REF-597 · Straight 2016 · Grgic 2020 · Borde 2015 — resistance-training meta-analyses in older adults · Sports Medicine, · Paper · PubMed
RT reliably rebuilds strength & muscle in older adults (even ≥75), and high-velocity/explosive intent is the more effective way to restore POWER; effective dose ≈ 2–3 sessions/wk, ~2–3 sets, moderate-to-high load
Protocol
Systematic review and meta-analysis (Straight 2016, the entry's DOI): randomized controlled trials of resistance training measuring leg press or knee extension muscle power in adults aged ≥50 years; the number of participants is not stated in the abstract (from the abstract).
52 effects from 12 randomized controlled trials pooled with a random-effects model; multi-level modeling adjusted for nesting effects.
Multiple-regression analysis of independent moderators (training mode — high-velocity vs traditional — and training volume).
Key Findings
Power (Straight 2016 — the entry's DOI): meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (52 effects) in adults aged ≥50 years, leg-press or knee-extension power. RT had a small-to-moderate effect on lower-extremity power: Hedges' d = 0.34 (95% CI 0.25-0.43), ≈ 54.9 W (95% CI 40.4-69.4). Meta-regression: high-velocity RT superior to traditional RT (Δ = 0.62 vs 0.20); training volume also independently moderated the effect.
Strength/size ≥75 (Grgic 2020): even at ≥75 yr, supervised RT produces significant strength and size gains — no age at which RT stops working. (From Grgic 2020; not re-checked against its abstract here.)
Dose (Borde 2015): benefits at ~2–3 sessions/wk, ~2–3 sets/exercise, moderate-to-high intensity, progressive over weeks. (From Borde 2015; not re-checked against its abstract here.)
Practical Application
Meta-analysis of 12 RCTs in adults aged 50 and over (Straight 2016): resistance training raised lower-body power by a small-to-moderate amount (d = 0.34, about 55 W), and high-velocity training worked roughly three times as well as slow traditional lifting for that outcome (Δ = 0.62 vs 0.20), with volume also mattering; companion meta-analyses show strength and size gains persist at ≥75 yr (Grgic 2020) and a working dose of 2-3 sessions and 2-3 sets per week (Borde 2015). For a masters athlete the message is the intent: move the bar fast when power is the goal.
Strength 2–3×/wk for masters is the dose the meta-analyses support.
Split intent: some sets heavy & controlled (strength/hypertrophy); some light-moderate & explosive (maximal concentric velocity — the power outcome responded best to high-velocity training).
Start conservative (2–3 sets), progress load before adding sets; gains are real even starting late/elderly.
Fits reduced-frequency-high-intensity masters model: gym defends Type II fibres, endurance intensity defends VO2max — inference from the three reviews, not tested in any of them.
Limitations
Effect sizes largely from untrained middle-aged and older adults → likely overestimate for trained masters; heterogeneous protocols; velocity superiority is for the power outcome specifically (leg press / knee extension); very-elderly trials often include frailty/clinical — screen joints/tendons, progress slowly.
Only the Straight 2016 numbers were checked against an abstract; Grgic 2020 and Borde 2015 claims are carried as summarised.
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
PMID 26400696 -> 26545362 (the old PMID is a warm-up review; PubMed confirms 26545362 carries this entry's DOI).
Population "older adults" -> adults aged ≥50 (middle-aged and older) for Straight 2016.
Added Straight 2016 numbers: 12 RCTs / 52 effects, d = 0.34 (0.25-0.43) ≈ 54.9 W, high-velocity Δ = 0.62 vs traditional 0.20, volume moderates.
2026-09-28: added Journal (Straight 2016) and Protocol from the abstract (Europe PMC, DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0418-4, PMID 26545362). The abstract gives trials/effects, not participants, so no n was added.
2026-10-01: cross-reference repointed from a merged framework to the one that replaced it (SYNTH-01→31, 05→34, 09→70, 12/15→32, 19→26).