Is strength training linked to lower death rates?

Key numbers

What pooled UK surveys found

Stamatakis and colleagues used the Health Survey for England and the Scottish Health Survey from 1994-2008. Strength-promoting exercise meant gym-based and own-body-weight strength activities, and meeting the guideline meant at least 2 sessions per week.

People who met only the strength guideline had lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.79, 95 percent confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94) after exclusions and adjustment. People who met only the aerobic guideline of 150 minutes a week of moderate activity also had lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.84, 0.78 to 0.90). Exercise was self-reported, and these are observational associations: they do not show that strength training causes a longer life.

What a meta-analysis of resistance training reported

Saeidifard and colleagues pooled studies totaling 370,256 participants, followed for a mean of 8.85 years. Resistance training was associated with lower mortality. Compared with no exercise, resistance training combined with aerobic exercise was associated with 40% lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.72), and the authors described the two as additive.

Other outcomes looked different. The link with cardiovascular death was borderline (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.03, a range that includes no difference). There was no significant link with cancer death. There was not enough data to say what happens if resistance training replaces aerobic exercise.

What a review of muscle-strengthening activity found

Momma and colleagues reviewed sixteen prospective cohort studies of adults aged 18 and older without severe health conditions. Muscle-strengthening activity was associated with a 10-17% lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, total cancer, diabetes and lung cancer.

For all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease and total cancer, the curves were J-shaped, with the largest risk reduction (approximately 10-20%) at approximately 30-60 min/week. What higher amounts mean is unclear. That range is not a weekly limit, it does not show that more training is harmful, and it is not a prescription for any one person.

What a US survey of older adults reported

Kraschnewski and colleagues studied 30,162 US adults age 65 and older from a national health survey. Guideline-concordant strength training meant strength training twice each week.

The paper reports an adjusted odds ratio for all-cause mortality of 0.64 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.70) for people who reported guideline-concordant strength training. Its abstract describes the same result as 46% lower odds, and those two figures do not agree with each other. This page reports the odds ratio and notes the mismatch rather than choosing between them. Either way, it is an association, not proof that strength training lowers mortality.

The evidence

Each cited source is labeled according to how it supports the particular claim on this page. Direct test evidence, underlying-capacity findings and population reference values are distinguished from Systematic-defined protocols and standards. Historical development notes are retained internally rather than presented as public evidence. A study of an underlying capacity is never presented as validation of the Systematic test itself.

• Underlying-capacity evidence New source

  Stamatakis et al. (2018). Does Strength-Promoting Exercise Confer Unique Health Benefits? A Pooled Analysis of Data on 11 Population Cohorts With All-Cause, Cancer, and Cardiovascular Mortality Endpoints. American journal of epidemiology.

  What it found. In pooled UK surveys from 1994-2008, meeting only the strength guideline of at least 2 sessions per week was linked to lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.79, 95 percent confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94).

  What it does not show. Exercise was self-reported and the design is observational, so it does not show that strength training causes a longer life.

  PubMed 29099919

• Underlying-capacity evidence New source

  Saeidifard et al. (2019). The association of resistance training with mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European journal of preventive cardiology.

  What it found. Resistance training was associated with lower all-cause mortality, and with 40% lower all-cause mortality when combined with aerobic exercise (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.72).

  What it does not show. The cardiovascular-death estimate included no difference and the cancer-death link was not significant. It does not show resistance training should replace aerobic exercise, or prove cause.

  PubMed 31104484

• Underlying-capacity evidence New source

  Momma et al. (2022). Muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. British journal of sports medicine.

  What it found. In sixteen cohort studies of adults without severe health conditions, muscle-strengthening activity was linked to 10-17% lower risk of all-cause mortality and several diseases, with J-shaped curves.

  What it does not show. The 30-60 min/week range is not a weekly limit, proof that more is harmful, or a personal prescription, and the studies do not prove cause.

  PubMed 35228201

• Underlying-capacity evidence New source

  Kraschnewski et al. (2016). Is strength training associated with mortality benefits? A 15year cohort study of US older adults. Preventive medicine.

  What it found. Among 30,162 US adults age 65 and older, reporting strength training twice a week went with an adjusted odds ratio for all-cause mortality of 0.64 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.70); the abstract's 46% figure does not match it.

  What it does not show. It is an association, so it does not show that strength training causes lower mortality, and odds are not the same as risk.

  PubMed 26921660