Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34822137›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

Minimal-Dose Resistance Training for Improving Muscle Mass, Strength, and Function: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence and Practical Considerations.

Jackson J Fyfe, D Lee Hamilton, Robin M Daly

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Jackson J FyfeInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. jackson.fyfe@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9541-2336
D Lee HamiltonInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Robin M DalyInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Resistance training (RT) is the only non-pharmacological intervention known to consistently improve, and therefore offset age-related declines in, skeletal muscle mass, strength, and power. RT is also associated with various health benefits that are underappreciated compared with the perceived benefits of aerobic-based exercise. For example, RT participation is associated with reduced all-cause and cancer-related mortality and reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and symptoms of both anxiety and depression. Despite these benefits, participation in RT remains low, likely due to numerous factors including time constraints, a high-perceived difficulty, and limited access to facilities and equipment. Identification of RT strategies that limit barriers to participation may increase engagement in RT and subsequently improve population health outcomes. Across the lifespan, declines in strength and power occur up to eight times faster than the loss of muscle mass, and are more strongly associated with functional impairments and risks of morbidity and mortality. Strategies to maximise healthspan should therefore arguably focus more on improving or maintaining muscle strength and power than on increasing muscle mass per se. Accumulating evidence suggests that minimal doses of RT, characterised by lower session volumes than in traditional RT guidelines, together with either (1) higher training intensities/loads performed at lower frequencies (i.e. low-volume, high-load RT) or (2) lower training intensities/loads performed at higher frequencies and with minimal-to-no equipment (i.e. resistance 'exercise snacking'), can improve strength and functional ability in younger and older adults. Such minimal-dose approaches to RT have the potential to minimise various barriers to participation, and may have positive implications for the feasibility and scalability of RT. In addition, brief but frequent minimal-dose RT approaches (i.e. resistance 'exercise snacking') may provide additional benefits for interrupting sedentary behaviour patterns associated with increased cardiometabolic risk. Compared to traditional approaches, minimal-dose RT may also limit negative affective responses, such as increased discomfort and lowered enjoyment, both of which are associated with higher training volumes and may negatively influence exercise adherence. A number of practical factors, including the selection of exercises that target major muscle groups and challenge both balance and the stabilising musculature, may influence the effectiveness of minimal-dose RT on outcomes such as improved independence and quality-of-life in older adults. This narrative review aims to summarise the evidence for minimal-dose RT as a strategy for preserving muscle strength and functional ability across the lifespan, and to discuss practical models and considerations for the application of minimal-dose RT approaches.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAgedExerciseHumansMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthSedentary Behavior

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.