Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39405023›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2025

Effects of Resistance Training Volume on Physical Function, Lean Body Mass and Lower-Body Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of 151 Randomised Trials.

Régis Radaelli, Anderson Rech, Talita Molinari, Anna Maria Markarian, Maria Petropoulou, Urs Granacher, Tibor Hortobágyi, Pedro Lopez

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Adherence to 24-hour movement guidelines and mortality risks in US cancer survivors: a national cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Régis RadaelliEgas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research (CiiEM), Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, Caparica, Almada, Portugal. rradaelli@egasmoniz.edu.pt.ORCID 0000-0002-1521-2124
Anderson RechCurso de Educação Física, Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Caxias do Sul, Brazil.
Talita MolinariSport and Exercise Neuromechanics Group, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande, Brazil.
Anna Maria MarkarianExercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia.
Maria PetropoulouInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Urs GranacherDepartment of Sport and Sport Science, Exercise and Human Movement Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7095-813X
Tibor HortobágyiDepartment of Kinesiology, Hungarian University of Sports Science, Budapest, Hungary.
Pedro LopezGrupo de Pesquisa Em Exercício Para Populações Clínicas (GPCLIN), Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Caxias do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal prescription and precise recommendations of resistance training volume for older adults is unclear in the current literature. In addition, the interactions between resistance training volume and program duration as well as physical health status remain to be determined when assessing physical function, muscle size and hypertrophy and muscle strength adaptations in older adults.

objectivesThis study aimed to determine which resistance training volume is the most effective in improving physical function, lean body mass, lower-limb muscle hypertrophy and strength in older adults. Additionally, we examined whether effects were moderated by intervention duration (i.e. short term, < 20 weeks; medium-to-long term, ≥ 20 weeks) and physical health status (i.e. physically healthy, physically impaired, mixed physically healthy and physically impaired; PROSPERO identifier: CRD42023413209).

methodsCINAHL, Embase, LILACS, PubMed, Scielo, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2023. Eligible randomised trials examined the effects of supervised resistance training in older adults (i.e. ≥ 60 years). Resistance training programs were categorised as low (LVRT), moderate (MVRT) and high volume (HVRT) on the basis of terciles of prescribed weekly resistance training volume (i.e. product of frequency, number of exercises and number of sets) for full- and lower-body training. The primary outcomes for this review were physical function measured by fast walking speed, timed up and go and 6-min walking tests; lean body mass and lower-body muscle hypertrophy; and lower-body muscle strength measured by knee extension and leg press one-repetition maximum (1-RM), isometric muscle strength and isokinetic torque. A random-effects network meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the effects of different resistance training volumes on the outcomes of interest.

resultsWe included a total of 161 articles describing 151 trials (n = 6306). LVRT was the most effective for improving timed up and go [- 1.20 standardised mean difference (SMD), 95% confidence interval (95% CI): - 1.57 to - 0.82], 6-min walk test (1.03 SMD, 95% CI: 0.33-1.73), lean body mass (0.25 SMD, 95% CI: 0.10-0.40) and muscle hypertrophy (0.40 SMD, 95% CI: 0.25-0.54). Both MVRT and HVRT were the most effective for improving lower-limb strength, while only HVRT was effective in increasing fast walking speed (0.40 SMD, 95% CI: - 0.57 to 0.14). Regarding the moderators, our results were independent of program duration and mainly observed for healthy older adults, while evidence was limited for those who were physically impaired.

conclusionsA low resistance training volume can substantially improve healthy older adults' physical function and benefits lean mass and muscle size independently of program duration, while a higher volume seems to be necessary for achieving greater improvements in muscle strength. A low volume of resistance training should be recommended in future exercise guidelines, particularly for physically healthy older adults targeting healthy ageing.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthResistance TrainingAgedBody CompositionHumansHypertrophyLower ExtremityMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.