The Effects of Force-Velocity Profile-Based Load Prescription on Muscle Power and Functional Performance in Velocity-Deficient Older Adults
Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026
Matching training loads to an older adult's velocity deficit changed their force-velocity profile but not their actual power or function.
Part of: Training load and injury risk: what the evidence says · Strength and hypertrophy: programming for adaptation
The paper
RCT, n=57 velocity-deficient older adults (≥65 years) who initiated a 12-week power-focused resistance training intervention.
What they found
F0 (maximal force) increased more in the non-individualized (loads not matched to deficit) group than the individualized group (p=0.040), while V0 (maximal velocity) increased more in the individualized group (p=0.009), but changes in power and functional performance did not differ between groups (all p≥0.065).
Study design
Single-centre RCT nested within a larger screening cohort of 80 older adults; force-velocity profiling on a pneumatic leg press identified 59 velocity-deficient participants (force deficits were too rare, n=4, to study), who were randomised to individualized (IND) or non-individualized (NON-IND) load prescription and followed for 12 weeks with assessments at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks.
Methodology
Randomisation and F-V profiling against a younger reference group give this reasonable internal validity, and the trial is prospectively registered (NCT06449716), which limits selective outcome reporting. However the sample is small (57 of 59 randomised actually started, split across two arms), performance/detection bias is plausible since resistance training trials cannot blind participants or trainers to loading condition, and no information is given here on attrition by 12 weeks, blinding of outcome assessors, or power calculation for the power/functional outcomes specifically; a clinician would need the full-text methods to check assessor blinding and the a priori power analysis.
The appraisal
The F0/V0 split is the tell here: NON-IND trained on force-biased loads and got more force gain, IND trained on velocity-biased loads and got more velocity gain. That confirms the F-V deficit framework works mechanistically, which also means this wasn't a trial too underpowered to see anything. It could detect the exact signal it was built to find. What it could not find, despite that sensitivity, was any power or functional advantage for the individualized approach over a generic programme. That is the actionable result: the added complexity of F-V profiling bought profile-specific adaptation but no better real-world outcome in velocity-deficient older adults.
The gap
No effect sizes or CIs are given in the abstract for the power and functional outcomes, so the magnitude of the 'no difference' can't be judged from this alone and should be checked in the full text before this is treated as a tight equivalence. The intervention also only included velocity-deficient participants (force deficits were rare, n=4, and excluded from the trial), so this says nothing about whether profile-matching helps the minority of older adults with a true force deficit. With roughly 28-29 per arm, a true small functional benefit of matching could still be missed, but the trial clearly wasn't underpowered across the board, it detected the expected F0/V0 dissociation (p=0.040, p=0.009), so the absence of a functional signal is informative rather than just a sample-size artefact.
Landmark context
This builds directly on the force-velocity profiling framework developed by Samozino, Morin and colleagues for individualized training prescription, extending it from younger athletic populations into velocity-deficient older adults, an application that has been theorized but not well tested in this age group.
What to do Monday
For velocity-deficient older adults doing power-focused resistance training, there is no evidence that profiling force-velocity deficits and matching loads to them improves power or function beyond a straightforward generic PRT programme. Clinicians and coaches do not need force-velocity profiling equipment or individualized load-zoning to get functional power gains in this population; a progressive programme spread across the load spectrum, cued for speed, performs just as well.
In practice
For older adults who test velocity-deficient (slow against light-to-moderate loads, which is common since rate of force development falls faster than maximal strength with age), both physiotherapists running falls-prevention or functional-strength programmes and S&C coaches training masters clients can default to a straightforward progressive power programme spread across the load spectrum, cued for speed, without the added cost of individual force-velocity profiling or load-zoning. Track the outcome that actually matters with a Single Leg Sit to Stand test at baseline and again at 6 to 12 weeks, since that is the kind of functional-power measure this trial's outcome maps onto and it is the number that should move for the programme to count as working. On the performance floor, this tempers the current push toward routine F-V profiling for masters athletes chasing power: the profile-specific adaptation is real, loads matched to a deficit do shift that specific quality, but it bought no extra function here, so reserve formal profiling for clients who plateau on generic programming rather than defaulting to it. One caveat in applying this: the trial excluded the rare force-deficient older adults (n=4), so this 'skip the profiling' message is for someone who tests slow, not someone who tests weak.
The five papers that matter — every week, free.
We read the whole sports-medicine, rehab & performance literature and appraise the papers worth your time.
Get the free weekly issue