Training Cadence Comparison: The Full Picture
Both power training AND traditional strength training provide bone benefits compared to no exercise. Power training (explosive lifting) shows an additional advantage for bone density maintenance.
🔬 Important Research Context
This data compares three scenarios: (1) Power training with explosive concentric movements, (2) Traditional strength training with controlled/slow movements, and (3) No structured exercise. Both exercise groups were training 2-3x per week. The strength training group still exercised—they simply used a slower cadence.
| Training Approach |
Description |
Lumbar Spine |
Outcome |
| Power Training (HVRT) |
Explosive up, 4 sec controlled down |
+0.7% |
Best |
| Strength Training |
4 sec up, 4 sec down (slow/controlled) |
-0.9% |
Good |
| No Exercise |
Inactive / sedentary lifestyle |
-2.9% to -4.4% |
Bone Loss |
đź’ˇ What This Means for Your Training
- Any resistance training is beneficial—traditional strength training still protects bone far better than no exercise
- Adding explosive movements may enhance results—power training showed a modest additional benefit for BMD maintenance
- The -0.9% in the strength group is NOT harmful—it's significantly less bone loss than the -2.9% to -4.4% seen in inactive controls
- Consistency matters most—exercising 2+ times per week with progressive overload is the foundation
- Consider adding power elements gradually—once comfortable with exercises, try lifting more explosively on the concentric (lifting) phase
Sources: Von Stengel et al. 2005 & 2007 (power vs strength comparison); Kemmler et al. EFOP studies (inactive control data). All participants were postmenopausal women. Results measured via DXA over 2-year intervention periods.