A substantial observational research indicates that adults engaging in approximately 90 to 119 minutes of resistance training weekly experienced reduced mortality rates compared to those who reported no such activity, including decreased instances of death from cardiovascular and neurological diseases.
This conclusion is part of a British Journal of Sports Medicine publication led by Yiwen Zhang from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. It should be noted that this represents a single study and not a definitive consensus, and the design is more indicative of a correlation rather than proving that strength training is the cause of the reduced risk.
We are authors, not medical professionals. What follows is an interpretation of the research, not medical guidance.
What the research assessed
The study utilized data from three extensive US cohorts: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Nurses’ Health Study, and the Nurses’ Health Study II. In total, there were 147,374 participants, comprising 31,540 men and 115,834 women, monitored for up to 30 years.
Participants indicated their weekly resistance training and aerobic exercise at the start of the follow-up period and again every two years. Throughout the follow-up, there were 35,798 recorded deaths, a crucial absolute figure to consider alongside the relative-risk statistics. The primary measures were hazard ratios, which assess the death rates in one group against the rates in a comparison group.
Those who reported no resistance training had a 13% higher risk of death from any cause compared to those who engaged in 90 to 119 minutes weekly, after controlling for aerobic activity. Within that same group, the study noted a 19% reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality and a 27% reduced risk of mortality from neurological diseases.
These percentages are relative comparisons and should not be interpreted as implying that 27 out of every 100 individuals avoided death from neurological diseases. The abstract details the total number of deaths but does not provide straightforward absolute death rates for each specific cause across different training categories.
The two-hour result represents a plateau, not a definitive rule
A significant highlight of the study is the dose-response curve. According to the authors’ analysis, the risk of mortality appeared to plateau at roughly 120 minutes of resistance training per week. Beyond this threshold, the article did not identify any further longevity benefits.
This does not imply that exceeding two hours is detrimental or that 119 minutes is substantially different from 121 minutes. The study did not specify the exact type of lifting, the intensity of the activities, the number of sets, or how the minutes were allocated. Various routines could fall into the same time range.
The cancer-related findings did not adhere to the same pattern. In the abstract, a decrease in cancer mortality was observed exclusively at lower levels of resistance training: 1 to 29 minutes weekly and 30 to 59 minutes weekly. This distinction serves as a reminder that one level of exercise dosage may not correspond directly to all disease outcomes.
Aerobic exercise remained important
The study did not position resistance training as a substitute for aerobic exercise. The authors analyzed both together and discovered the lowest mortality risks among individuals who combined significant aerobic activity with resistance training, as well as among those who engaged in exceptionally high levels of aerobic activity regardless of their resistance training classification.
This is significant since public health recommendations have consistently included both types of activities. The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans advise that adults engage in 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity weekly, alongside muscle-strengthening activities targeting all major muscle groups on at least two days weekly.
The new research complements this broader guideline rather than contradicting it. Its added value is that it provides a long-term cohort estimate for minutes spent on resistance training, including cause-specific mortality, while considering aerobic activity.
Why establishing causation is challenging
The study’s considerable size and follow-up duration are strengths. Repeated questionnaires improve upon single inquiries and the assumption that a person’s exercise habits remain unchanged. However, the evidence remains observational.
Individuals who reported higher levels of resistance training often differed from those reporting none. They may have had dissimilar diets, body weights, smoking habits, healthcare access, incomes, work patterns, and baseline health. Statistical adjustments can mitigate some of these disparities, but they cannot transform an observational study into a randomized trial.
Self-reporting presents another limitation. Individuals frequently misremember or oversimplify their exercise habits, and “resistance