Exercise TrainingNCT06449716

Individualized Versus Non-Individualized Resistance Training

A study testing 12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise program in people with Exercise Training, run by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven at 1 site in Belgium.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record

Search all trials

Trial summary

Who is it for?: Ages 65 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for: Exercise Training
What is being tested?: 12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise program
Could I receive a placebo?: No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people: 80 participants
Where: 1 siteBelgium
Study dates: 20 May 2024to 4 Dec 2025
Phase: Interventional
Are there results?: None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

Ages 65 years and older
All sexes
Healthy volunteers accepted
Older adult

Who may be able to join

Community-dwelling adults
At least 65 years old

Who cannot join

Systematic engagement in resistance exercise during the past year
Unstable cardiovascular disease, neuromuscular disease, acute infection or fever
Recent surgery
Lower-extremity injuries
Low levels of functional ability (i.e., SPPB score ≤ 9)
Cognitive malfunctioning (i.e., Mini-Mental State Examination < 24)

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Belgium1 site

KU Leuven - Department of Movement Sciences
Leuven, Vlaams-Brabant, 3000

Other trials in Belgium

About this study

Official title: A Tailored Intervention to Prevent Age-Related Declines in Muscle Power and Functional Ability

Preserving functional ability is crucial for healthy aging. Unfortunately, age-related decreases in muscle power often lead to declines in functional ability. As power is the product of force and velocity, decreases in power can originate from changes in muscle force, contraction velocity, or both, varying between individuals. The primary method to prevent functional disability is power-based resistance training. Although training interventions are effective for most older adults, they do not induce substantial improvements in a subset of the population. These inconsistent outcomes may arise from neglecting the observed differences in the force-velocity (F-V) profiles between individuals. Therefore, this study provides a novel approach to resistance exercise, in which exercise dose is tailored according to the individual's F-V profile. The effectiveness of the tailored method will be assessed in a randomized control trial, comparing the effects of an individualized and a non-individualized 12-week training intervention on muscle power parameters and functional ability.

Conditions: Exercise Training
Being tested: 12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise program

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise programOther
2x/week, 35-45 min sessions, on leg press machine

Study groups in NCT06449716
Study group	Role	What they receive
Individualized resistance exercise program	Experimental	Individualized exercise dose. All individuals perform resistance exercises at a load that targets their deficit. Individuals with a velocity deficit train at low loads while individuals with a force deficit train at high loads. Receives: Other: 12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise program
Non-individualized resistance exercise program	Active comparator	Non-individualized exercise dose. All individuals perform resistance exercises at a load that does not target their deficit. Individuals with a velocity deficit train at high loads while individuals with a force deficit train at low loads. Receives: Other: 12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise program

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

Maximal power (Pmax)
Participants performed explosive unilateral leg extensions with the dominant leg at five submaximal loads on a pneumatic leg press (Leg Press Air 400, Keiser, USA). Submaximal loads were scaled to the estimated maximal isometric force derived from the familiarization session. The three lighter loads were performed three times each and the two heavier loads twice, with the repetition yielding the highest mean concentric velocity retained for analysis. Participants subsequently performed single repetitions at incrementally increasing loads until 1-RM was reached. Rest intervals were adjusted according to the load of the preceding trial: 60 s after the three lightest loads, 90 s after the two heavier loads, and 120 s during the incremental trials leading to 1-RM. For each load, the mean concentric velocity of the best trial was used to establish the individual force-velocity (F-V) relationship using linear regression, from which the maximal power (Pmax; W) was estimated.
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Maximal isometric force (F0)
Participants performed explosive unilateral leg extensions with the dominant leg at five submaximal loads on a pneumatic leg press (Leg Press Air 400, Keiser, USA). Submaximal loads were scaled to the estimated maximal isometric force derived from the familiarization session. The three lighter loads were performed three times each and the two heavier loads twice, with the repetition yielding the highest mean concentric velocity retained for analysis. Participants subsequently performed single repetitions at incrementally increasing loads until 1-RM was reached. Rest intervals were adjusted according to the load of the preceding trial: 60 s after the three lightest loads, 90 s after the two heavier loads, and 120 s during the incremental trials leading to 1-RM. For each load, the mean concentric velocity of the best trial was used to establish the individual force-velocity (F-V) relationship using linear regression, from which maximal isometric force (F0; N) was estimated.
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Maximal unloaded velocity (V0)
Participants performed explosive unilateral leg extensions with the dominant leg at five submaximal loads on a pneumatic leg press (Leg Press Air 400, Keiser, USA). Submaximal loads were scaled to the estimated maximal isometric force derived from the familiarization session. The three lighter loads were performed three times each and the two heavier loads twice, with the repetition yielding the highest mean concentric velocity retained for analysis. Participants subsequently performed single repetitions at incrementally increasing loads until 1-RM was reached. Rest intervals were adjusted according to the load of the preceding trial: 60 s after the three lightest loads, 90 s after the two heavier loads, and 120 s during the incremental trials leading to 1-RM. For each load, the mean concentric velocity of the best trial was used to establish the individual force-velocity (F-V) relationship using linear regression, from which maximal unloaded velocity (V0; m/s) was estimated.
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Force-velocity slope
Participants performed explosive unilateral leg extensions with the dominant leg at five submaximal loads on a pneumatic leg press (Leg Press Air 400, Keiser, USA). Submaximal loads were scaled to the estimated maximal isometric force derived from the familiarization session. The three lighter loads were performed three times each and the two heavier loads twice, with the repetition yielding the highest mean concentric velocity retained for analysis. Participants subsequently performed single repetitions at incrementally increasing loads until 1-RM was reached. Rest intervals were adjusted according to the load of the preceding trial: 60 s after the three lightest loads, 90 s after the two heavier loads, and 120 s during the incremental trials leading to 1-RM. For each load, the mean concentric velocity of the best trial was used to establish the individual force-velocity (F-V) relationship using linear regression, from which the F-V slope (Ns/m) was derived.
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks

Secondary outcomes (20)

Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)
Total score on the SPPB (min 0, max 12, higher scores indicate better performance)
Measured: Score at baseline
Hand grip strength
Maximal grip strength (kg) of the dominant hand using an isometric dynamometer adjusted for hand size
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Maximal gait speed
The average time (s) to walk 10m as fast as possible
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Countermovement jump
The jump height (mm) in a countermovement jump
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Timed up-and-go
The time (s) needed to stand up from a chair, walk 3 m, turn, walk back and sit down again as fast as possible
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
5-repetition sit-to-stand time
The time (s) needed to complete the 5-repetition sit-to-stand test
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
5-repetition sit-to-stand power
The average power (watt) produced during the 5-repetition sit-to-stand test
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
30-second sit-to-stand repetitions
The number of repetitions completed during the 30-second sit-to-stand test
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
30-second sit-to-stand power
The average power (watt) produced during the 30-second sit-to-stand test
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Stair ascent time
The time (s) needed to ascend a flight of stairs
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Stair ascent power
The average power (Watt) produced during the stair ascent test
Measured: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Exercise adherence
Number of sessions attended as a percentage of total sessions planned
Measured: Total adherence over 12-week period
Absolute training load
The absolute load (kg) used during training sessions
Measured: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Relative training load
The relative load (%1RM) used during training sessions
Measured: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Number of repetitions
The number of repetitions (n) completed per set
Measured: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Highest movement velocity within a set
The velocity (m/s) of the fastest repetition in a set (Vmax)
Measured: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Lowest movement velocity within a set
The velocity (m/s) of the slowest repetition in a set (Vmin)
Measured: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Velocity loss
The percentage difference between the highest and lowest movement velocity in a set = ([Vmax - Vmin] / Vmax) × 100
Measured: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Set-volume index
The number of repetitions × relative load (%1-RM) per set
Measured: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Session-volume index
The sum of set volumes per session
Measured: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

20 May 20244 Dec 2025

First posted10 Jun 2024
Study start20 May 2024
Primary completion4 Dec 2025
Study completion4 Dec 2025

Resources

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
Other trials for Exercise TrainingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
More trials run by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU LeuvenThe sponsor's other registered studies.
What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design

Study type: Interventional
Phase: Phase N/A
Primary purpose: Prevention
Allocation: Randomised
Intervention model: Parallel groups
Masking: None (open label)
Enrolment: 80 participants (actual)

IDs, dates and publications

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06449716
Sponsor's protocol ID: S68434
Status last verified: Oct 2026
First submitted: 5 Mar 2024
Last updated: 2 Nov 2026
Results posted: No
Data monitoring committee: No
FDA-regulated drug: No
FDA-regulated device: No
Individual data sharing: No

Publications

Deboutte J, Delecluse C, Thomis M, Van Roie E. The Effects of Force-Velocity Profile-Based Load Prescription on Muscle Power and Functional Performance in Velocity-Deficient Older Adults. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2026 Nov;36(11):e70392. doi: 10.1111/sms.70392.
PubMed 42954324

Want to know more?

The sponsor has not listed a contact. The official record may have more details.

Talk to your doctor first and take this page with you. Only the study team can confirm whether you can join.

Questions to ask the study team

What is the study trying to find out?
What would I need to do, and how often would I visit?
Could I receive a placebo instead of the treatment?
What are the possible risks and benefits for me?
Will it cost me anything? Are travel or time paid for?
Can I keep seeing my own doctor during the study?
What happens when the study ends?

See locations

Not yet recruiting
Effects of Concurrent Training on Serum PCSK9 Levels in Adults With Overweight
Overweight, Lipid Metabolism
Not yet recruiting
Threshold-Based Versus Range-Based Exercise Intensity Prescription in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Cardiovascular Diseases, Cardiac Rehabilitation
Recruiting
Evaluating the Feasibility of Prehabilitation Delivery Models for Patients Preparing for Gynecologic Cancer Surgery
Prehabilitation, Preoperative Aerobic Training
Not yet recruiting
Radiofrequency and Pelvic Floor-Core Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain in Women With Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
Chronic Low Back Pain, Urinary Incontinence
RecruitingPhase 2
Neurovascular Regulation During Exercise in Humans With Chronic Kidney Disease: Sympatholysis in CKD
Chronic Kidney Disease

All Exercise Training trials

Study at a glance

From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Nov 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.

Official title: A Tailored Intervention to Prevent Age-Related Declines in Muscle Power and Functional Ability
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06449716
Acronym / sponsor ID: S68434
Conditions: Exercise Training
Study type: Interventional
Recruitment status: Completed
Enrolment: 80 participants (actual)
Lead sponsor: Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU LeuvenUniversity, hospital or other
Study start: 20 May 2024 (actual)
Primary completion: 4 Dec 2025 (actual)
Study completion: 4 Dec 2025 (actual)
First posted: 10 Jun 2024 (actual)
Results: Not posted in the source record

Clinical summary

The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.

Study design

Primary purpose: Prevention
Allocation: Randomised
Intervention model: Parallel groups
Masking: None (open label)
Number of arms: 2

Arm	Type	Receives
Individualized resistance exercise program	Experimental	Other: 12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise programIndividualized exercise dose. All individuals perform resistance exercises at a load that targets their deficit. Individuals with a velocity deficit train at low loads while individuals with a force deficit train at high loads.
Non-individualized resistance exercise program	Active comparator	Other: 12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise programNon-individualized exercise dose. All individuals perform resistance exercises at a load that does not target their deficit. Individuals with a velocity deficit train at high loads while individuals with a force deficit train at low loads.

Who may qualify

Ages: 65 years and older
Sex: All
Healthy volunteers: Accepted
Age groups: Older adult

Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)

Community-dwelling adults
At least 65 years old

Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)

Systematic engagement in resistance exercise during the past year
Unstable cardiovascular disease, neuromuscular disease, acute infection or fever
Recent surgery
Lower-extremity injuries
Low levels of functional ability (i.e., SPPB score ≤ 9)

Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Interventions

Intervention	Type	Arms
12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise program2x/week, 35-45 min sessions, on leg press machine	Other	Individualized resistance exercise program, Non-individualized resistance exercise program

Primary outcome

Maximal power (Pmax)
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Participants performed explosive unilateral leg extensions with the dominant leg at five submaximal loads on a pneumatic leg press (Leg Press Air 400, Keiser, USA). Submaximal loads were scaled to the estimated maximal isometric force derived from the familiarization session. The three lighter loads were performed three times each and the two heavier loads twice, with the repetition yielding the highest mean concentric velocity retained for analysis. Participants subsequently performed single repetitions at incrementally increasing loads until 1-RM was reached. Rest intervals were adjusted according to the load of the preceding trial: 60 s after the three lightest loads, 90 s after the two heavier loads, and 120 s during the incremental trials leading to 1-RM. For each load, the mean concentric velocity of the best trial was used to establish the individual force-velocity (F-V) relationship using linear regression, from which the maximal power (Pmax; W) was estimated.
Maximal isometric force (F0)
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Participants performed explosive unilateral leg extensions with the dominant leg at five submaximal loads on a pneumatic leg press (Leg Press Air 400, Keiser, USA). Submaximal loads were scaled to the estimated maximal isometric force derived from the familiarization session. The three lighter loads were performed three times each and the two heavier loads twice, with the repetition yielding the highest mean concentric velocity retained for analysis. Participants subsequently performed single repetitions at incrementally increasing loads until 1-RM was reached. Rest intervals were adjusted according to the load of the preceding trial: 60 s after the three lightest loads, 90 s after the two heavier loads, and 120 s during the incremental trials leading to 1-RM. For each load, the mean concentric velocity of the best trial was used to establish the individual force-velocity (F-V) relationship using linear regression, from which maximal isometric force (F0; N) was estimated.
Maximal unloaded velocity (V0)
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Participants performed explosive unilateral leg extensions with the dominant leg at five submaximal loads on a pneumatic leg press (Leg Press Air 400, Keiser, USA). Submaximal loads were scaled to the estimated maximal isometric force derived from the familiarization session. The three lighter loads were performed three times each and the two heavier loads twice, with the repetition yielding the highest mean concentric velocity retained for analysis. Participants subsequently performed single repetitions at incrementally increasing loads until 1-RM was reached. Rest intervals were adjusted according to the load of the preceding trial: 60 s after the three lightest loads, 90 s after the two heavier loads, and 120 s during the incremental trials leading to 1-RM. For each load, the mean concentric velocity of the best trial was used to establish the individual force-velocity (F-V) relationship using linear regression, from which maximal unloaded velocity (V0; m/s) was estimated.
Force-velocity slope
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Participants performed explosive unilateral leg extensions with the dominant leg at five submaximal loads on a pneumatic leg press (Leg Press Air 400, Keiser, USA). Submaximal loads were scaled to the estimated maximal isometric force derived from the familiarization session. The three lighter loads were performed three times each and the two heavier loads twice, with the repetition yielding the highest mean concentric velocity retained for analysis. Participants subsequently performed single repetitions at incrementally increasing loads until 1-RM was reached. Rest intervals were adjusted according to the load of the preceding trial: 60 s after the three lightest loads, 90 s after the two heavier loads, and 120 s during the incremental trials leading to 1-RM. For each load, the mean concentric velocity of the best trial was used to establish the individual force-velocity (F-V) relationship using linear regression, from which the F-V slope (Ns/m) was derived.

20 secondary outcomes

Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)
Time frame: Score at baseline
Hand grip strength
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Maximal gait speed
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Countermovement jump
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Timed up-and-go
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
5-repetition sit-to-stand time
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
5-repetition sit-to-stand power
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
30-second sit-to-stand repetitions
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
30-second sit-to-stand power
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Stair ascent time
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Stair ascent power
Time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks
Exercise adherence
Time frame: Total adherence over 12-week period
Absolute training load
Time frame: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Relative training load
Time frame: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Number of repetitions
Time frame: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Highest movement velocity within a set
Time frame: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Lowest movement velocity within a set
Time frame: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Velocity loss
Time frame: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Set-volume index
Time frame: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention
Session-volume index
Time frame: Consistently recorded throughout the 12-week intervention

Results and safety

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

Research links

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Nov 2026.
Derived from this study: PubMed 42954324Deboutte J, Delecluse C, Thomis M, Van Roie E. The Effects of Force-Velocity Profile-Based Load Prescription on Muscle Power and Functional Performance in Velocity-Deficient Older Adults. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2026 Nov;36(11):e70392. doi: 10.1111/sms.70392.
Individual participant dataSharing planned: No

Related trials for Exercise Training

Not yet recruiting
Effects of Concurrent Training on Serum PCSK9 Levels in Adults With Overweight
Overweight, Lipid Metabolism
Not yet recruiting
Threshold-Based Versus Range-Based Exercise Intensity Prescription in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Cardiovascular Diseases, Cardiac Rehabilitation
Recruiting
Evaluating the Feasibility of Prehabilitation Delivery Models for Patients Preparing for Gynecologic Cancer Surgery
Prehabilitation, Preoperative Aerobic Training
Not yet recruiting
Radiofrequency and Pelvic Floor-Core Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain in Women With Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
Chronic Low Back Pain, Urinary Incontinence
RecruitingPhase 2
Neurovascular Regulation During Exercise in Humans With Chronic Kidney Disease: Sympatholysis in CKD
Chronic Kidney Disease

Referral and contact

AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.

The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.

1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing 12-week progressive power-oriented resistance exercise program in people with Exercise Training, run by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven at 1 site in Belgium.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Nov 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Maximal power (Pmax) (time frame: Change from baseline at 6 and 12 weeks). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06449716, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Nov 2026.