Paulo Ricardo Prado Nunes, Pâmela Castro-E-Souza, Anselmo Alves de Oliveira, Bruno de Freitas Camilo, Gislaine Cristina-Souza, Lucio Marques Vieira-Souza, Marcelo Augusto da Silva Carneiro
Journal: Journal of sport and health science 2024;13(2):145-159
PMID: 37788790
Postmenopausal women are at a higher risk of obesity due to lower levels of oestrogen, which acts to protect the body against fat storage. Resistance training is recommended for healthy ageing in postmenopausal women. It can be of benefit for fitness and prevent chronic disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 randomised control trials aimed to determine the effects of low (44 sets per week) and high volume (77 sets per week) resistance training on body fat, inflammation, and risk for metabolic disease in postmenopausal women. The results showed that regardless of whether postmenopausal women undertook high or low volume resistance training, total body fat, fat around the middle, metabolic risk, and inflammation were improved compared to not undertaking any resistance training at all. High volume resistance training had a greater benefit than low volume resistance exercise to blood sugar levels and a certain measure of inflammation known as C-reactive protein. It was concluded that resistance training is effective for improving measures of body fat, inflammation, and metabolic risk in postmenopausal women. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to recommend resistance training to postmenopausal women as part of a fat loss programme and to reduce risk of metabolic disease.
PURPOSE
This meta-analytical study aimed to explore the effects of resistance training (RT) volume on body adiposity, metabolic risk, and inflammation in postmenopausal and older females.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and SciELO. Randomized controlled trials with postmenopausal and older females that compared RT effects on body adiposity, metabolic risk, and inflammation with a control group (CG) were included. Independent reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and performed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)) evaluations. Total body and abdominal adiposity, blood lipids, glucose, and C-reactive protein were included for meta-analysis. A random-effects model, standardized mean difference (Hedges' g), and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty randomized controlled trials (overall risk of bias: some concerns; GRADE: low to very low) with overweight/obese postmenopausal and older females were included. RT groups were divided into low-volume RT (LVRT, ∼44 sets/week) and high-volume RT (HVRT, ∼77 sets/week). Both RT groups presented improved body adiposity, metabolic risk, and inflammation when compared to CG. However, HVRT demonstrated higher effect sizes than LVRT for glucose (HVRT = -1.19; 95%CI: -1.63 to -0.74; LVRT = -0.78; 95%CI:-1.15 to -0.41) and C-reactive protein (HVRT = -1.00; 95%CI: -1.32 to -0.67; LVRT = -0.34; 95%CI, -0.63 to -0.04)) when compared to CG.
CONCLUSION
Compared to CG, HVRT protocols elicit greater improvements in metabolic risk and inflammation outcomes than LVRT in overweight/obese postmenopausal and older females.
Copyright © 2023. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
Full Text Sources:
© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence
NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:
We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.