Major strengths of this study include the comparison oftwo balance exercise programs, variants of which have beenproven to reduce falls. Moreover, the frequency of CBSTand TC training were similar (1 hour, 3 d/wk), unlike previousstudies in which education controls had a lower frequencyof intervention contact.4,6 The apparent intensity ofCBST and TC in providing an hour of a stance-basedmovement program is also equivalent, whereas in a previousRCT of TC, the stretching control group performedminimal weight-bearing exercise.5 Another strength is thatthe CBST benefit generalized to a key functional mobilitymeasure that was clearly not part of the CBST paradigmFtheTUG. Furthermore, at baseline before allocation,the median TUG score of either group was 13 (i.e., halfof each cohort had a TUG greater than 13) and more thanone-third of each group was unable to stand unipedally,suggesting that a substantial proportion of each group wasat high risk for falls31 and fall-related injury32 at thebeginning of the study