Strength Training for Osteopenia and Osteoporosis: Where Should You Start?

STRENGTH TRAINING FOR OSTEOPOROSIS: MUSCLE AND BONE NEED DIFFERENT STIMULI

If you are a postmenopausal woman with osteopenia or osteoporosis, you have probably heard some version of:

“You need to lift heavy weights to build bone density.”

There is truth to that…but it is incomplete.

Resistance training can help preserve or improve bone mineral density, and programs combining progressive resistance with appropriately prescribed impact have produced some of the most encouraging results in postmenopausal women.

Bone responds to the magnitude, rate, direction, and novelty of mechanical loading. Once the body adapts to a particular stimulus, repeating exactly the same load provides less reason for further adaptation. Progressive overload therefore matters.

But muscle and bone do not respond identically.

Muscle hypertrophy can occur across a surprisingly broad range of resistance-training loads. Research comparing low-, moderate-, and high-load training performed with sufficient effort has found broadly similar muscle growth across load ranges, while heavier training tends to produce greater improvements in maximal strength.

Effort matters too. Every set does not need to reach absolute muscular failure, but lighter resistance generally needs to be performed with sufficient effort to provide a meaningful hypertrophy stimulus.

There is an important qualification. Most conventional low-load hypertrophy research has examined loads around 30% of 1RM or higher, not routine training at 20% 1RM.

When we use resistance toward the bottom of the 20–50% at Fit Alliance, range with a very deconditioned client, the immediate goal may therefore be movement practice, tolerance, muscular endurance, confidence, and preparation for progressively greater loading rather than maximal hypertrophy. Training at 20% of 1RM should not be considered equivalent to heavy training for either maximal strength or bone.

Bone requires a sufficiently large mechanical stimulus to produce meaningful adaptation. An exercise can fatigue the muscles of a beginner without yet exposing the skeleton to the magnitude or rate of loading considered strongly osteogenic.

That is why current osteoporosis exercise recommendations emphasize progressive resistance training and, when appropriate, impact rather than remaining indefinitely with light exercise.

But lighter training is not wasted time.

The exercise that prepares someone for higher-level bone loading does not have to be the exercise that ultimately provides the largest bone-building stimulus.

For someone who has not exercised consistently in years, developing the capacity to eventually train harder is part of the process.

Two frequently discussed osteoporosis studies…LIFTMOR and the long-term Snow weighted-vest study…help illustrate why the starting point and the eventual destination should not be confused.

WHAT LIFTMOR AND SNOW ACTUALLY SHOW

The LIFTMOR trial is one of the most important studies behind the growing interest in heavy strength training for osteoporosis.

Researchers randomized 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass to either a supervised high-intensity resistance-and-impact program or a low-intensity home exercise program.

The high-intensity group trained twice weekly for eight months. After an initial learning and progression period, the principal resistance exercises were performed for five sets of five repetitions at greater than approximately 85% of 1RM.

At eight months, lumbar-spine BMD increased by approximately 2.9% in the high-intensity group while declining approximately 1.2% in the control group.

At the femoral neck, the difference was smaller: approximately +0.3% in the training group compared with −1.9% in controls.

The high-intensity group also experienced substantial improvements in strength and physical function.

For a more detailed discussion of the protocol, see our blog post, LIFTMOR Study: Strength Training, Osteoporosis & Bone Density:

https://fitalliancepdx.com/liftmor-study-strength-training-osteoporosis-bone-density/

The safety findings are equally important.

Across more than 2,600 supervised high-intensity training sessions, researchers reported one training-related adverse event: a mild low-back muscle strain or spasm.

The participant missed two sessions, returned to training, and completed the program. No fractures or major exercise-related adverse events were reported.

Those findings should not be interpreted to mean that heavy lifting is universally safe for everyone with osteoporosis or that an untrained person should immediately copy the final LIFTMOR workout.

Participants were screened, exercises were taught and progressed, and training was closely supervised. The first month included bodyweight and lower-load exercise variations while participants learned the movements, with participants progressing to the fundamental exercises over approximately the first two months.

The more useful conclusion is that appropriately selected women with low bone mass can often develop the capacity to perform high-intensity resistance training safely when it is introduced progressively and appropriately supervised.

Training risk should also be considered in context.

We want to avoid muscle strains and other injuries, but avoiding meaningful physical loading also has consequences. Low strength, declining physical function, falls, and bone loss can all threaten independence as we age.

Resistance training consistently improves strength and physical function in older adults, while exercise programs that include balance and functional training reduce falls.

The goal is therefore not to avoid challenging exercise altogether or to rush immediately into heavy training. It is to progressively build enough capacity to manage increasingly challenging exercise while controlling unnecessary risk.

The Snow weighted-vest study reinforces this principle.

Snow and colleagues followed older postmenopausal women for five years. Women who continued a weighted-vest resistance and jumping program maintained hip BMD substantially better than controls.

The study reported approximately a 1.5% increase in femoral-neck BMD in the exercise group compared with roughly a 4.4% decline in controls.

Read the Fit Alliance analysis at Can a Weighted Vest Help Improve Bone Density? What One 5-Year Study Found:

https://fitalliancepdx.com/weighted-vest-bone-density/

One of the most useful details from this research is often overlooked when the study is summarized simply as “jump in a weighted vest.”

Jumping while wearing the weighted vest was not the recommendation during the first year.

The published five-year report states that years 2–5 included more jumps than year 1 and encouraged participants to perform those jumps while wearing the weighted vest.

The more demanding loaded-impact component was therefore introduced after a foundation had been established.

This is an important lesson for osteoporosis training generally:

Do not confuse the training stimulus someone may eventually benefit from with the stimulus they are prepared to tolerate today.

One reason that progression matters is that muscle, tendon, ligament, bone, and cartilage do not all adapt at the same rate.

WHY PREPARATION MATTERS: MUSCLE, TENDON, LIGAMENT, BONE, AND CARTILAGE

People often notice improvements in strength relatively early in a training program.

That can create a mismatch: the muscles and nervous system may make someone feel capable of doing more before every supporting tissue has adapted to the same degree.

Adaptation timelines should not be interpreted as biological countdown clocks. Age, estrogen status, nutrition, medications, disease, exercise history, training dose, recovery, and the specific tissue all influence the response.

However, approximate timeframes are useful when thinking about progression.

Early neural strength adaptations can become evident within roughly 2–4 weeks.

Measurable muscle hypertrophy often becomes increasingly apparent over approximately 6–12+ weeks.

Tendon mechanical adaptations generally become more evident over approximately 8–12+ weeks.

Because direct human research on native ligament adaptation to progressive exercise is much more limited, 3–6+ months is best viewed as a conservative programming horizon rather than a scientifically proven point at which a ligament has “finished remodeling.”

Individual bone-remodeling cycles are much slower, with estimates of roughly 120 days for cortical bone and around 200 days for cancellous or trabecular bone.

Measurable changes in BMD generally require months of training, and the practical timeline can become considerably longer when a deconditioned person first needs time to develop the capacity for more osteogenic loading.

Mature articular-cartilage collagen turns over on an even longer timescale.

One biochemical study estimated a collagen half-life of approximately 117 years, while later radiocarbon-dating research found minimal replacement of mature cartilage collagen in both healthy and osteoarthritic joints.

That does not mean exercise wears cartilage out.

Research examining joint-loading exercise has not found appropriately prescribed exercise to be harmful to articular cartilage in people at risk for or living with knee osteoarthritis.

Instead, the lesson is that sudden increases in training demand should be avoided.

A previously sedentary joint should not necessarily be exposed to large increases in running, jumping, deep loaded range, or repetitive high-force exercise simply because muscular strength improved quickly.

We want loading because joints and supporting tissues require loading.

What we want to avoid is a poorly managed spike in loading.

This is especially relevant for someone with osteoarthritis, persistent joint pain, previous injury, joint replacement, or a long period of inactivity.

Bone deserves the same long-term perspective.

LIFTMOR demonstrated meaningful lumbar-spine changes after eight months using a particularly potent high-intensity stimulus. Other successful exercise interventions have continued for a year or multiple years.

For someone who needs months to progress toward more meaningful bone-loading intensities, measurable BMD improvement may take 6–24+ months, with 12–24+ months often being a more realistic practical expectation for a substantially deconditioned beginner.

That is a coaching framework based on bone biology, the duration of successful exercise studies, and the time required to develop meaningful loading capacity…not a guarantee that an individual’s DXA will improve within a particular timeframe.

The main takeaway is simple:

Your muscles may feel stronger before the rest of your musculoskeletal system is ready for a large increase in load.

Understanding that helps determine where training should begin and how it should progress.

THE FIT ALLIANCE PROGRESSION: FROM DECONDITIONED TO STRONG, POWERFUL, AND IMPACT-READY

Many exercise programs begin with squats, lunges, hinges, presses, and rows.

Those are excellent movement patterns, but a bodyweight version is not automatically a beginner exercise.

Someone who has been largely sedentary for years may need a different starting point.

At Fit Alliance, the entry point is based on the person rather than the exercise label.

First, establish movement and tissue tolerance.

For someone who is stiff and has restricted movement, this may include gradually exposing the body to comfortable stretching and progressively larger usable ranges of motion.

Someone with full range of motion (or a hypermobility spectrum disorder) presents a different challenge.

More range may not be helpful.

Training may instead emphasize controlled range, isometric exercise, muscular awareness, and bracing through coordinated muscular co-contraction around the joint so that the person learns to create active stability.

Research on specific exercise protocols for hypermobility spectrum disorders and Ehlers-Danlos syndromes remains limited, so these strategies should be individualized rather than treated as a universal protocol. The broader rehabilitation literature supports exercise and strengthening while also highlighting the limited and heterogeneous evidence in these populations.

The objective is not maximum flexibility.

It is usable, controlled movement that can eventually tolerate more force.

Next, build muscular and cardiovascular endurance.

In highly deconditioned clients, fatigue can become a limiting factor before enough productive training has been completed.

Sometimes the muscles are the limiting factor.

Sometimes cardiovascular conditioning is.

For that reason, at Fit Alliance, we may develop aerobic capacity alongside resistance training and initially use more machine-based exercises.

Machines are not a second-rate form of resistance training.

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis found that machine-based resistance training improved strength and functional outcomes in older adults. Another meta-analysis examining the “oldest old” found progressive machine resistance training useful for strength and sarcopenia-related outcomes.

Machines can allow a client to challenge specific muscles without simultaneously requiring as much balance, coordination, or movement skill.

As capacity improves, those isolated or supported exercises can be progressively integrated into more complex patterns.

A lower-body progression might look like:

knee extension + hamstring curl + hip extension → leg press → sit-to-stand → bodyweight squat → externally loaded squat

Not everyone requires every step, and this is not intended as a universal medical protocol.

It simply illustrates why a bodyweight squat may not be the correct starting exercise for every beginner. For some clients, strengthening the contributing muscles separately before integrating them into a more demanding movement pattern can be more successful.

Once basic strength and work capacity are improving, greater emphasis can shift toward movement skill.

Resistance training is not only a muscle-physiology problem. It is also a motor-learning problem.

Squatting, lunging, hinging, pressing, pulling, stepping, carrying, landing, and jumping require coordination.

Older adults retain meaningful capacity to learn new motor skills, although age can influence learning rate, accuracy, sensory integration, and movement speed.

A new lifter should therefore have time to learn an exercise before being expected to manage large loads and substantial movement complexity at the same time.

Progression can occur through many variables.

We can increase load.

We can increase range of motion.

We can move from a supported machine to a less constrained exercise.

We can introduce greater balance or coordination demands.

We can increase movement speed.

Good programming does not need to progress all of those variables simultaneously.

As these foundational skills improve, the emphasis can shift increasingly toward strength.

For a relatively sedentary or highly deconditioned client, we may initially use approximately 20–50% of 1RM depending on the individual, exercise, symptoms, skill, and goals.

The lower end of that range needs context.

The NSCA position statement suggests that frail older adults may begin at approximately 20–30% of 1RM and progressively advance toward greater loads. Someone who is simply untrained but otherwise robust may begin higher within the 20–50% range.

This is an entry range.

It is not a recommendation that someone remain at 20–50% of 1RM indefinitely or that these loads are optimal for maximizing bone adaptation.

As technique, endurance, strength, and tissue tolerance improve, resistance should progressively increase.

Higher loads generally produce greater improvements in maximal strength, and osteoporosis research demonstrating some of the largest skeletal effects has used substantially heavier resistance than a typical deconditioned beginner could appropriately handle during the first weeks of training.

But strength is not the final step.

Once someone can produce force, we also want to improve how quickly that force can be produced.

That is power.

Power becomes especially important with aging because recovering from a trip or sudden loss of balance does not give us several seconds to slowly generate maximal force.

We may need to take a rapid corrective step or produce force very quickly.

Power training does not require Olympic lifting or aggressive jumping.

For an appropriate older adult, it might begin with standing from a chair faster, accelerating the lifting phase of a machine-based exercise, performing a step more quickly, or moving a moderate resistance with the intent to move rapidly while maintaining control.

Systematic reviews suggest that high-velocity or power-oriented resistance training can improve muscular power and aspects of functional performance in older adults, although the magnitude of its advantage over traditional resistance training varies by outcome.

From there, impact can also be progressively introduced when appropriate.

A useful progression is:

strength → faster force production → low-level impact → landing mechanics → progressively greater and more multi-directional impact

The placement of low-level impact before more formal landing mechanics is intentional.

A client may begin experiencing modest ground-reaction forces through controlled heel drops, brisk stepping, stomping, or other appropriately scaled contacts.

As tolerance and coordination improve, the program can progress toward more deliberate landing practice and eventually larger jumps, hops, multidirectional contacts, or externally loaded impact.

Impact training can progress through height, speed, direction, number of contacts, recovery, and external load.

The Snow study offers a useful example. Loaded jumping was not the beginning of the program. The recommendation to jump while wearing the weighted vest came during years 2–5 after participants had already established a training base.

The purpose of all of this progression is bigger than simply trying to improve a number on a DXA scan.

BONE DENSITY IS ONLY PART OF FRACTURE PREVENTION

A stronger skeleton matters.

But fracture risk also depends on whether someone falls.

Exercise is one of the best-supported interventions for reducing falls in community-dwelling older adults.

A major Cochrane review found that exercise reduced the overall rate of falls by approximately 23%, with balance and functional exercise programs showing particularly strong evidence.

Resistance training belongs in this picture because greater strength increases physical capacity.

But strength alone does not train every system involved when someone unexpectedly loses balance.

A comprehensive osteoporosis exercise program may also need to address balance, stepping, coordination, reaction, power, gait, directional changes, and eventually appropriate impact tolerance.

That is why training older adults can sometimes look surprisingly similar to scaled athletic development.

Athletes train to produce force, absorb force, accelerate, decelerate, coordinate movement, react to their environment, maintain balance, and tolerate progressively greater training demands.

Those abilities remain useful at 60, 70, and 80.

The scale simply changes.

A 72-year-old woman with osteopenia does not need to train like a 22-year-old competitive athlete, but she can still become more athletic relative to her own starting point.

For one person, that may mean progressing from a knee extension to a leg press and eventually a squat.

For someone else, it may mean developing enough power to take a quick corrective step when balance is lost.

Another person may eventually progress to hopping, jumping, carrying heavy weights, hiking, or moving confidently over uneven terrain.

The underlying training principles can remain similar while exercises, loads, ranges of motion, speeds, and progression rates are individualized.

Individualization becomes especially important when osteoporosis exists alongside joint replacement, scoliosis, hypermobility spectrum disorder, osteoarthritis, chronic pain, neurologic conditions, previous fractures, cardiovascular disease, or other persistent health concerns.

Major osteoporosis exercise guidelines emphasize exactly this approach: training should reflect fracture history, physical ability, fall risk, comorbidities, and personal goals rather than applying the same program to everyone.

Ultimately, the reason to develop all of these physical qualities extends far beyond bone density alone.

LIFESPAN VS. HEALTHSPAN: THINK IN YEARS, NOT WEEKS

Lifespan is how long you live.

Healthspan is the portion of that life during which you remain healthy, functional, independent, and able to participate meaningfully in daily life.

The scientific literature uses several definitions of healthspan, so it is not one precisely standardized clinical measurement.

But the concept is useful.

Living longer and remaining physically capable for longer are not necessarily the same thing.

For most women who come to us at Fit Alliance, maintaining that capability is one of the most important goals.

They want to travel, climb stairs, carry luggage and groceries, get down to the floor and back up, garden, hike, play with grandchildren, react when they trip, live independently, and continue doing those things for as much of their remaining life as possible.

That is why strength training after 50 should not be viewed as a short-term transformation.

If resistance training has been neglected for ten, twenty, or even forty years, expecting to reverse that history in six weeks is unrealistic.

That does not mean improvements cannot begin quickly.

Strength, confidence, coordination, and exercise tolerance may improve relatively early.

But the physical qualities we ultimately care about accumulate over different timeframes and require continued training.

Muscle develops over weeks and months.

Tendons adapt over months.

Bone responds over months and years.

Movement skill requires repeated practice.

Power must be trained and maintained.

Balance requires continued exposure.

Impact tolerance must be developed progressively.

None of these qualities becomes permanent simply because someone completed a twelve-week program.

The five-year Snow study offers a useful model for thinking about bone-health exercise because the intervention was not a short “bone-density challenge.”

Training continued and evolved across years.

Instead of asking:

“How fit can I get in the next eight weeks?”

A more useful question might be:

“How capable could I become over the next two, five, ten, or twenty years if I train consistently?”

Over enough time, modest steps compound.

A knee extension can become a leg press.

A leg press can become a sit-to-stand.

A sit-to-stand can become a squat.

A squat can become an externally loaded squat.

A controlled movement can become a faster movement.

A low-level impact can progress to landing and jumping.

The person who could not tolerate the final exercise at the beginning may eventually perform it comfortably because the training that came before it developed the necessary strength, skill, tissue tolerance, and confidence.

For that to happen, the program also has to survive real life.

An umbrella review examining exercise adherence among older adults and people with chronic disease identified enjoyment, self-efficacy, social support, supervision, feedback, realistic goals, and integration into daily life as recurring factors associated with adherence.

Those factors should influence exercise programming just as much as sets and repetitions.

A theoretically perfect program that someone dreads and abandons after eight weeks is not a successful long-term strategy.

At the same time, enjoyable does not have to mean easy.

An effective program needs to find a sustainable balance…

challenging enough to continue producing adaptation, but manageable and enjoyable enough to become part of someone’s life.

Long-term physical activity and resistance training are associated with better physical function and lower risks of disability and mortality.

Observational studies cannot prove that resistance training alone causes a longer life, but combined with randomized evidence showing improvements in strength, mobility, balance, and physical function, the broader case for remaining active throughout older adulthood is strong.

And beginning later still matters.

You have not “missed your chance” because you did not train consistently at 30.

Starting at 50, 60, 70, or beyond still gives the body an opportunity to become stronger and more capable.

So if strength training has been neglected for years, do not expect a miracle in a few weeks.

Do not rush through the foundation because social media told you that everyone with osteoporosis should immediately deadlift 85% of their maximum or jump in a weighted vest.

Start where your body actually is.

Build tolerance and endurance.

Learn to move well.

Get stronger.

Progressively lift heavier.

Develop power.

Challenge balance.

Introduce impact when appropriate.

Continue progressing as your body adapts.

And find a way to train that you enjoy enough to keep showing up.

Because the best strength-training program for osteopenia, osteoporosis, and healthy aging is not the one that produces the most dramatic twelve-week before-and-after story.

It is the one that progressively builds and then preserves muscle, strength, bone, power, balance, movement capacity, and independence for the rest of your healthspan.

REFERENCES

1. Watson SL, Weeks BK, Weis LJ, Harding AT, Horan SA, Beck BR. High-Intensity Resistance and Impact Training Improves Bone Mineral Density and Physical Function in Postmenopausal Women With Osteopenia and Osteoporosis: The LIFTMOR Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 2018;33(2):211–220. DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.3284.
2. Snow CM, Shaw JM, Winters KM, Witzke KA. Long-term Exercise Using Weighted Vests Prevents Hip Bone Loss in Postmenopausal Women. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences. 2000;55(9):M489–M491. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/55.9.M489.
3. Shaw JM, Snow CM. Weighted Vest Exercise Improves Indices of Fall Risk in Older Women. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences. 1998;53A(1):M53–M58. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/53A.1.M53.
4. O’Bryan SJ, Giuliano C, Woessner MN, Vogrin S, Smith C, Duque G, Levinger I. Progressive Resistance Training for Concomitant Increases in Muscle Strength and Bone Mineral Density in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2022;52(8):1939–1960. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01675-2.
5. Zhao R, Zhao M, Xu Z. The Effects of Differing Resistance Training Modes on the Preservation of Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women: A Meta-analysis. Osteoporosis International. 2015.
6. Kitagawa T, Hiraya K, Denda T, Yamamoto S. A Comparison of Different Exercise Intensities for Improving Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Bone Reports. 2022.
7. Brooke-Wavell K, Skelton DA, Barker KL, et al. Strong, Steady and Straight: UK Consensus Statement on Physical Activity and Exercise for Osteoporosis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;56(15):837–846. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104634.
8. Giangregorio LM, McGill S, Wark JD, et al. Too Fit To Fracture: Exercise Recommendations for Individuals With Osteoporosis or Osteoporotic Vertebral Fracture. Osteoporosis International. 2014/2015.
9. Giangregorio LM, Papaioannou A, MacIntyre NJ, et al. Too Fit To Fracture: Outcomes of a Delphi Consensus Process on Physical Activity and Exercise Recommendations for Adults With Osteoporosis With or Without Vertebral Fractures. Osteoporosis International.
10. Turner CH. Three Rules for Bone Adaptation to Mechanical Stimuli. Bone. 1998;23(5):399–407. DOI: 10.1016/S8756-3282(98)00118-5.
11. Lopez P, Radaelli R, Taaffe DR, et al. Resistance Training Load Effects on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2021;53(6):1206–1216. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002585.
12. Refalo MC, Helms ER, Trexler ET, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ. Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2023;53:649–665. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01784-y.
13. Currier BS, McLeod JC, Banfield L, et al. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis. 2023.
14. Lacio M, Vieira JG, Trybulski R, et al. Effects of Resistance Training Performed With Different Loads in Untrained and Trained Male Adult Individuals on Maximal Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review. 2021.
15. Fragala MS, Cadore EL, Dorgo S, Izquierdo M, Kraemer WJ, Peterson MD, Ryan ED. Resistance Training for Older Adults: Position Statement From the National Strength and Conditioning Association. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2019;33(8):2019–2052. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003230.
16. Škarabot J, Brownstein CG, Casolo A, Del Vecchio A, Ansdell P. The Knowns and Unknowns of Neural Adaptations to Resistance Training. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-020-04567-3.
17. Bontemps B, et al. The Time Course of Different Neuromuscular Adaptations to Resistance Training and Their Contribution to Changes in Muscle Strength. 2022.
18. Bohm S, Mersmann F, Arampatzis A. Human Tendon Adaptation in Response to Mechanical Loading: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Exercise Intervention Studies on Healthy Adults. 2015.
19. Frank CB. Ligament Structure, Physiology and Function. Journal of Musculoskeletal & Neuronal Interactions. 2004;4(2):199–201.
20. Raggatt LJ, Partridge NC. Cellular Mechanisms of Bone Remodeling. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2010;285(33):25103–25108. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.R109.041087.
21. Eriksen EF. Cellular Mechanisms of Bone Remodeling. Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders. 2010;11:219–227. DOI: 10.1007/s11154-010-9153-1.
22. Heinemeier KM, Schjerling P, Heinemeier J, et al. Radiocarbon Dating Reveals Minimal Collagen Turnover in Both Healthy and Osteoarthritic Human Cartilage. Science Translational Medicine. 2016;8(346):346ra90. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad8335.
23. Verzijl N, DeGroot J, Thorpe SR, et al. Effect of Collagen Turnover on the Accumulation of Advanced Glycation End Products. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2000;275:39027–39031.
24. Sophia Fox AJ, Bedi A, Rodeo SA. The Basic Science of Articular Cartilage: Structure, Composition, and Function. Sports Health. 2009;1(6):461–468. DOI: 10.1177/1941738109350438.
25. Bricca A, Juhl CB, Steultjens M, et al. Impact of Exercise on Articular Cartilage in People at Risk of, or With Established, Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098661.
26. Kirk A, Steele J, Fisher J. Machine-Based Resistance Training Improves Functional Capacity in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. 2024.
27. Mende E, Moeinnia N, Schaller N, Weiß M, Haller B, Halle M, Siegrist M. Progressive Machine-Based Resistance Training for Prevention and Treatment of Sarcopenia in the Oldest Old: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Experimental Gerontology. 2022;163:111767. DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2022.111767.
28. Voelcker-Rehage C. Motor-Skill Learning in Older Adults…A Review of Studies on Age-Related Differences. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity. 2008;5:5–16. DOI: 10.1007/s11556-008-0030-9.
29. Balachandran AT, Steele J, Angielczyk D, et al. Comparison of Power Training vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2022.
30. Jiménez-Lupión D, et al. Effects of Power Training on Functional Capacity Related to Fall Risk in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2023.
31. Pearson LT, Behm DG, Goodall S, Mason R, Stuart S, Barry G. Effects of Maximal- Versus Submaximal-Intent Resistance Training on Functional Capacity and Strength in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2022;14:129. DOI: 10.1186/s13102-022-00526-x.
32. Sherrington C, Fairhall NJ, Wallbank GK, et al. Exercise for Preventing Falls in Older People Living in the Community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2019;1:CD012424. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012424.pub2.
33. Liu CJ, Latham NK. Progressive Resistance Strength Training for Improving Physical Function in Older Adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009:CD002759. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002759.pub2.
34. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Sen A, Gordon PM. Resistance Exercise for Muscular Strength in Older Adults: A Meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews. 2010;9(3):226–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2010.03.004.
35. Buryk-Iggers S, Mittal N, Santa Mina D, et al. Exercise and Rehabilitation in People With Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: A Systematic Review. Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation. 2022.
36. Kaeberlein M. How Healthy Is the Healthspan Concept? GeroScience. 2018;40:361–364. DOI: 10.1007/s11357-018-0036-9.
37. Collado-Mateo D, Lavín-Pérez AM, Peñacoba C, et al. Key Factors Associated With Adherence to Physical Exercise in Patients With Chronic Diseases and Older Adults: An Umbrella Review. 2021.
38. Devereux-Fitzgerald A, Powell R, Dewhurst A, French DP. The Acceptability of Physical Activity Interventions to Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis. Social Science & Medicine. 2016.
39. Huffman MK, Reed JB, Carpenter TK, Amireault S. Maintenance Motives for Physical Activity Among Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review. 2021;15(4):593–612.
40. Shailendra P, Baldock KL, Li LSK, Bennie JA, Boyle T. Resistance Training and Mortality Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2022;63(2):277–285. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2022.03.020.