Resistance training and health in adults: an overview of systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to determine the benefits and harms of resistance training (RT) on health outcomes in adults aged 18 years or older, compared with not participating in RT. Four electronic databases were searched in February 2019 for systematic reviews published in the past 10 years. Eligibility criteria were determined a priori for population (community dwelling adults), intervention (exclusively RT), comparator (no RT or different doses of RT), and health outcomes (critical: mortality, physical functioning, health-related quality of life, and adverse events; important: cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, mental health, brain health, cognitive function, cancer, fall-related injuries or falls, and bone health). We selected 1 review per outcome and we used the GRADE process to assess the strength of evidence. We screened 2089 records and 375 full-text articles independently, in duplicate. Eleven systematic reviews were included, representing 364 primary studies and 382 627 unique participants. RT was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease incidence, and an improvement in physical functioning. Effects on health-related quality of life or cognitive function were less certain. Adverse events were not consistently monitored or reported in RT studies, but serious adverse events were not common. Systematic reviews for the remaining important health outcomes could not be identified. Overall, RT training improved health outcomes in adults and the benefits outweighed the harms. (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42019121641.) Novelty This overview was required to inform whether there was new evidence to support changes to the recommended guidelines for resistance training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".