Resistance training: 90–120 minutes per week and a 131% reduction in mortality.

Resistance training for 90–119 minutes per week reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 13%. This finding, based on a 30-year follow-up of 147,374 people, was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. The figure is interesting not for itself, but for the threshold: after 120 minutes, the effect stopped increasing. More strength training did not mean lower mortality. For the average person’s schedule, this is more important news than yet another call to «train more».

A 30-year study on resistance training showed that it can significantly improve muscle strength, bone density and cardiovascular health.

A team from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health compiled data from three large cohorts: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Nurses’ Health Study, and the Nurses’ Health Study II. In total, there were 147,374 participants: 31,540 men and 115,834 women. The average age at the start was 54 years.

Every two years, people were surveyed about the volume of strength and aerobic training. The observation lasted for up to 30 years. During this time, 35,798 participants died – a large sample, giving the statistics weight.

Thirty years of observation is not a snapshot of a single year, but a trajectory. It is this duration that makes such data stronger than one-off surveys or short experiments lasting a few months.

Strength exercises include those with weights or your own bodyweight: squats, push-ups, lunges. Aerobics include brisk walking, running, swimming, cycling, tennis. Everything was converted into comparable units: minutes per week for strength training and MET-hours for cardio.

The general direction expected is that a greater weekly volume of resistance training means a lower risk of death. The surprise lies elsewhere. The relationship turned out to be non-linear. This is what distinguishes the study from the usual «sport is beneficial». It names a specific dose at which the effect is maximal, and a point where it stops.

Almost half of the participants (46%) did at least some strength training. Three-quarters exceeded the recommended 150 minutes of aerobic exercise per week. In other words, the sample consists of active people rather than the sedentary majority.

Why 90–120 minutes — and why not more

After adjusting for lifestyle, weight and aerobic activity, the picture became clear. 90–119 minutes of strength training per week was associated with a 131% lower risk of all-cause mortality. Beyond 120 minutes, the risk did not decrease further.

This doesn't mean it's more harmful. It means the curve levels off. The first two hours of resistance training provide almost all of the benefit. Each subsequent hour hardly moves the mortality rate downwards.

The practical conclusion is simple. If someone is already doing three full-body strength sessions a week, there's little point in adding a fourth for the sake of it. It's better to invest that same time in aerobic exercise, sleep, or recovery.

For humans, this is a release from the pressure of «always having to do more». Two short sessions per week cover the dosage at which the effect is highest. Daily hours in the gym are not needed to gain the main longevity bonus.

This is an argument against overtraining in the gym. If two hours give almost the ceiling of effectiveness, then striving for five means sacrificing time and risking overtraining with no gain in longevity.

A similar curve shape has been seen before. A 2022 meta-analysis of 16 studies showed a J-shaped relationship with a peak somewhere between 30–60 minutes of strength training per week. The new work shifts the optimum higher, but the logic is the same: the effect plateaus rather than growing infinitely.

In other words, this isn’t just a one-off result. Two independent studies describe the same pattern: resistance training yields quick results, but these then level off.

Heart and brain: where is the effect strongest

That same duration of 90–119 minutes had an effect not only on overall mortality. It was associated with a 19% lower risk of death from cardiovascular diseases and a 27% lower risk of death from neurological conditions, such as Alzheimer’s.

Resistance training here goes beyond «muscles for muscles» sake." The second point is particularly interesting: the link with neurodegeneration is rarely mentioned in popular advice about lifting weights.

For an audience contemplating ageing, the second digit is more significant than the first. The heart is already a focus of prevention. But the link between strength training and the brain is a strong argument that iron isn't just about aesthetics or sport.

The research does not explain why this is the case; it is observational. However, the direction aligns with the mechanisms from other works. These include improved insulin sensitivity, blood pressure control, an effect on chronic inflammation, and cerebral blood flow.

It's important not to confuse cause and effect. Strength training doesn't «cure» Alzheimer's. However, individuals who exercise regularly are statistically less likely to develop severe neurodegeneration – and this is significant.

Neurodegeneration develops slowly, over years. It is difficult to influence it through lifestyle. That is why even a modest reduction in risk at the population level has great practical significance for prevention.

[Here’s a personal touch — your comment on your own experience with the security forces]

Cancer is another curve

When it comes to cancer mortality, the picture breaks the «90–120 is the sweet spot» pattern. Here, a reduction in risk was observed only at low levels of activity. 1–29 minutes per week resulted in a 21% reduction, whilst 30–59 minutes resulted in an 18% reduction.

At higher doses, the cancer signal disappeared. This is no reason to give up resistance training. It is a reminder that different effects have different dose-response curves.

One possible explanation is purely statistical: there are fewer cancer deaths in the sample, and the curve for them is more erratic. But the practical conclusion remains the same — even a small sample size is sufficient here.

There is no single «optimal» figure that applies to all causes of death. One dose is effective for the heart and brain, whilst a different, lower dose is required for cancer statistics. The very notion of a «single ideal dose» is an oversimplification that the data does not support.

For practice, this means one thing: even if the goal is purely cancer prevention, you should start small, not with two hours straight away. The entry threshold here is low.

Resistance training plus cardio: lowest risk

The most interesting finding is the combined effect of strength training and aerobic exercise. Strength training alone for 1–119 minutes per week was associated with a 7–11% lower risk. Aerobic exercise alone, exceeding 7.5 MET-hours per week, resulted in a 26–43% reduction.

And the lowest risk was seen in those who combined both types. 30–44 MET-hours of cardio plus 60–119 minutes of strength training resulted in a 45% lower risk of death. At 45+ MET-hours of aerobic exercise, the risk was 53–58% lower.

In figures, it looks like this: a fit person who engages in both types of activity has roughly half the risk of death compared to someone who is largely sedentary. This is one of the most significant benefits that lifestyle choices can offer.

Resistance training is not a competitor to running or swimming here, but a supplement. Adding strength training lowered the risk on all levels of aerobic activity. That is, the question «cardio or weights» is flawed from the start – the one who does both wins.

It is worth emphasising the scale of this. The shift from «almost nothing» to combining resistance training with regular cardio isn’t just a matter of +5%; it represents a difference of roughly half the risk of death.

This echoes our breakdown Strength training plus cardio in a single session. If two types already work synergistically, the question of sequence remains—and that too has an answer in the data.

How long does that take in practice?

The WHO's 2020 recommendations advise adults to do strength training for all major muscle groups at least twice a week. Plus 150–300 minutes of moderate aerobic activity. A new study clarifies the exact dose of resistance training: 90–120 minutes is the benchmark where the effect on longevity is maximal.

In practice, this means two sessions of 45–60 minutes or three of 30–40 minutes. Squats, lunges, deadlifts, push-ups, working with weights or your own bodyweight – it all counts.

A specific example for the week: Monday and Thursday for 50 minutes of full-body strength training. That's exactly 100 minutes – within the optimal window. The remaining days are for walking, cycling, or the treadmill for aerobic targets.

The main thing is regularity, not heroic volumes. A missed week is not critical. Systematically missing months is critical. The dose is calculated on average over a long period, as in the study itself.

Intensity is also important, although this study did not measure it. Training to near failure and gradually increasing the weight are what distinguish a proper workout from simply going through the motions in the gym.

A separate story is older age, where the entry barrier is psychological, not physical. There is this about it. An analysis of strength training after 50: Adherence is low, even though the benefits are among the greatest. A 90–120-minute session of resistance training is achievable at any age if broken down into shorter sessions.

What the research does not prove

This is an observational study. It shows an association, not a causation. People who did more resistance training were younger, leaner, and led healthier lifestyles. Some of the effect could have been driven by these differences, rather than the training itself.

The data were self-reported, with participants assessing the volume themselves. The intensity and duration of individual sessions were not recorded. Calisthenics and Pilates were not counted as strength training.

Another nuance is the sample. These are mostly medical professionals from the US with access to healthcare and higher health literacy. It is wise to be cautious when transferring figures directly to another population.

No single measure here proves that iron itself lengthens life. However, the totality of data spanning decades makes the link too robust to dismiss as mere coincidence or statistical noise.

And it's no reason to ignore the result. Large cohorts with long follow-up periods are the best that is ethically feasible for such issues. No one will be randomising people to «30 years without strength training».

So «90-120 minutes» is a good guideline, not a precise recipe. Skepticism is as appropriate here as the result itself. Two hours of strength training per week steadily pull mortality down on a large sample over 30 years.

---

Sources

• Zhang Y, et al. Long-term resistance training with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: assessing dose-response and joint associations with aerobic physical activity. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2025-110503
• Momma H, Kawakami R, Honda T, Sawada SS. Muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;56(13):755-763. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-105061
• Bull FC, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. *British Journal of Sports Medicine*. 2020;54(24):1451-1462. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955