REF-1140 · Radaelli et al., 2025 · Sports Medicine · Paper · PubMed

Resistance-training volume in adults aged 60 and over

Across 151 randomised trials the lowest weekly volume ranked most effective for the timed up-and-go, 6-min walk, lean mass and leg muscle size, moderate and high volume for leg strength, and only high volume improved fast walking speed

A-fairly strong evidenceMeasured on non-athletes and recreational people

Radaelli et al. pooled randomised trials of supervised resistance training in adults aged 60 and over, splitting programmes into low, moderate and high volume (LVRT, MVRT, HVRT) by terciles of prescribed weekly volume (frequency × number of exercises × number of sets) for full- and lower-body training.

Seven databases were searched to April 2023; 161 articles described 151 trials with 6306 participants. In a random-effects network meta-analysis, low volume was the most effective for the timed up-and-go (SMD −1.20), the 6-min walk (SMD 1.03), lean body mass (SMD 0.25) and lower-limb muscle hypertrophy (SMD 0.40).

Moderate and high volume were the most effective for lower-limb strength, and only high volume improved fast walking speed. The results did not depend on programme duration (<20 vs ≥20 weeks) and came mainly from physically healthy older adults; evidence in physically impaired adults was limited.

The authors recommend that future guidelines include a low resistance-training volume, particularly for healthy older adults targeting healthy ageing, with higher volume for larger strength gains. From the abstract.

Included studies

Eligibility: randomised trials of supervised resistance training in older adults (≥60 years); databases CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, PubMed, Scielo, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science to April 2023.
Volume categories: terciles of prescribed weekly volume (frequency × exercises × sets) for full- and lower-body programmes. The abstract does not give the tercile cut-points.
Primary outcomes: physical function (fast walking speed, timed up-and-go, 6-min walk), lean body mass and lower-body hypertrophy, lower-body strength (knee extension and leg press 1RM, isometric strength, isokinetic torque).
Moderators: duration (<20 weeks vs ≥20 weeks) and physical health status (healthy, impaired, mixed).
Analysis: random-effects network meta-analysis of the volume categories (the abstract does not name the comparator).

Key Results

OutcomeMost effective volumeSMD (95% CI) as printed; comparator not named in the abstract
Timed up-and-goLow−1.20 (−1.57 to −0.82)
6-min walkLow1.03 (0.33 to 1.73)
Lean body massLow0.25 (0.10 to 0.40)
Lower-limb muscle hypertrophyLow0.40 (0.25 to 0.54)
Lower-limb strengthModerate and highnot given in the abstract
Fast walking speedHigh (only HVRT effective)0.40, printed with a 95% CI of −0.57 to 0.14
A printed interval that cannot be right as written: the fast-walking SMD of 0.40 lies outside its stated interval (−0.57 to 0.14), and that interval crosses zero although the abstract calls the effect effective. One of the numbers carries a sign or transcription error; it cannot be resolved without the full text.
Moderators: results were independent of programme duration and mainly observed in healthy older adults.

Mechanisms

Measured: low weekly volume ranked first for function, lean mass and leg muscle size; moderate-to-high volume ranked first for leg strength (network ranking, abstract).
Authors' interpretation: a low volume "can substantially improve" healthy older adults' function and benefits lean mass and muscle size regardless of duration, while "a higher volume seems to be necessary" for greater strength gains.
Inference: "most effective" in a network ranking is not "more is worse". Low volume ranking above higher volume for muscle size runs against dose-response data in younger adults; in trials of older people it may reflect who was studied (frailer participants in some low-volume trials), adherence, or confounding of volume with load or supervision. None of this can be checked from the abstract.

Practical Application

How much lifting does an older adult need? Abstract only, 151 trials (60+): lowest weekly volume ranked first for timed up-and-go, 6-min walk, lean mass, leg muscle; moderate-to-high for strength; only high volume sped fast walking. Function here is the timed up-and-go and the 6-min walk.For general health in a non-lifter over 60, a small weekly dose is enough to start; for strength, more weekly volume (sessions × exercises × sets) is needed. The tercile cut-points and the strength effect sizes are not in the abstract, and these are general older adults, not athletes.
For a masters endurance athlete the goal is usually strength and power, not function, so the strength-oriented (moderate-to-high) volume is the relevant arm (inference). The base's cycling and running prescriptions are in SYNTH-43 and SYNTH-44; load matters as well as volume (REF-1086: ≥70% 1RM built more leg strength in adults 50+).
A low starting dose is a defensible entry for a resistance-naive masters athlete, consistent with the minimal-dose overview in REF-1141 (inference: neither review studied athletes).
Keep it going. Gains from a time-limited programme drift back once training stops (REF-1139, REF-375); continued lifting at maintained load is the base's maintenance rule (REF-587).

Limitations

Read from the abstract only; heterogeneity, risk of bias, the network's consistency, the GRADE certainty (if any) and the weekly-volume cut-points for each tercile are unknown here.
Volume categories are terciles of PRESCRIBED volume across trials, not a within-trial comparison; volume may be confounded with load, supervision, frailty of the sample and adherence.
The strength effect sizes behind "MVRT and HVRT were most effective" are not reported in the abstract.
The fast-walking-speed estimate is printed with an interval that does not contain it and crosses zero (see Key Results).
Evidence came mainly from physically healthy older adults; it is limited for physically impaired adults and absent for trained athletes.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

(provisional, abstract only) — systematic review with network meta-analysis of 151 randomised trials, but n=6306 is about 42 per trial across three or more arms (rubric: SR/MA of mostly small trials = A-), and the abstract prints an impossible interval; heterogeneity, risk of bias, network consistency and the volume cut-points are unchecked

Full text (checked 2026-10-15)
Not read. The open repository copy listed by Unpaywall (research.rug.nl, submitted version) answered with a bot check and the publisher copy is paywalled, so every number in this entry is from the Europe PMC abstract (saved as fulltext/REF-1140.abstract.txt).