For older women, slower lowering exercises during strength training made no real difference to strength or function compared with regular training.
See the scientific wording
In older women, slower lowering (eccentric) training does not produce statistically significantly different strength or function outcomes compared with conventional training. The dosage and duration of training were not reported.
Not tested yet
Randomized trialsNo study measured the main part of this claim. No part of this claim has been tested yet.
Not tested yet
No study measured the main part of this claim. No part of this claim has been tested yet.
Parts of this claim
Slower lowering (eccentric) training in older women does not produce significantly different strength outcomes compared with conventional training.
Not testedNo studiesSlower lowering (eccentric) training in older women does not produce significantly different function outcomes compared with conventional training.
Not testedNo studies
Evidence is judged against each part on its own, so a study that tests one part never counts as a verdict on the whole claim.
What the research says
3 studies reviewedSupporting (2)
Randomized Controlled TrialHuman2015
In older women, doing strength training with a slower lowering phase did not lead to better or worse strength and function results than regular-speed training. Both groups improved similarly.
Randomized Controlled TrialHuman
In older women with knee osteoarthritis, doing slow lowering (eccentric) exercises did not lead to significantly different strength or function improvements than doing slow lifting (concentric) exercises. The study found no clear difference between the two, though it did not prove they are exactly equal.
Contradicting (1)
Randomized Controlled TrialHuman2024
In older women, the study found that eccentric (slower lowering) exercise improved strength and walking speed more than stretching exercises, so it does not support the idea that eccentric training makes no real difference.
Quality-weighted scoring: we follow the GRADE framework — each study is rated High, Moderate, Low, or Very Low based on study design, methodology rigor, and risk of bias. A single high-quality RCT can outweigh several weaker observational studies.
Scores reflect study quality, not just count.
Score breakdown, mechanism chain, raw evidence, ideal studies needed & 2 supporting, 1 contradicting studies
How Fit Body Science checks a claim
- 1
We isolate the claim
Health advice from videos, articles and studies is broken down into single, testable claims.
- 2
We find the research
Each claim is matched against peer-reviewed studies, with every source cited by DOI.
- 3
We grade the evidence
Studies are scored on methodology, statistical rigor, transparency and publication quality.
The fitness and health internet is full of confident claims. We check them against real research.
Every claim on this site is traced back to peer-reviewed studies, scored on methodology and reporting quality, and given a verdict you can audit yourself — sources, DOIs and all.
- Full evidence breakdown and mechanism chains
- Ask our AI anything about a claim or its studies
- Get notified when new research changes a verdict