Uncomplicated resistance training and health-related outcomes: evidence for a public health mandate

Curr Sports Med Rep. 2010 Jul-Aug;9(4):208-13. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0b013e3181e7da73.


Compared to aerobic training (AT), resistance training (RT) has received far less attention as a prescription for general health. However, RT is as effective as AT in lowering risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other diseases. There is a clear ability of RT, in contrast to AT, to promote gains, maintenance, or slow loss of skeletal muscle mass/strength. Thus, as an antisarcopenic exercise treatment, RT is of greater benefit than AT; given the aging of our population, this is of primary importance. In our view, a substantial barrier to greater adoption of RT is the incorrectly perceived importance of variables such as external load, intensity, and volume, leading to complex, difficult-to-follow regimes. We propose a more feasible and easier-to-adhere-to paradigm for RT that could affect how RT is viewed and adopted as a prescription for public health.

Publication types

  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Cardiovascular Diseases / physiopathology
  • Cardiovascular Diseases / prevention & control
  • Cardiovascular Diseases / therapy
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / physiopathology
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / prevention & control
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / therapy
  • Evidence-Based Medicine / trends
  • Health Status*
  • Humans
  • Mandatory Programs* / trends
  • Physical Fitness / physiology
  • Public Health / methods*
  • Public Health / trends
  • Resistance Training / methods*
  • Resistance Training / trends
  • Treatment Outcome