

14 Joseph F. Signorile, PhD

16 Department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences

18 1507 Levante Ave, Max Orovitz, Rm 114

19 Coral Gables, FL 33146

24 Running Title: Parkinson's Force-Velocity

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

28 independence in patients with Parkinson's disease; and it is commonly targeted using

44 prescriptions in patients with Parkinson's disease.

46 Key Words: weight-training, bradykinesia, elderly, optimal loading, weakness,

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

51 (slowness of movement); two major symptoms of Parkinson’ disease (PD). Movement

63 sarcopenic obesity (3) and individuals with mental illness (28) .

66 velocity relationship in healthy populations. The load-velocity (L-V) curve, is a graphic

67 representation of the non-linear, inverse relationship between these variables in skeletal

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

75 should dictate very different responses to training as reflected in the load-velocity

76 relationship. Clarifying these relationships has the potential to underscore effective

82 persons with PD (2) , we employed high-speed training techniques, using individuals'

86 in these participants. We hypothesized that:

90 velocities of these individuals due to bradykinesia; and,

91 3. Changes would be moderated by joint and muscle structure differences.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Experimental Approach to the Problem

relationships in these Parkinson’s patients, an analyses of differences in L-V and L-P

1RM. For each of the five exercises 2 (pretest/post-test) x 2 (PWR/CON) repeated

specific symptoms of the disease.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

institutionally approved informed consent document to participate in the study. Each

questionnaire prior to participation. Subjects were: 60-90 years of age, diagnosed

study flow chart is presented in Figure 1.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

of training on the 11 pneumatic machines (Keiser A420, Keiser Health Equipment,

weekly, for 12 weeks. Training occurred during the spring.

presented in the Bending the Aging Curve text (23) .

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

confidence intervals ranging from 0.912 to 0.999.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

the CP and AC were determined on day two.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

η2. The significance level was set a priori at .05.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

approaching significance and a decline in performance that approached significance for

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

increased (Table 1B).

all loads but 90%1RM.

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

differences occurred. Pairwise comparisons indicated a significant decline in %1RMpp for

PWR, but no significant change for CON.

(η2=.208; p=.033) and 70%1RM (η2=.196; p=.039), with a significant improvement at

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

for 30%1RM, 40%1RM, 60%1RM and 70%1RM.

information on pneumatic power training in older populations to include subjects with a

Copyright ª 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association

favored higher loading patterns. Joint specificity needs to be considered as a modulator of

load end for HA and CR.