Progressive Resistance Training for Concomitant Increases in Muscle Strength and Bone Mineral Density in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Older adults experience considerable muscle and bone loss that are closely interconnected. The efficacy of progressive resistance training programs to concurrently reverse/slow the age-related decline in muscle strength and bone mineral density (BMD) in older adults remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to quantify concomitant changes in lower-body muscle strength and BMD in older adults following a progressive resistance training program and to determine how these changes are influenced by mode (resistance only vs. combined resistance and weight-bearing exercises), frequency, volume, load, and program length. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases were searched for articles published in English before 1 June, 2021. Randomized controlled trials reporting changes in leg press or knee extension one repetition maximum and femur/hip or lumbar spine BMD following progressive resistance training in men and/or women ≥ 65 years of age were included. A random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression determined the effects of resistance training and the individual training characteristics on the percent change (∆%) in muscle strength (standardized mean difference) and BMD (mean difference). The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 2.0) and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. RESULTS: Seven hundred and eighty studies were identified and 14 were included. Progressive resistance training increased muscle strength (∆ standardized mean difference = 1.1%; 95% confidence interval 0.73, 1.47; p ≤ 0.001) and femur/hip BMD (∆ mean difference = 2.77%; 95% confidence interval 0.44, 5.10; p = 0.02), but not BMD of the lumbar spine (∆ mean difference = 1.60%; 95% confidence interval - 1.44, 4.63; p = 0.30). The certainty for improvement was greater for muscle strength compared with BMD, evidenced by less heterogeneity (I2 = 78.1% vs 98.6%) and a higher overall quality of eviden