title: Uncomplicated resistance training and health-related outcomes: evidence for a public health mandate.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. phillis@mcmaster.ca
authors.forename: Stuart M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Phillips
authors.forename: Richard A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Winett
mesh_terms: D002318:Cardiovascular Diseases / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000628:therapy; D003924:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000628:therapy; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000639:trends; D006304:Health Status; D006801:Humans; D037141:Mandatory Programs / Q000639:trends; D010809:Physical Fitness / Q000502:physiology; D011634:Public Health / Q000379:methods* / Q000639:trends; D055070:Resistance Training / Q000379:methods* / Q000639:trends; D016896:Treatment Outcome