The Biggest Health Levers After 70

Applies to a specific group

This guide is written for obese adults around 70. If you are not in this group, the recommendations here may not apply to you — what holds for the wider population can differ.

How to read the numbers

• HR, RR and OR (hazard ratio, risk or rate ratio, odds ratio) compare one group’s risk with another’s. Below one means lower risk; above one means higher.
• The range in brackets is the confidence interval: the span of results the data are compatible with. When a ratio’s range crosses one, the study shows no clear effect.
• SMD, ES and g are effect sizes without units, used to pool studies that measured on different scales. The further from zero, the larger the difference.
• MD and WMD are the average difference between groups (weighted, for WMD), in the measure’s own units.
• CVD is cardiovascular disease: heart attacks, strokes and related conditions of the heart and blood vessels.
• Person-years count follow-up time: one person followed for one year adds one person-year.
• Certainty (high, moderate, low, very low) is how confident the reviewers are that the true effect is close to the estimate.
• Timed up and go is a timed test: stand up from a chair, walk a short distance, turn, walk back and sit down. Faster is better.
• The six-minute walk measures how far a person walks in that time. Farther is better.
• Relative effect is the risk with a treatment as a fraction of the risk without it (a ratio of about three-quarters means about a quarter less risk); baseline risk is your starting risk.

At around 70, a fracture or a move into care weighs more than a fall itself, and a change that pays back within months to a few years counts for relatively more than one that takes decades -> Rating Outcome Importance. This guide calls each such change — a habit, an exercise programme, a diet, a drug — a lever.

If you smoke, quitting comes first; cutting heavy drinking does too, where present. Quitting recovered years of life at every quit age covered by the study this guide draws on. None of this guide’s studies measures that gain at 70, so this guide ranks quitting first at that age by inference. Heavy drinking (six or more drinks a day) ranks beside it, on the strength of blood-pressure trials in middle-aged adults and genetic evidence of stroke harm. Its rank at this age is again an inference -> Smoking and Mortality, Alcohol and Mortality and Vascular Disease. After that, the levers rank as follows.

• For a non-smoker, a structured balance-and-strength exercise programme is the best-proven lever, and this guide ranks it first. It reduces falls with high certainty, and the effect did not shrink detectably past 75. Balance and functional practice drives the effect; neither resistance training alone nor walking alone has been shown to prevent falls -> Exercise for Preventing Falls in Older Adults.
• Resistance training keeps muscle working, and a low weekly volume matched or beat higher volumes on timed up and go and the 6-minute walk (low certainty; fast walking speed favoured more volume). Reaching the older-adult protein minimum is the smaller second step; extra protein on top of training added nothing measurable in healthy older adults -> Resistance Training Prescription - Load Sets and Frequency, Protein Intake for Older Adults.
• Lowering blood pressure still pays, and usually pays more at this age, because the relative effect stays the same while baseline risk rises. It also slightly reduces dementia, the one lever with randomized evidence for that -> Blood Pressure Lowering and Cardiovascular Events, Dementia Prevention and Modifiable Risk Factors.
• People who move more through the day, light activity included, die at lower rates; after 60 the step curve levels off at a lower daily count than in younger adults. These are cohort comparisons, not trials -> Physical Activity Dose and Mortality.
• A structured lifestyle programme prevents type 2 diabetes in people over 60 at least as well as in younger adults; metformin did little at this age -> Lifestyle vs Metformin for Diabetes Prevention.

The levers below help only under certain conditions, or help less.

• Intentional weight loss depends on what it is for. It is worth doing for a named target (painful knees, raised blood sugar, a fatty liver), with resistance training and protein to reduce the muscle it costs. No trial among this guide’s sources tests whether losing weight at this age extends life. The trials that showed a survival benefit enrolled mostly middle-aged adults -> Resistance Training During Caloric Restriction, BMI and All-Cause Mortality.
• Exercise probably reduces major osteoporotic fracture, though the evidence in older men is thin. Vitamin D and calcium pills do not reduce fractures in people living at home who are not deficient -> Exercise and Bone Mineral Density, Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation for Fracture Prevention.
• Starting daily aspirin for prevention gives no net benefit at this age. Starting a statin after 75 without known heart disease is unproven either way. With prior vascular disease, the case for a statin holds at any age -> Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Statins for Primary Prevention and the Power of Zero CAC.
• Most supplement pills add little, and brain-specific programmes have not been shown to prevent dementia. Bundled brain-health programmes have not prevented dementia in unselected people in their seventies, and for multivitamins the evidence is insufficient. Once the large levers are in place, each has a limit to what it can add, and what is left to gain is small -> Vitamin and Mineral Supplements for Disease Prevention, Multidomain Lifestyle Intervention and Cognitive Decline.

Count falls, fractures and lost independence first, because slow benefits have fewer years to arrive

At around 70, losing independence and breaking a hip weigh more than a fall itself. A review of patient values done for the Canadian falls-prevention guideline put each health state on a scale where 1 equals death. Admission to long-term care scored a median of 1, «equivalent to death». That figure comes from a single time-trade-off study of 194 adults aged 75 and over, and it is low certainty (Pillay et al., 2024).

A hip fracture probably costs 0.53 in the first three months and 0.16 at twelve months. Impairment in at least one activity of daily living (a basic task such as washing or dressing) may cost 0.12, and a fall 0.09 over a year (both low certainty). The authors conclude that a fracture is probably more important than a fall or a loss of function, and that function may matter somewhat more than falls (Pillay et al., 2024) -> Rating Outcome Importance.

Read these weights as an order, not a sum. They say which outcomes count as critical at this age; they do not add up to one health score. How a year with a mended hip trades against a year of life is the reader’s call, not the evidence’s -> Rating Outcome Importance. The order also shows what most trials miss. Most falls trials count falls, the outcome patients weight least; people fear the fracture and the move into care that a fall can trigger. Lean mass and bone density sit one step further back. They are markers (measurements that stand in for an outcome), and their link to a fracture or to independence has to be shown before a change in them counts as a benefit -> Surrogate Outcomes.

A lever that cuts disabling fractures or strokes has not failed just because it leaves all-cause mortality (death from any cause) unchanged. It buys years lived without disability, a separate good from added years -> Rating Outcome Importance.

Trials rarely measure the course people most want: keep function, then decline quickly. They count events: falls, fractures, deaths. A composite measure of function does exist. WHO’s intrinsic capacity scores cognition, locomotion, vitality, psychological state and the senses, and a 2026 systematic review of 15 trials paired it with quality of life as its definition of healthspan. Exercise, alone or inside a multidomain programme (one that combines several kinds of change), gave the most consistent signal (11 of 13 studies); too few trials tested anything else to judge it. The effect sizes were generally small, and the authors call their clinical significance unclear (Zheng et al., 2026).

The quality-of-life half is self-reported in trials that could not be blinded, so this guide gives even that signal less weight -> Intrinsic Capacity and Multidimensional Healthspan. None of this guide’s sources measures the shape of late-life decline; a survival result says nothing about it.

Competing risk — dying of something else first — leaves less time for slow-payoff levers

At 70, a lever that pays off over decades has fewer decades to pay off in. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) calls age «the major driver of CVD risk». Almost everyone aged 70 or over already exceeds the usual ten-year treatment thresholds, and the lifetime benefit of treatment is lower, so ESC sets higher thresholds at that age (European Society of Cardiology, 2021). Ten-year risk under 7.5% counts as low-to-moderate at 70 and over, against under 2.5% below 50. In the 7.5% to under 15% band, ESC asks clinicians to weigh frailty, lifetime benefit, comorbidities (other illnesses), polypharmacy (taking many medicines) and patient preferences. It says strict criteria for that weighing cannot be defined (European Society of Cardiology, 2021) -> SCORE2 Baseline Risk and the ESC Treatment Thresholds.

ESC’s lifetime grids show how fast the years of benefit shrink with age. For a non-smoking man aged 45-49, lowering LDL cholesterol by 1 mmol/L buys roughly 0.6 to 1.6 years free of heart attack or stroke; at 90 and over the same reduction buys about 0.0 to 0.3 years (European Society of Cardiology, 2021) -> Lifetime Benefit - The Frame for Younger Adults.

These figures come from a model (LIFE-CVD) multiplied by a hazard ratio of 0.78 from a meta-analysis of lipid-lowering trials (European Society of Cardiology, 2021), not from anyone followed for a lifetime. The endpoint also counts death as well as a cardiovascular event: ESC defines lifetime risk as the age by which a person has a 50% chance to «either have experienced a CVD event or have died». So competing death — dying of other causes first — is built into the shrinking gain (European Society of Cardiology, 2021). A ten-year absolute benefit can stay large at 75 while the lifetime gain shrinks; the two numbers answer different questions. The blood-pressure section below takes up the statin decision.

Older people start at higher risk, and that pulls the other way. A lever’s absolute benefit is its relative effect applied to the person’s starting risk (the baseline risk), and the relative effect is usually similar across a wide range of baseline risks (Schünemann et al., n.d.) -> Baseline Risk and the Relative-Absolute Split. A 70-year-old starts higher on falls, fractures and cardiovascular events, so a lever that pays back within a trial’s own follow-up removes more events per person than it would at 50. Together the two forces favour quick payoffs: competing death weakens the case for levers whose payoff takes decades, and higher baseline risk strengthens the case for levers that pay off within months to a few years. Falls-prevention exercise is the clearest of the second kind.

No study this guide draws on measures time-to-benefit — how long each lever takes to pay off — lever by lever at this age. The case for favouring quick payoffs rests on ESC’s modelled lifetime frame, not on a measured competing-risk analysis. The trials built for this age are not among this guide’s sources (they are listed with blood pressure below). No single birthday switches a lifestyle lever from worth doing to not: decide by muscle status, remaining life expectancy and baseline risk, not by chronological age -> Lifetime Benefit - The Frame for Younger Adults. Among this guide’s sources, starting aspirin for prevention is the clearest case of a lever whose balance of benefit and harm reverses with age (the timing of hormone therapy is contested). The blood-pressure section below takes it up.

Frail older adults face about twice the risk, so a lever that works buys them more

Frail older adults die at about twice the rate of robust ones. A meta-analysis of 31 prospective studies in 158,764 adults aged 65 and over living at home (community-dwelling) found mortality RR 2.01 (1.82-2.22) for the frail and RR 1.47 (1.32-1.62) for the prefrail, each against the robust. Being frail or prefrail, pooled together and set against being robust, also predicted the outcomes that head this section: institutionalization (HR/RR 1.65, 1.48-1.84), disability in basic daily activities (1.62, 1.50-1.76), fractures (1.37, 1.21-1.54) and falls (1.24, 1.12-1.37) (Vermeiren et al., 2016).

These are observational associations with very high heterogeneity, meaning the studies’ results varied widely (I2 95-98% for mortality). So frailty marks risk; it does not establish a cause -> Frailty. None of this guide’s sources gives baseline event rates for this group, so this guide cannot give absolute figures (events per 1,000 people over a stated period).

That higher risk makes a working lever worth more to the frail, by the baseline-risk arithmetic above -> Baseline Risk and the Relative-Absolute Split. Whether a given lever works in people already frail is a separate question, answered lever by lever below; for falls, the evidence in the frail is much thinner than in older adults generally -> Frailty.

The same few levers pay into several of these outcomes at once. Blood pressure, physical activity, adiposity, blood sugar and smoking recur across the risk lists for dementia, cardiovascular disease and cancer, and physical activity also preserves function and mobility -> Shared Modifiable Levers Across Age-Related Diseases. A lever that moves several critical outcomes outranks one that moves a single outcome at equal effect -> Layer 1 - Ranking Interventions for a Stratum. These shared risk factors come from observational risk estimates, and the attributable fractions behind them (the share of cases each factor accounts for) do not add up across factors.

Of these outcomes, falls have the strongest trial evidence for a lifestyle lever at this age; the fractures and moves into care that a fall can trigger are measured far less well. One habit comes before the falls programme: if you still smoke, start there.

If you still smoke, quitting stays the largest lever you have

Smokers die at about three times the rate of people who never smoked: all-cause HR 3.0 (99% CI 2.7-3.3) in women and 2.8 (2.4-3.1) in men. The study followed 216,917 US adults at ages 25-79 and adjusted for age, education, alcohol and adiposity (body fat). Quitting recovered life at every quit age the study covered. The latest band is 55-64 (median 59): those quitters gained about 4 years of life and carried a residual HR of 1.7 (1.5-2.0), against 2.9 (2.7-3.1) for people who kept smoking. Jha gives the reason the gain stays large late: «Because the absolute risks of continuing to smoke are large, the absolute benefits of cessa- tion will also be large, particularly as death rates among those who have never smoked continue to fall.» (Jha et al., 2013)

None of this guide’s studies measures what quitting at 70 buys, so this guide gives no years-gained figure for it. That quitting helps is not in doubt. Each later quit band in Jha’s table recovers less, but none recovers nothing. A 70-year-old smoker’s absolute risk of death is higher than a 59-year-old’s, which keeps the absolute gain large even if the relative one shrinks. This guide ranks quitting above the exercise programme in the next section by inference beyond Jha’s table, not from a measurement [INFERRED; Smoking and Mortality, Baseline Risk and the Relative-Absolute Split].

Heavy drinking is the other habit to change first, where present [INFERRED; Alcohol and Mortality and Vascular Disease]. In 36 trials (2,865 people, mean age 49.5), people starting at six or more drinks a day (a drink = 12 g alcohol) who cut their intake by about half lowered systolic blood pressure by 5.50 mmHg (95% CI 4.30-6.70). People starting at two or fewer saw no measurable change (-0.18 mmHg, -1.02 to 0.66). Baseline intakes averaged 15 to 76 g a day across those bands. This is a blood-pressure change; the trials measured no strokes or deaths (Roerecke et al., 2017).

Light drinking probably does not lengthen life. Its apparent benefit (RR 0.86, 0.83-0.90, against abstainers) falls to RR 0.97 (0.88-1.07) once the analysis makes two adjustments. One is for who was counted as an abstainer (former and occasional drinkers); the other is for study characteristics such as follow-up length, exclusion of people already ill, and control for smoking. Adjusting for the abstainer definition, demographics and drinking-measure quality alone still left RR 0.89 (0.84-0.94) (Stockwell et al., 2016). Genetic analysis in Chinese adults, mostly men, finds no sign that drinking at lower levels protects against stroke (Millwood et al., 2019), though for heart attack it had too few cases to exclude a small effect in either direction (Millwood et al., 2019) -> The U-Shaped Association Artifact.

For the non-smoker, the best-proven lever is exercise of a specific kind.

Do balance and strength training to prevent falls; it is the best-proven lever at this age

A structured balance-and-strength exercise programme reduces falls, and the evidence for it is high-certainty. A Cochrane review pooled 108 randomised trials of 23,407 people living in the community, mean age 76. Exercise cut the rate of falls by about a quarter (rate ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.71-0.83; 59 trials, 12,981 people). That is 195 fewer falls per 1,000 people per year (144 to 246 fewer), against a control rate of 850. It also cut the number of people who fell (RR 0.85, 0.81-0.89): 72 fewer fallers per 1,000 per year (52 to 91 fewer), against 480. Dropping the trials at high risk of bias left the result essentially unchanged, so the review did not lower its certainty rating. (Sherrington et al., 2019)

Trials count falls directly and can randomise people to exercise or to a control group, so this lever reaches a certainty that observational lifestyle evidence rarely does -> Exercise for Preventing Falls in Older Adults.

The effect does not shrink detectably past 75. Trials of people aged 75 or older gave a rate ratio of 0.83 (0.72-0.97), trials of younger people 0.75 (0.69-0.82). The test for a difference gave P = 0.24, and the review reads this as probably little or no difference by age. The relative effect also did not vary with baseline fall risk, so people at higher risk avert more falls each, while the general community still benefits. (Sherrington et al., 2019) Higher-risk people gain more because they start higher, not because exercise works differently in them -> Baseline Risk and the Relative-Absolute Split.

Balance and functional practice drives the effect

The exercise types differ, and the choice between them matters. The falls figures below are the review’s own corresponding risks: its estimate of the fall rate on each programme, given the control rate.

Programme	Rate of falls, ratio (95% CI)	Falls per 1,000 per year (control 850)	Certainty
Balance and functional training (gait, balance, task practice)	0.76 (0.70-0.81), 39 trials	646 (595-689)	high
Multiple types, usually balance plus resistance training	0.66 (0.50-0.88), 11 trials	561 (425-748)	moderate
Tai chi	0.81 (0.67-0.99), 7 trials	689 (570-842)	low
Resistance training alone	1.14 (0.67-1.97), 5 trials	969 (570-1,675)	very low
General physical activity, including walking	1.14 (0.66-1.97), 2 trials	969 (561-1,675)	very low
Dance alone	1.34 (0.98-1.83), 1 trial	1,139 (833-1,556)	very low

(Sherrington et al., 2019)

Programmes that challenge balance safely reduce falls; resistance training on its own has not been shown to. The review’s own summary: «Exercise programmes that reduce falls primarily involve balance and functional exercises, while programmes that probably reduce falls include multiple exercise categories (typically balance and functional exercises plus resistance exercises).» (Sherrington et al., 2019) The resistance-only interval runs from a large benefit to a large harm across five small trials, so that row shows insufficient evidence, not evidence of no effect. Resistance training still belongs in the programme for muscle and function, which the next section takes up. -> Exercise for Preventing Falls in Older Adults

In these trials, balance training meant «transferring bodyweight from one part of the body to another or challenging specific aspects of the balance systems», and «Training is assessment-based, tailored and progressed.» (Sherrington et al., 2019) So the programme should get harder as the person improves rather than settle into a fixed routine. The exact drill progression is a coaching call this guide does not make.

Fast, power-style resistance training improves function tests more than slow, heavy lifting, but no trial has shown it prevents falls. Against conventional strength training it improved generic function tests (walk distance, chair rises, balance) by SMD 0.43 (0.23-0.62), high certainty, 11 of the review’s 15 trials. (el Hadouchi et al., 2022) A second meta-analysis looked at the tests that predict falls. It found timed-up-and-go times 0.31 s faster than other exercise (MD -0.31 s, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.00), below the 3.2-second change the test can reliably detect, and its authors call for trials that count falls. (Jiménez-Lupión et al., 2023) Training for power refines the programme; it is not a separate lever -> Power Training and Physical Function in Older Adults.

Fall-related fractures may fall too, with low certainty

Exercise may reduce fall-related fractures, by about 17 per 1,000 people over the trials’ follow-up . Fractures fell from 64 to 47 per 1,000 (36-61) over 4 to 42 months (RR 0.73, 0.56-0.95, 10 trials). The review graded this low certainty, for imprecision (a wide range) and likely publication bias (unfavourable results left unpublished). Balance and functional training alone gave RR 0.44 (0.25-0.76; 29 instead of 64 per 1,000 over 6 to 30 months, 7 trials), also low certainty: a larger point estimate (the single best guess), resting on thinner data. (Sherrington et al., 2019)

Fewer people may have a fall needing medical attention: 129 instead of 211 per 1,000 over a year (100 to 167; RR 0.61, 0.47-0.79, 5 trials, low certainty). Falls leading to hospital admission are unclear (RR 0.78, 0.51-1.18, very low), and quality of life barely moved (SMD -0.03, -0.10 to 0.04). (Sherrington et al., 2019) The fracture estimate stays low-certainty because trials rarely run long or large enough to count fractures, not because the effect is shown to be absent. Exercise that loads bone directly is a second route to fewer fractures. Separate trials test it, and the bone section takes it up; neither route raises the other’s certainty. -> Exercise for Preventing Falls in Older Adults

Join a supervised programme, at least three sessions a week, and keep it going

The effective programmes ran for months, not weeks. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more and nearly a third a year or more. Most head-to-head trials were not powered to tell programmes apart, though within-study comparisons gave «some indication that higher doses of exercise were associated with a greater impact on the rate of falls and the number of people falling». (Sherrington et al., 2019)

A network meta-analysis of 219 trials found two kinds of exercise with at least low-certainty evidence of benefit across more outcomes than other exercise. One was supervised, long-duration balance and resistance programmes (more than two supervised sessions, longer than three months); the other was group tai chi. (Pillay et al., 2024) The World Guidelines for Falls, which this evidence informed, recommend for people at intermediate risk supervised exercise at least three times a week for at least 12 weeks, on functional balance and resistance or tai chi. (Pillay et al., 2024) Read that as the guideline’s minimum, not a best dose that trials measured.

Across trials, a health professional delivering the programme did somewhat better. This compares different trials rather than testing within one, so it is a hypothesis rather than a tested effect. The rate ratio was 0.69 (0.61-0.79) with a health professional against 0.82 (0.75-0.90) with a trained non-health instructor (P = 0.04), and both reduced falls. (Sherrington et al., 2019) At the 850 control rate that is roughly 264 against 153 fewer falls per 1,000 people per year .

For function tests rather than falls, a review of 34 studies from 30 trials (2,830 people aged 60 and over) found supervision added a small edge. Most of it disappeared when the authors re-checked their analysis (a sensitivity analysis); only knee-extension strength remained (SMD 0.18, 0.07-0.30). The review judged home exercise a safe alternative where supervision is not feasible. (Gómez-Redondo et al., 2024) -> Supervised vs Unsupervised Exercise

For a painful obese knee or hip, balance work in water is a reasonable substitute for land. One meta-analysis of 29 trials (mean age 66) found only overall balance favoured water, after trials with an opposite direction of change were excluded (Berg Balance Scale SMD 0.82, 0.17-1.48, I2 87%). Chair-stand, timed-up-and-go and walking outcomes showed no difference. (Deng et al., 2024) Buoyancy lets a person with painful joints do the balance work at all, and that is the reason to choose water. Low-impact options are the default for an obese person’s painful knee, not a reason to skip exercise. -> Aquatic Exercise vs Land-Based Exercise for Balance in Older Adults

Treat the programme as a standing habit. The evidence of benefit is most certain over at least one to two years of follow-up. (Pillay et al., 2024) After a planned break of 4 to 36 weeks (mean 11), trained older adults kept a functional advantage over untrained controls (ES 0.88, 0.47-1.29). But balance and gait speed, the measures closest to falls, did not reach significance (P = 0.051 and 0.056), and older samples kept less. (Buendía‐Romero et al., 2025) No trial among this guide’s sources measures whether the fall reduction outlasts the programme once it stops. -> Detraining and Residual Effects in Older Adults

What does not count as fall prevention

Walking alone has not been shown to prevent falls, and some trials point the other way. In the network meta-analysis no walking intervention reached moderate certainty of benefit. Brief supervised group walking gave low-certainty evidence of little-to-no difference or some harm, and the authors advise caution with walking-only programmes for people at elevated fall risk. (Pillay et al., 2024)

In one trial of postmenopausal women with a previous forearm fracture, the brisk-walking group had significantly more falls in the first year, 42 per 100 person-years against 26 in controls (420 against 260 per 1,000 person-years). (Kunutsor et al., 2018) So for falls, walking has insufficient evidence of benefit and some signals of harm; that is not the same as showing it has no effect. Walking keeps its place in daily movement for other outcomes; it is not the lever for falls. -> Exercise Safety in Osteoporosis

Screening everyone’s eyesight and correcting it increased falls. For universal vision assessment and treatment — screening a general population, not people selected for poor vision — the network meta-analysis found moderate-certainty evidence that it increased both fallers and fractures. A comprehensive multifactorial programme (one that assesses and treats several fall risks at once) also had moderate certainty for more fallers. But its trials enrolled very high-risk people (mean ages 83 and 85, prior fallers, people on fall-risk-increasing drugs). (Pillay et al., 2024)

The same review concludes: «Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk.» (Pillay et al., 2024) Universal vision correction is not a way to prevent falls; targeted care for a person with a known vision problem is a separate, clinical decision.

The frail and prefrail improve in function; whether they fall less is unknown

In people already identified as frail or prefrail, physical activity improves mobility and can reverse frailty, but its effect on falls is very uncertain. A meta-analysis of 26 studies (8,022 adults aged 65 and over) found mobility SMD 0.60 (0.37-0.83), activities of daily living SMD 0.50 (0.15-0.84), quality of life SMD 0.60 (0.13-1.07) and frailty RR 0.58 (0.36-0.93), moderate certainty; none of this guide’s sources gives an absolute figure. Falls gave RR 0.80 (0.51-1.26), very low certainty, 7 studies. (Racey et al., 2021) That interval is wide enough to include the community-wide effect (a rate ratio of 0.77, a related but different measure), so the falls effect here is unestablished, not shown absent.

The programmes averaged 29 weeks; the authors warn that standard activity advice may be too advanced or too intense for a frailer person. (Racey et al., 2021) Start low and supervise. Nobody has estimated the resistance-training dose for the frail, so a low start is the place to begin and build up from -> Frailty. A systematic review of 10 trials in pre-frail and frail adults (Kidd and colleagues, 2019), whose abstract WHO’s evidence profile reproduces, names one reason the dose stays open: «A lack of consensus regarding the definition of frailty, and an absence of core measures to assess this means any attempt to create an optimal intervention will be impeded.» (World Health Organization, 2020)

The harms are small; start gradually

Exercise programmes for falls caused few serious harms. Across the 108 trials the review found two serious adverse events (a pelvic stress fracture and a hernia); most reported harms were minor musculoskeletal complaints, though monitoring was poor. (Sherrington et al., 2019) The network meta-analysis judged most single-component exercise «probably associated with minimal harm». (Pillay et al., 2024) Two exercise interventions had moderate certainty for small harms, possibly 5 to 8 per 100 people for any adverse event, with low- to moderate-certainty evidence of little to no harm on serious outcomes. (Pillay et al., 2024)

The cardiac risk of a single exercise session is very low in absolute terms and highest in the habitually inactive. An AHA statement puts exercise-related sudden cardiac death at 0.31 to 2.1 per 100,000 person-years. The relative risk during exertion rises most in sedentary people with known or hidden heart disease doing unaccustomed strenuous work, and loads that sound modest can still strain an unfit older heart. (Franklin et al., 2020) ACSM consensus advises an inactive person with known heart, metabolic or kidney disease, or with signs or symptoms of one, to get medical clearance before starting. An inactive person without them can start light to moderate exercise and progress gradually. (RIEBE et al., 2015) -> Exercise-Related Acute Cardiac Events

The same programme is also the main way to keep muscle, and muscle is what the weight-loss question below turns on.

Train against resistance to keep muscle; add protein as the smaller second step

For obese adults around 70, resistance training is the lever that keeps muscle working. Every weekly volume studied in adults over 60 beat no training on timed up and go. A low-volume programme matched or beat higher volumes on timed up and go and the 6-minute walk. Fast walking speed was the exception: it favoured high volume (low certainty, in mostly healthy trial participants with a median BMI of 26.8).

Protein is the smaller second step. Eating at least the amount recommended for older adults is a cheap default. But extra protein on top of training added nothing measurable in healthy older adults, and its clearest benefit shows up in people who already have sarcopenia (age-related loss of muscle and strength). Both levers move strength, function tests and lean mass. No trial of resistance training alone, or of protein, has yet shown fewer disabilities, fractures or deaths; the fracture evidence below comes from mixed exercise programmes.

Weak grip, not a small muscle scan, flags sarcopenia

The European consensus on sarcopenia (EWGSOP2) diagnoses on strength first, because «strength is better than mass in predicting adverse outcomes». Imaging only confirms the diagnosis, and gait speed grades its severity. After 50, leg muscle mass falls about 1-2% a year while strength falls 1.5-5% a year, so a mass reading understates the loss. The cut-offs (grip under 27 kg in men and 16 kg in women) are usually set 2 standard deviations below a healthy young reference; the gait-speed cut-off of 0.8 m/s or slower is taken from earlier studies. They are normative cut-offs (statistical benchmarks), not points where risk was shown to rise. (Cruz-Jentoft et al., 2018) (Cruz-Jentoft et al., 2018) (Cruz-Jentoft et al., 2018) -> Sarcopenia Definition and Diagnosis

Sarcopenic obesity has no agreed definition. EWGSOP2 leaves it outside its scope and sets no cut-off. One meta-analysis used an operational version: body fat above 30% or BMI above 30, plus low muscle index, gait speed of 1 m/s or less, or grip of 21 kg or less. The authors cite a global prevalence of about 11% in older adults. The same authors say the clinical data are still insufficient for a unified definition, so the definition remains unsettled. (Polo-Ferrero et al., 2025)

Weakness and low muscle mass predict death; neither is yet a proven target

Low grip predicts mortality at every age studied. In UK Biobank, a cohort aged 40-69, each 5 kg lower grip carried an adjusted all-cause hazard ratio of 1.16 (1.15-1.17) in men and 1.20 (1.17-1.23) in women, with no sign of a threshold. Across 48 cohorts aged 35-85, the weakest third had HR 1.58 (1.40-1.78) against the strongest third, over a studied grip range of 15-50 kg. The relative link was moderately stronger in younger people, not weaker. These cohorts give no absolute risk for the group this guide covers. Because baseline risk is higher at 70, the same relative gap means more deaths in absolute terms: a difference in starting risk, not in the effect. (Celis-Morales et al., 2018) (López-Bueno et al., 2022) -> Grip Strength and Mortality, Baseline Risk and the Relative-Absolute Split

Low muscle mass adds a small, separate signal. In nine cohorts of non-frail adults aged 65 and over (n = 10,028), people who died had lower appendicular muscle mass than survivors (SMD -0.18, -0.23 to -0.12). The gap was larger in cohorts with a higher average BMI, a between-study pattern that fits the sarcopenic-obesity idea without proving it (de Santana et al., 2021). Grip is about half heritable, and the weakest people carried more illness at baseline, so grip is partly a marker of health (Celis-Morales et al., 2018). Whether building strength or mass to change the reading would change the risk is a separate question, still untested. -> Low Muscle Mass and Mortality

Any resistance training beats none on timed up and go and 1RM strength; a low weekly volume matched higher volumes on two of three function tests

One network meta-analysis tackles the dose question for this age group directly: 151 randomised trials (n = 6,306) of untrained adults over 60, median age 68.8 and 78.8% physically healthy, and median BMI 26.8, so overweight rather than obese. Every volume band beat no training on timed up and go, lean mass and every outcome measured as 1RM strength (the heaviest weight a person can lift once). The low band, 5 to fewer than 18 lower-limb sets a week (median 12), did as well as or better than the high band (27 or more, median 36) on timed up and go and the 6-minute walk. On fast walking speed it did not beat no training (SMD -0.21, -0.57 to 0.14), and the high band beat it head to head (-0.61, -1.08 to -0.15). Low versus high against control, as SMDs:

• Timed up and go (lower is better): -1.20 (-1.57 to -0.82) vs -0.63 (-0.99 to -0.26); low beat high head to head, -0.57 (-1.09 to -0.04).
• 6-minute walk: 1.03 (0.33 to 1.73) vs 0.27 (-0.40 to 0.94), the high band not separating from control.
• Lean mass: 0.25 (0.10 to 0.40) vs 0.18 (0.06 to 0.30), no separation head to head; the authors report median gains of 0.6 to 0.8 kg.
• Knee-extension 1RM: 0.85 (0.55 to 1.14) vs 1.18 (0.86 to 1.49), head to head unresolved (-0.33, -0.73 to 0.07).

(Radaelli et al., 2024)

The authors’ summary: «Except for muscle strength, prescribing a high resistance training volume did not accrue additional benefits for the outcomes examined.» Certainty is low for function and lean mass, very low for strength. Most trials carried a high risk of bias, and the volume comparisons lean largely on indirect contrasts (made through a shared comparison group, not head to head). The authors translate the low band as two sessions a week of two sets on each of three lower-limb exercises, under 20 minutes, at a typical load near 80% of one-repetition maximum. (Radaelli et al., 2024) -> Resistance Training Prescription - Load Sets and Frequency

Read the low band as a minimum that worked, not as the point past which more training stops helping. The trials studied nothing below about 5 lower-limb sets a week, and averages for three volume bands (terciles) cannot show where the benefit levels off. Nothing shows that higher volume harms. It beat low volume on fast walking speed and ranked higher on strength (no head-to-head strength difference was significant, very low certainty), with no timed-up-and-go or 6-minute-walk gain (Radaelli et al., 2024). That fits the 2011 ACSM position stand, which says a single set «can be effective especially among older and novice exercisers». (Garber et al., 2011) (inferred from Radaelli et al., 2024)

With sarcopenic obesity, training trims fat and improves function more than it builds muscle

The meta-analysis that matches this group best pooled 9 RCTs (n = 513, mean age 68, mostly women) of resistance training three times a week for about 12 weeks, with no diet in either arm. Training improved a pooled body-composition score modestly (SMD 0.35, 0.12 to 0.57, moderate certainty). Lower body fat carried that gain (SMD 0.52, 0.19 to 0.86); the muscle-mass subgroups did not reach significance. Physical performance improved by a similar small amount (SMD 0.36, 0.03 to 0.69, low certainty), and blood lipids and CRP (a blood marker of inflammation) did not change. Every endpoint is a surrogate (a measurement that stands in for a health outcome), and the trials were short and small. (Polo-Ferrero et al., 2025) -> Resistance Training for Sarcopenic Obesity

Start low if frail or load-intolerant; heavy loads are not the only route

The right dose for frail or sarcopenic adults is unestimated. Only about 13% of the network’s trials enrolled physically impaired adults , and the authors write that «the most effective resistance training dosage for this group remains to be determined». The evidence base of the ACSM 2026 position stand defines healthy adults as excluding obesity, sarcopenia and frailty. So for an obese or frail novice, its advice is carried over rather than studied. Starting light and adding load as sets get easier is standard practice, not trial-tested. A low start is where to begin, not a limit to stay under. (Radaelli et al., 2024) (CURRIER et al., 2026)

For someone whose knees or joints cannot take heavy loads, light loads with a blood-flow-restriction cuff matched heavy loads on muscle mass in older adults (ES 0.21, -0.14 to 0.56). The cuff partly restricts blood flow to the working muscle. On strength, it fell short of heavy loads (ES -0.42, -0.70 to -0.14). The evidence is 11 small trials (N = 238). The evidence on its safety in this age group is insufficient, and the review advises checking each person’s disease history before starting. (Centner et al., 2018) -> Blood Flow Restriction Training

Resistance training alone has not been shown to prevent falls -> Exercise for Preventing Falls in Older Adults. Self-reported strength activity tracks lower mortality (RR 0.85, 0.79 to 0.93, very low certainty, observational). For people in this group, better function is the stronger reason to train. (Momma et al., 2022) -> Muscle-Strengthening Activity and Mortality

Protein: reach the older-adult minimum; supplements add little on top of training unless muscle is already low

The PROT-AGE consensus sets 1.0-1.2 g protein per kg body weight a day for healthy adults over 65, 1.2 for the active and 1.2-1.5 during illness. It treats the general-adult RDA (recommended dietary allowance) of 0.8 g/kg as a minimum for avoiding deficiency, too low for this age. Its per-meal threshold is about 25-30 g of protein (2.5-2.8 g leucine, a protein building block), set high because ageing muscle needs a bigger stimulus per meal. PROT-AGE is expert consensus based on surrogate measures, funded by a Nestlé grant, not an outcome trial. (Bauer et al., 2013) -> Protein Intake for Older Adults, Anabolic Resistance

Spreading protein evenly across meals is a cheap default, not a proven optimum: the two older-adult comparisons Bauer tabulates both favoured a large midday meal. PROT-AGE also states its range per kg of body weight without saying which kilogram to use for an obese person (Bauer et al., 2013). PROT-AGE mentions ideal body weight only for critically ill underweight or obese patients (an ESPEN proposal) and for its kidney-disease targets (Bauer et al., 2013). So for a healthy obese older adult, which weight to count the grams against remains an open question.

The ~1.6 g/kg figure often quoted is a soft, non-significant break point (where the fitted curve stops rising; 95% CI 1.03-2.20, p = 0.079), fit on total body weight across 42 trial arms of healthy, non-dieting adults, young and old. In its over-45 subgroup (mean age 67), protein supplements added no measurable fat-free mass (MD 0.06, -0.14 to 0.26), though those trials gave smaller supplement doses (about 20 g against 42 g a day in the younger trials). Obesity was not reported, and dieting adults were excluded (Morton et al., 2017), so the figure does not carry over to obese older adults, dieting or not. Where it does apply, it is a rough minimum rather than an upper limit, since its interval runs up to 2.20 g/kg.

Three meta-analyses of supplements in older adults, two of them on supplements added to resistance training, found:

• Healthy older adults who train: across 22 RCTs, adding a nutritional supplement to resistance training made «no significant differences between groups in muscle mass, muscle strength, or physical functional performance». Creatine was the one exception, adding lean mass (MD 2.61 kg, 0.51 to 4.72) in only 4 trials.
• Older adults, healthy or sarcopenic (16 trials, 999 people): leucine supplements raised lean mass by 0.99 kg (0.43 to 1.55) overall. The effect was significant only in the sarcopenic subgroup (1.14 kg, 0.55 to 1.74); the healthy-subgroup estimate was imprecise (-0.05, -1.55 to 1.46). Grip and knee strength did not move measurably, so the evidence on strength is insufficient.
• Sarcopenia, any supplement with training (12 trials, 713 people): grip rose by a borderline WMD 1.87 kg (0.01 to 3.74, P = 0.049), with no gain in muscle mass. The gain came from supplements that included protein and vitamin D, which also raised gait speed.

(Choi et al., 2021) (Komar et al., 2015) (Song et al., 2023) -> Protein and Resistance Training for Muscle and Strength, Creatine Supplementation

Check the kidneys before raising protein; testosterone appears only as a comparison

How far to raise protein depends on kidney function. With healthy kidneys, higher protein showed no meaningful harm to kidney function in the pooled trials, which included obese adults. But those participants were aged 23 to 72 (mean 49), younger than the group this guide covers. PROT-AGE grades its caution by the stage of chronic kidney disease, with targets per kg of ideal body weight. With eGFR (a blood-test estimate of how well the kidneys filter) 30-60, intake above 0.8 g/kg is considered safe, with GFR checked twice a year. With eGFR below 30 and no dialysis, intake may need to be limited to 0.8 g/kg. A clinician should do the testing and set the number. (Bauer et al., 2013) (Devries et al., 2018) -> Protein Intake and Kidney Function

Some muscle creatine breaks down into creatinine (Kreider et al., 2017), and researchers conclude there is «no compelling evidence that creatine supplementation negatively affects renal function in healthy or clinical populations»; some advise people with existing kidney disease to check with a physician first, «in an abundance of caution» (Kreider et al., 2017). Kidney function is commonly estimated from blood creatinine (Devries et al., 2018), so a creatine user should mention it before a kidney blood test. -> Creatine Supplementation

Testosterone therapy appears here only as a drug comparison, not a lever this guide recommends (its effect on lean mass is on Testosterone Adiposity and Muscle). In the TRAVERSE trial of hypogonadal men (men with low testosterone) aged 45-80, clinical fractures occurred in 3.50% on testosterone versus 2.46% on placebo over about 3.2 years. That is roughly 35 versus 25 per 1,000 men (HR 1.43, 1.04 to 1.97): a signal, not a settled harm. (Snyder et al., 2024)

The trial found no rise in major adverse cardiovascular events, but testosterone was associated with more atrial fibrillation, pulmonary embolism and acute kidney injury (Snyder et al., 2024). The exercise programmes in the falls trials above went the other way, with fewer fall-related fractures (RR 0.73, 0.56-0.95, low certainty) (Sherrington et al., 2019); the two populations differ, so the contrast is indicative only. -> Testosterone Adiposity and Muscle

Training sessions build muscle. How much you move the rest of the day is a separate matter, and its benefit also levels off.

Move through the day; the step benefit levels off sooner at this age

People who move more through the day die at lower rates, and movement of any intensity counts, light activity included. Eight cohorts that measured movement with accelerometers (36,383 adults aged 40 or over, mean age 62.6, median follow-up 5.8 years) found mortality fell steeply out of the least active quarter and then flattened. Against that quarter, the hazard ratio for total activity was 0.48 (95% CI 0.43-0.54) in the second quarter, 0.34 (0.26-0.45) in the third and 0.27 (0.23-0.32) in the fourth. The largest drop came with the first move up out of the least active quarter, «for all activity intensities»: light activity alone reached HR 0.60 (0.54-0.68) in its second quarter (Ekelund et al., 2019) -> Physical Activity Dose and Mortality.

The light-activity curve reached its largest reduction near 375 minutes a day (Ekelund et al., 2019). The moderate-to-vigorous curve flattened within a broad zone of roughly 20-40 minutes -> Physical Activity Dose and Mortality. Beyond those levels, the authors write, «No further risk reductions occurred with higher levels of activity except for low light intensity physical activity where the risk appeared to decrease further» (Ekelund et al., 2019). Measured by the clock, most of the movement behind these curves is therefore light activity, counted in hours rather than minutes .

These are comparisons between people, not trial results. Sick people move less; excluding deaths in the first two years left the hazard ratios materially unchanged, yet the authors write that «bias from reverse causation might persist» (Ekelund et al., 2019). No trial among this guide’s sources tests daily movement against mortality, and none of the sources turns these hazard ratios into an adjusted count of deaths avoided per 1,000 people at 70.

After 60, roughly 6,000-8,000 steps a day captures most of the benefit

Steps are the unit most people can track. Fifteen cohorts (47,471 adults) with quarter medians of 3,553, 5,801, 7,842 and 10,901 steps a day gave hazard ratios of 0.60 (0.51-0.71), 0.55 (0.49-0.62) and 0.47 (0.39-0.57) against the lowest quarter. The curve flattened earlier with age: «Restricted cubic splines showed progressively decreasing risk of mortality among adults aged 60 years and older with increasing number of steps per day until 6000–8000 steps per day and among adults younger than 60 years until 8000–10 000 steps per day.» The study tested this age difference within the same analysis, and it was significant (p=0.012) (Paluch et al., 2022). Age moves where the curve levels off, not whether moving helps, so a lower step goal for an older adult rests on a direct test rather than a guess.

Read 6,000-8,000 as the region where the curve levels off, in cohorts whose quarter medians ran from about 3,500 to 11,000 steps a day, not as a precise number. The familiar 10,000 has no such basis: it is «not based on evidence, but instead originates from a marketing campaign in Japan» (Paluch et al., 2022). For an older adult already above about 8,000 steps a day, more steps buy little extra on this curve; below 6,000, each added thousand sits on the part of the curve that is still falling -> The Underivable Optimum.

Two things suggest that adding steps yourself would deliver less than these curves imply. First, the association was stronger in studies with under 6 years of follow-up (highest vs lowest quarter HR 0.32, 0.25-0.41) than in those with 6 years or more (0.57, 0.49-0.66). Excluding early deaths weakened it, though it stayed significant (Paluch et al., 2022). That is the pattern expected if some low steppers were already ill.

Second, trials that set out to raise step counts produced only small gains. App and tracker trials raise steps by only about 600-750 a day over control, for a few months, at low to low-to-moderate certainty, and the trials have not shown that the gain lasts -> Wearable Activity Trackers and Physical Activity. One pooled estimate was 627 steps a day (417-862) (Brickwood et al., 2019). That is a fifth to a third of the gap between neighbouring quarters. And the quarter hazard ratios cannot be read as the effect of adding steps to one person.

Walking counts toward these steps and toward survival. It has not been shown to prevent falls; that job belongs to the balance-and-strength programme -> Exercise for Preventing Falls in Older Adults.

Sitting is a separate exposure, and its harm speeds up past a threshold

Activity’s benefit flattens; sitting’s harm does the opposite. Across 34 prospective studies (1,331,468 participants), each extra hour of total sitting, adjusted for physical activity, carried an all-cause mortality RR of 1.01 (1.00-1.01) below about 8 hours a day and 1.04 (1.03-1.05) above it (Patterson et al., 2018). Treat about 8 hours as an approximate region, not a target. It is a change point read off a fitted curve with no interval of its own, and almost all the sitting data were self-reported -> Sedentary Behaviour and Chronic Disease Risk. On accelerometers, risk rose gradually from about 7.5-9 hours a day and more steeply above 9.5 hours (Ekelund et al., 2019).

Sitting and moving barely correlate, so meeting a step count does not by itself cancel a long sitting day -> Sedentary Behaviour and Chronic Disease Risk. In accelerometer data from more than 44,000 middle-aged and older adults, about 30-40 minutes a day of moderate-to-vigorous activity (median 34) attenuated the excess risk of heavy sitting; the excess was concentrated in the less active (Ekelund et al., 2020). Both findings are observational, and the sitting association weakened slightly once early deaths were excluded (Ekelund et al., 2019).

Fitness predicts survival at 70, but it is partly a marker

Cardiorespiratory fitness tracks mortality closely. Each 1-MET higher fitness level (a MET is a unit of exercise intensity, set by the energy used sitting at rest) carried an all-cause RR of 0.87 (0.84-0.90) in a cohort meta-analysis (Kodama, 2009). In a cohort of patients referred for treadmill testing, those aged 70 or older in the elite fitness band (top 2.3% for age and sex) had lower mortality than those in the band below, HR 0.71 (0.52-0.98) in a subgroup analysis (Mandsager et al., 2018). Low fitness is partly a sign of illness and partly inherited, so raising your own fitness should buy less than the gap between people suggests; no trial among this guide’s sources measures how much less -> Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Mortality.

Training does raise fitness at this age. A meta-analysis of 41 trials in healthy adults with mean age 60 or over found a net gain of 3.8 mL/kg/min (16.3%) over controls (Ross et al., 2016), about 1 MET . Use fitness to check that the movement is working, not as a separate target -> Measuring and Raising Cardiorespiratory Fitness.

For someone with major depression, exercise also treats it. Across 218 trials, walking or jogging reduced symptoms beyond active control by g -0.63 (-0.80 to -0.46), with confidence rated low for walking or jogging and very low for other exercise (Noetel et al., 2024). Those trials were not limited to older adults, and the lever is the same movement already ranked, not a new one -> Depression and Modifiable Exposures.

Daily movement is also one of the two lifestyle routes to lower blood pressure and blood sugar, the subject of the next section.

Keep blood pressure and blood sugar down; at this age, starting a statin or aspirin does less good

Lowering blood pressure reduces heart attacks, strokes and heart failure whatever the starting pressure

Lowering blood pressure reduces heart attacks, strokes and heart failure whatever the starting pressure. The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists pooled 48 trials and 344,716 people. Each 5 mmHg fall in systolic pressure cut major cardiovascular events by about a tenth: hazard ratio 0.91 (0.89-0.94) in people without prior heart disease and 0.89 (0.86-0.92) in those with it. The authors found «no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects» across starting systolic pressures from below 120 to 170 mmHg and above (Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists Collaboration, 2021). Hard outcomes are actual heart attacks, strokes and deaths, not just a better reading. Of the heart-and-metabolism levers this guide covers, lowering blood pressure is the one with a proven benefit on hard outcomes in people without heart disease (Cardiometabolic Interventions and Hard CV Outcomes in Low-Risk People).

The relative effect stays fixed, so the absolute benefit grows with baseline risk. In trial participants without prior heart disease, major events ran at 31.9 per 1,000 person-years in the comparison group and 25.9 on treatment (Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists Collaboration, 2021). Baseline risk climbs with age, so an obese adult around 70 with high blood pressure usually gains more from the same reduction than a younger adult does (Baseline Risk and the Relative-Absolute Split). The trialists’ rule follows from this: decide on overall cardiovascular risk, not on the blood-pressure number alone (Blood Pressure Lowering and Cardiovascular Events).

Pushing pressure lower prevents more events but brings more side-effects. SPRINT pushed systolic pressure to about 121 versus 136 mmHg in 9,361 high-risk adults without diabetes (mean age 68; 28% aged 75 or over). All-cause death fell (hazard ratio 0.73, 0.60-0.90) in a trial stopped early, over a median 3.26 years. Over that time, for every 61 people treated to the lower target, one primary-outcome event (heart attack, other acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure or cardiovascular death) was prevented, and for every 90, one death. The authors add: «These benefits with re- spect to both the primary outcome and death were consistent across all prespecified subgroups, including participants 75 years of age or older.» Serious hypotension (blood pressure too low), fainting, electrolyte problems and acute kidney injury rose, «but not of injurious falls» (SPRINT Research Group, 2015).

The brain section below covers what blood-pressure lowering does for dementia, including the preDIVA trial. How low to go for one person is a prescriber’s decision, made with their other drugs and their fall risk in view. This guide sets no target.

A potassium-enriched salt substitute cut strokes and deaths

A potassium-enriched salt substitute cut strokes and deaths in a trial close to this age group. SSaSS randomised 600 villages in rural China, covering 20,995 people. They had had a stroke, or were 60 or older with poorly controlled blood pressure (systolic 140 mmHg or more on treatment, 160 or more untreated; mean age 65; 72.6% with a prior stroke). Households used a substitute of 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride, or regular salt, for a mean 4.74 years. Stroke ran at 29.14 versus 33.65 per 1,000 person-years (rate ratio 0.86, 0.77-0.96), major cardiovascular events at 49.09 versus 56.29 (0.87, 0.80-0.94), and death at 39.28 versus 44.61 (0.88, 0.82-0.95) (Neal et al., 2021). Over the 4.74 years that comes to roughly 21 fewer strokes and 25 fewer deaths per 1,000 people .

The substitute moved two things at once, so sodium alone cannot take the credit. Urinary potassium rose by 20.6 mmol a day while sodium fell by 15.2 mmol, and systolic pressure fell 3.34 mmHg (Neal et al., 2021). In the drug trials, each 5 mmHg fall cut strokes by about 13% (Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists Collaboration, 2021). At that rate, the SSaSS fall would predict a stroke rate ratio near 0.91, not the 0.86 observed. That leaves room for an effect of potassium itself, or for a sustained fall larger than the one measured (Sodium Intake and Blood Pressure).

Older people’s pressure may also respond more to the sodium half: across 133 sodium-reduction trials, the same cut in urinary sodium lowered systolic pressure more in older people (Huang et al., 2020). That comparison is between trials, not within one, so it is a lead for this age group, not a measured effect.

The trial’s safety result does not reach people with serious kidney disease or those taking potassium-sparing diuretics or potassium supplements. Dangerously high potassium did not rise (3.35 versus 3.30 per 1,000 person-years). But the trial excluded people with known serious kidney disease and those taking potassium-sparing diuretics or potassium supplements, and it ran no blood test to screen for them (Neal et al., 2021). Anyone with reduced kidney function, or on drugs that raise potassium, needs a clinician’s check before switching — a referral, not a dosing rule (Chronic Kidney Disease and Modifiable Exposures).

Exercise probably lowers high blood pressure about as much as a first-line drug, in trials of younger adults

In people whose pressure is high, structured exercise probably lowers it about as much as a first-line drug, in trials of people around 50. No trial has compared the two head to head. Naci’s network meta-analysis set 197 exercise trials against 194 drug trials. In people starting at 140 mmHg or above, exercise lowered systolic pressure by 8.96 mmHg (credible interval -10.27 to -7.64), and the gap to drugs was 0.18 mmHg (-1.35 to 1.68): no difference (Naci et al., 2018). Participants in the exercise trials averaged roughly 48-54 years, and only 56 of those trials (3,508 people) enrolled people with hypertension (Naci et al., 2018); whether the match holds at 70 is untested. The exercise trials were smaller and unblinded, and none counted heart attacks or strokes.

So exercise is a credible partner to a drug, or a stand-in while a drug is not yet called for. But nobody has shown that its pressure drop prevents events at the rate a drug’s does (Blood Pressure Lowering and Cardiovascular Events). Because blood-pressure drugs have a proven benefit on cardiovascular events, chasing the last few mmHg through salt alone matters less. Exercise, unlike a blood-pressure drug, also moves fitness, glucose and weight. Which route to take is the reader’s choice, made with a clinician.

A structured lifestyle programme prevents diabetes at least as well in older adults; metformin did little

A structured lifestyle programme prevents type 2 diabetes in people over 60 at least as well as in younger adults. The Diabetes Prevention Program randomised 3,234 adults with raised glucose (mean age 51, mean BMI 34) to placebo, metformin, or a lifestyle programme aiming for at least 7% weight loss and 150 minutes of activity a week. Lifestyle cut diabetes incidence by 58% (48-66). Among the 648 participants aged 60 or older, incidence was 10.8 cases per 100 person-years on placebo and 3.1 on lifestyle, a 71% reduction (51-83) (Knowler, 2002). That is about 77 fewer cases per 1,000 person-years.

The authors write that «The intensive lifestyle intervention was at least as ef- fective in older participants as it was in younger par- ticipants.» (Knowler, 2002) The trial found no significant difference by age in the effect of lifestyle against placebo (no significant age interaction), so the larger figure at 60+ is not proof of a stronger effect (Lifestyle vs Metformin for Diabetes Prevention).

Metformin, the drug alternative, did little at this age. In the over-60s metformin cut incidence by 11% (-33 to 41), against 44% (21-60) in 25-44-year-olds. The authors report that the advantage of lifestyle «over metformin was greater in older persons» (Knowler, 2002). For an obese adult around 70 with raised glucose, the drug does not substitute for the programme.

The programme’s benefit on diabetes has not been shown to extend to heart attacks and strokes. Over 21 years of follow-up in the same middle-aged cohort, neither lifestyle (hazard ratio 1.14, 0.87-1.50) nor metformin (1.03, 0.78-1.37) reduced major cardiovascular events (Goldberg et al., 2022). The authors note that offering lifestyle to all arms, wide out-of-study use of statins and blood-pressure drugs, and metformin crossover «may have diluted the effects of the interventions» (Goldberg et al., 2022), so this is a diluted comparison, not a clean test that found no effect.

No trial has tested at this age whether total diet replacement (formula meals in place of all food, for a period) puts established diabetes into remission. DiRECT recruited people aged 20 to 65 within six years of diagnosis; 46% of the programme group were in remission at one year against 4% of controls (Lean et al., 2018), and 36% (53 of 149) against 3.4% (5 of 149) at two years (M. E. J. Lean et al., 2019). For a 70-year-old with diabetes that result applies only by assumption (Total Diet Replacement and Type 2 Diabetes Remission).

A Mediterranean diet reduced cardiovascular events in a trial of people aged 55 to 80. PREDIMED gave 7,447 Spanish adults at high cardiovascular risk a Mediterranean diet with extra olive oil or nuts, or advice to cut fat. Over about five years the composite of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular death fell from 5.7% to 3.8% (hazard ratio 0.70, 0.55-0.89) (Estruch et al., 2018), an absolute difference of 1.7 to 2.1 percentage points, or 17 to 21 fewer per 1,000 people. Stroke accounted for most of it, and all-cause death did not change (0.98, 0.77-1.24) (Estruch et al., 2018) (Mediterranean Diet and Cardiovascular Events).

Statins and aspirin: starting is a different decision from continuing

Starting a statin after 75 without known heart disease is unproven either way. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ analysis of 28 trials (186,854 people, 14,483 of them over 75 at entry) split older people by their history of vascular disease. With vascular disease, the relative benefit persisted over 75: rate ratio 0.85 (99% CI 0.73-0.98) per 1 mmol/L of LDL lowering. Without it, the over-75 estimate was 0.92 (0.73-1.16; 99% CIs throughout), on 295 versus 308 events (2.7% versus 2.8% a year). Even at 71-75 the estimate (0.84, 0.70-1.01) did not reach significance, and benefit tended to shrink with age (trend p=0.05) (Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration, 2019). That interval runs from a 27% reduction to a 16% increase: insufficient evidence, not proof of no effect (Statins for Primary Prevention and the Power of Zero CAC).

The two guidance bodies lean in different directions, both at their weakest grade. USPSTF finds the evidence insufficient for starting a statin at 76 or older (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2022). ACC-AHA 2026 judges starting a moderate-intensity statin possibly reasonable for adults over 75 with a life expectancy of at least 2.5 years, after a discussion of benefits and risks (Blumenthal et al., 2026). European guidance sits at the same weak grade: the ESC rates starting a statin for primary prevention at 70 or over as Class IIb, saying it «may be considered, if at high risk or above» (European Society of Cardiology, 2021). With prior vascular disease the case for a statin holds at any age (LDL Lowering and Cardiovascular Events). Continuing a statin already taken is a separate decision this guide does not grade.

Two common worries about statins, muscle pain and diabetes, are weaker than they look. Across 19 blinded trials, muscle pain or weakness was reported by 27.1% on a statin and 26.6% on placebo (rate ratio 1.03, 1.01-1.06). The excess, about 11 extra reports per 1,000 person-years, was largely confined to the first year (Reith et al., 2022), so most aches on a statin are not caused by it (Statin Muscle Symptoms and the Nocebo Effect).

Statins do raise new diagnoses of diabetes, mostly in people already close to the line: rate ratio 1.10 (1.04-1.16) on low- or moderate-intensity regimens, about 1.2 extra per 1,000 person-years. About 62% of new cases arose in people whose glucose was already in the top quarter (Reith et al., 2024). For an obese adult around 70 with raised glucose, a statin may bring that diagnosis forward; the trialists judge the cost outweighed by fewer vascular events (Statins and New-Onset Diabetes).

Starting daily aspirin for prevention gives no net benefit at this age. Across 13 trials and 164,225 people without heart disease (median age 62), aspirin cut the composite of cardiovascular death, heart attack and stroke by 0.41 percentage points (0.23-0.59). It raised major bleeding by 0.47 points (0.34-0.62), and did not change all-cause death (hazard ratio 0.94, 0.88-1.01) (S. L. Zheng & Roddick, 2019). That is about 4 fewer events and 5 more bleeds per 1,000 people over trial follow-up (about 6.4 years on average).

Bleeding risk climbs with age while the relative benefit does not. USPSTF therefore concludes, with moderate certainty, that starting aspirin at 60 or older has no net benefit, and recommends against it; its modelling shows a loss of life-years at essentially every risk level modelled for people aged 70 to 79 (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2022a). Aspirin offers some 40-59-year-olds a small net benefit but comes to do more harm than good with age. Rising bleeding risk drives the change, not a measured change in its relative effect (Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease).

The trials that would measure these levers directly at 70 are not among this guide’s sources. The ESC recommends its older-adult risk tool SCORE2-OP for people aged 70 and over (European Society of Cardiology, 2021). But that tool’s derivation and the elderly blood-pressure and statin trials HYVET and PROSPER are not among this guide’s sources; it relies instead on the CTT over-75 split, SPRINT, preDIVA and SSaSS (SCORE2 Baseline Risk and the ESC Treatment Thresholds) . Among weight-loss drugs, the semaglutide trial of cardiovascular events in this guide’s sources (SELECT) enrolled only people with established cardiovascular disease. In obese people without it, the effect on events is untested, not shown absent (Semaglutide for Cardiovascular Risk in Obesity). Choosing a drug, its dose, a blood-pressure or glucose target, and whether to stop a medicine already taken are prescriber decisions outside this guide.

Weight loss is the lever most people expect here; its payoff at 70 depends on what it is for and what it costs in muscle.

Lose weight for a named target, and protect muscle while you do it

For obese adults around 70, intentional weight loss is not a default; it is worth doing for a named target (painful knees, rising blood sugar, a fatty liver). Pair it with resistance training and enough protein, and track it by function rather than on the scale. No trial among this guide’s sources tests whether losing weight at this age extends life. The randomized trials that showed a survival benefit enrolled mostly middle-aged adults. The cost is muscle; resistance training reduced it in 12-24-week trials, and higher protein in trials of up to two years. The idea that weight loss harms frail or sarcopenic people rests on mechanism (how the body works), not on a finding: no trial among this guide’s sources measured it. from BMI and All-Cause Mortality, Does Weight Loss Reduce Cardiovascular Events and Resistance Training During Caloric Restriction.

Excess weight still costs survival at 70, but less per unit of BMI

In the Global BMI Mortality Collaboration’s pooled cohorts, each 5 kg/m2 above a BMI of 25 raised the hazard of death by HR 1.21 (1.17-1.25) at ages 70-89, against 1.52 (1.47-1.56) at ages 35-49 (Global BMI Mortality Collaboration, 2016). The slope flattens with age but stays harmful; in never-smokers the lowest-risk bands spanned a BMI of 20-25, with 22.5-25 the nominal lowest-risk point (Global BMI Mortality Collaboration, 2016).

Above age 60, waist size (per 10 cm) no longer had a significant link with death in a subgroup analysis of a dose-response meta-analysis: HR 1.03 (0.98-1.08), 14 studies, I2 = 81% (Jayedi et al., 2020). None of this guide’s sources converts the 70-89 slope into deaths per 1,000. Because death rates are higher at this age, the absolute excess may not shrink as much as the relative one does.

The apparent survival advantage of being overweight in later life, often called the obesity paradox, is a suspected artifact, not a finding. In the same data the overweight band moved from HR 0.96 (0.95-0.97) in all participants to 1.11 (1.10-1.11) once smokers, early deaths and people with prior disease were set aside (Global BMI Mortality Collaboration, 2016). Illness that causes weight loss before death makes thin people look riskier and heavier people look protected; see The U-Shaped Association Artifact.

That correction was not run separately in people over 80 or in the frail, so for them the question stays open. The Nordic recommendations say as much: «For older adults, the associations between overweight and health outcomes are less clear, and the available data are inadequate to make precise recommendations for optimal BMI in this age group» (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2023).

The trials that show a survival benefit enrolled mostly middle-aged adults

Ma and colleagues pooled 54 randomized trials (30,206 adults, all followed for at least a year). Weight-loss programmes, nearly all low-fat reducing diets, reduced all-cause mortality: RR 0.82 (0.71-0.95), or six fewer deaths per 1,000 participants (2 to 10 fewer) over trial follow-up, rated high-quality evidence (Ma et al., 2017). Cardiovascular events did not clearly fall (RR 0.93, 0.83-1.04). In Look AHEAD, intensive lifestyle change in adults with type 2 diabetes left cardiovascular events unchanged, HR 0.95 (0.83-1.09) (Look AHEAD Research Group, 2013).

Ma’s review flags the age problem itself: «Most trials recruited predominantly middle aged adults» (Ma et al., 2017); 14 of the 54 trials had a mean or median age of 60 or more. Ma did prespecify an age split (under 60 vs 60 and over), and its text names no age difference for mortality, though this guide does not have the per-subgroup estimates. A comparison between trials, not within one, can only suggest a hypothesis, so it neither shows that the benefit carries to 70 nor that it fails to. The survival benefit at 70 is therefore probable by extension, not shown.

At this age the evidence for weight loss is about knees, blood sugar and liver

The strongest trial in people like this guide’s readers is IDEA: 454 overweight or obese adults aged 55 or over with knee osteoarthritis (wear-and-tear arthritis of the joint), followed for 18 months. Diet plus exercise lost 10.6 kg, diet alone 8.9 kg, exercise alone 1.8 kg (Messier et al., 2013).

«Post hoc analysis revealed that 38% of the D + E group reported little or no pain after 18 months with scores of 0 or 1 compared with 20% and 22% of the participants in the D and E groups, respectively.» (Messier et al., 2013) That is about 180 more per 1,000 nearly pain-free than diet alone, and 160 more than exercise alone. Those who lost 10% or more of body weight improved function and pain more than those losing less (Messier et al., 2013), a comparison by weight lost, not by trial arm, so confounded by adherence: people who stuck with the programme may differ in other ways. See Knee Osteoarthritis and Modifiable Levers.

Exercise for knee pain still works at this age, only less. For pain, across 57 trial comparisons (knee and hip), the effect was a standardized mean difference of 0.44 (0.34-0.55) in trials with a mean age of 60 or over, against 1.32 (0.79-1.86) under 60 (Goh et al., 2019). The effect shrinks with age but does not reverse, and the comparison is between trials, not within one. Body weight did not modify the effect on pain (BMI 30 or over 0.56 vs under 30 0.46, P = 0.78). See Exercise Therapy for Osteoarthritis Pain and Function; chronic pain beyond the knee and hip is on Chronic Pain and Physical Activity.

Heavier people do face more new knee osteoarthritis. One study found RR 3.6 (1.7-7.7) for the heaviest fifth of women with high leisure activity (Duong et al., 2025). That is a single study, and it measured new disease rather than symptoms in an existing knee. For an obese person’s painful knee, the default is low-impact exercise such as cycling or water exercise, not avoiding exercise . In a meta-analysis of knee osteoarthritis trials, stationary cycling relieved pain against no exercise. It was «neither superior nor inferior to other exercises» on the WOMAC pain, stiffness and function subscales and on every KOOS subscale (WOMAC and KOOS are standard knee-arthritis questionnaires) (Luan et al., 2020). See Knee Osteoarthritis Incidence and Risk Factors and Stationary Cycling for Knee Osteoarthritis.

For blood sugar, each kilogram lost in the Diabetes Prevention Program cut risk by about 16%, adjusted for diet and activity changes (Hamman et al., 2006); the trial’s over-60 results are in the blood-sugar section above. See Lifestyle vs Metformin for Diabetes Prevention.

For a fatty liver, the European guideline sets graded targets: at least 5% weight loss to reduce liver fat, 7-10% for inflammation, 10% or more for fibrosis (scarring) (European Association for the Study of the Liver, 2024). These targets rest largely on one biopsy trial, and none of it is age-specific. See Fatty Liver MASLD and Weight Loss; why fat in the liver and pancreas matters more than total weight is on Ectopic Fat and Depot-Specific Risk.

The cost is muscle; resistance training and protein reduce it

Weight loss takes muscle with it. In IDEA, diet plus exercise lost 4.7 kg of lean mass (9%) and diet alone 4.2 kg (8%) over 18 months, even though the share of the body that was lean rose (Messier et al., 2013). The authors flag why that matters at this age: lean loss is «associated in older adults with muscle weakness, greater risk of falls and injury, and loss of independence and mobility, although exercise can attenuate it». So the real choice is diet alone versus diet plus resistance training plus protein.

Resistance training (RT) during calorie restriction kept 0.819 kg more lean mass (0.364-1.273) than restriction alone, across 6 trials in older adults (mean age over 57). In the authors’ words, that was «almost 100%» of the loss in those trials, and it came without slowing fat or weight loss (Sardeli et al., 2018). Higher protein, at least 1.0 g/kg of body weight per day, kept 0.83 kg more lean mass (0.47-1.19) in adults aged 50 or over without changing weight lost (Kim et al., 2016).

Those resistance-training trials ran 12 to 24 weeks, and restriction alone lost about 0.76 kg of lean mass in them (Sardeli et al., 2018). Over IDEA’s 18 months, diet plus exercise still lost 4.7 kg against 4.2 kg on diet alone, so the share kept over a larger, longer loss is not known. See Resistance Training During Caloric Restriction and Protein Intake During Energy Restriction; the kidney caution on protein is covered in Protein Intake for Older Adults.

As an outcome, lean mass is a surrogate (a stand-in measure, not the outcome itself). No trial among this guide’s sources tested a muscle-sparing weight-loss programme in this age group on falls, fractures or survival. The evidence on strength is weak. In Sardeli’s pooled trials, strength per kilogram of lean mass tended to fare better with resistance training (p = 0.07), and the authors note the review «was not designed to test muscle function» (Sardeli et al., 2018). So the argument that unprotected weight loss harms a frail or sarcopenic person rests on mechanism: they have the least muscle to spare and the most to lose from weakness. Treat it as a reason to pair weight loss with resistance training and protein and to monitor function, not as evidenced harm.

A weight-loss drug speeds the loss but does not remove the muscle cost

People on GLP-1 drugs (the class that includes semaglutide) lose lean mass in roughly the same proportion as people who diet. In a meta-analysis, absolute lean mass fell 1.74 kg (0.45-3.04), while lean mass as a share of body weight rose 1.81 percentage points (1.1-2.52) (Laverde et al., 2026). Function was not measured, and older people were not studied: «the effects in patients with diabetes, as well as in older and multimorbid populations, should be evaluated in future studies» (Laverde et al., 2026).

Stopping the drug brings the weight back: one year after semaglutide was withdrawn, in STEP-1’s adults (mean age 48-50 across the arms), «participants regained two-thirds of their prior weight loss» (Wilding et al., 2022). The same resistance training and protein apply to someone on the drug. See GLP-1 and Lean Mass; the heart-and-metabolism section covers the cardiovascular case for semaglutide.

Regain is not a reason not to try, and the right pace is unknown

For someone with obesity, the risk of losing and regaining weight is a weaker reason to hold back than it sounds. Its harms «are more readily seen in people of normal body weight rather than in those who are overweight or obese» (Montani et al., 2015). A meta-analysis of weight fluctuation concluded: «we cannot conclude whether obese individuals should be deterred from efforts to control their body weight by concerns about the hazards of weight cycling» (Zou et al., 2019). See Weight Cycling and Cardiometabolic Risk.

Across 80 trials, people kept off a mean 3-6 kg (3-6%) at 48 months, but those trials were not age-specific (Franz et al., 2007); see Weight-Loss Maintenance and Metabolic Adaptation. None of this guide’s sources tests how fast to lose at 70: gradual, not rapid rests on mechanism, not on a trial result.

Weight loss may also cost bone. Sardeli’s review raises it as a concern, but its one trial that measured bone was too short to tell (Sardeli et al., 2018). The next section takes up fractures on their own terms.

Load bone through exercise; calcium and vitamin D pills do not prevent fractures at home

For obese adults around 70, exercise is the fracture-prevention lever with direct evidence on fractures themselves: it probably reduces major osteoporotic fracture, and it works in two ways, by loading bone and by preventing falls. Vitamin D and calcium pills do not reduce fractures in people living at home, and the calcium carries heart and kidney-stone signals. Hormone therapy is a women-only drug question that this guide assesses but does not prescribe. — the ranking joins Exercise and Bone Mineral Density and Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation for Fracture Prevention.

Exercise probably cuts major osteoporotic fractures

A meta-analysis of 11 controlled exercise trials (9,715 exercise vs 9,592 control participant-years, adults over 50 on average) found exercise reduced major osteoporotic fracture (hip, spine, forearm, upper arm): RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.59-0.94; the abstract prints 0.54-0.94), with negligible heterogeneity (Hoffmann et al., 2022). The crude counts were 151 fractures against 196, roughly 16 vs 20 per 1,000 participant-years, about 5 fewer. That arithmetic is unadjusted and only gives a sense of size (inferred from Hoffmann et al., 2022).

This guide says probably, not more, because one research group produced both this review and the bone-density review below. The two do not confirm each other independently, and no other group’s exercise-fracture meta-analysis is among this guide’s sources Exercise and Bone Mineral Density. No feature of the exercise programmes made a measurable difference: neither intensity progression (p = .133) nor trial length (p = .883) changed the effect, and the authors declined to write an exercise prescription for fracture (Hoffmann et al., 2022).

Bone density itself moves only a little. In postmenopausal women, exercise raised total-hip bone mineral density (BMD) by SMD 0.41 (0.30-0.52) and spine and femoral neck by less, effects the authors call moderate at best (Mohebbi et al., 2023). BMD is a surrogate. The decision rests on the fracture trials above, not on the density gain Surrogate Outcomes.

Much of the fracture benefit comes from exercise preventing falls, which a bone-density scan cannot measure. Falls-prevention trials show fewer fall-related fractures at low certainty (detailed in the falls section, Exercise for Preventing Falls in Older Adults). The two bodies of evidence measure different outcomes in different trials, so neither raises the certainty of the other.

Keep exercising with fragile bones; swap loaded forward bending for back extension

Osteoporosis changes which movements to load, not whether to move. A review of adverse events found serious harm from structured exercise rare and not attributable to the programme. It also found that none of the trials was powered (large enough) to detect fractures, and that three-quarters reported adverse events as blank or zero (Kunutsor et al., 2018). So the trials show no evidence that exercise is dangerous, which is not proof that it is safe Exercise Safety in Osteoporosis.

Repetitive or loaded forward bending of the spine is the main movement to watch. In a small observational study, 89% of the flexion-exercise group (9 people) had vertebral fractures against 16% of the extension group, and the review advises focusing on spinal extension instead (Kunutsor et al., 2018). Ordinary bending is not the problem: «there is no evidence that single forward flexion movements in daily activities or ‘roll down’ Pilates movements cause vertebral fractures – a common misconception» (Kunutsor et al., 2018). Teach safe lifting; do not ban daily bending. Brisk walking is a weaker second flag, because in one trial it raised falls (see the falls section).

Vitamin D and calcium pills do not prevent fractures in people living at home

Vitamin D alone does not reduce fractures in replete adults (people who are not deficient). In VITAL, 25,871 adults took 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily or placebo for a median 5.3 years: total fractures HR 0.98 (0.89-1.08), hip fractures HR 1.01 (0.70-1.47) (LeBoff et al., 2022). That is about 59 vs 60 fractures per 1,000 people over 5.3 years (inferred from LeBoff et al., 2022). Age, sex, body-mass index and baseline vitamin D level did not change this lack of effect (LeBoff et al., 2022).

Vitamin D with calcium also fails in community-dwelling adults. The USPSTF evidence review excluded people in institutions, people who were deficient or had osteoporosis, and people with a prior fracture. It found no fracture reduction: one large trial in postmenopausal women gave an absolute difference of 3.5 fewer fractures per 1,000 (from 10 fewer to 3 more) (Kahwati et al., 2018). The review and VITAL share no trials, so two independent sets of trials agree that supplements do not lower fractures in people who are not deficient Deficiency Repletion vs Enhancement.

The combination does work in a different group. A broader meta-analysis found vitamin D plus calcium reduced hip fracture, RR 0.84 (0.72-0.97). Effects on any fracture were somewhat larger in trials of people aged 80 and over living in institutions (P for heterogeneity = .02) and in trials that raised blood vitamin D more (P = .04). Five of the six combination trials carried a high risk of bias (Yao et al., 2019). Taking vitamin D to correct a confirmed deficiency is a different matter from taking it when levels are already adequate. Establishing deficiency needs this person’s labs and is a clinician’s call Deficiency Repletion vs Enhancement.

Calcium pills carry heart and kidney-stone signals; food calcium does not

Vitamin D plus calcium raised kidney stones: RR 1.18 (1.04-1.35), about 3 more per 1,000 (0.6 to 6) over the trials, the review’s only moderate-certainty finding. Calcium alone showed no stone excess, and vitamin D alone was not studied for stones (Kahwati et al., 2018) Deficiency Repletion vs Enhancement.

Calcium supplements, with or without vitamin D, raised myocardial infarction, RR 1.24 (1.07-1.45) (Bolland et al., 2011). A later pooling of 13 placebo- controlled trials in healthy postmenopausal women found coronary heart disease up by 8.8 per 1,000 (Myung et al., 2021). Treat this as a warning signal, not a settled harm: the two analyses share most of their trials, and the result leans on one reanalysed subgroup of the WHI trial Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation for Fracture Prevention.

The signal comes from calcium pills, which deliver a large dose at once. Higher dietary calcium goes with fewer kidney stones (European Association of Urology et al., 2026). Total dairy shows no hip-fracture effect either way in prospective cohorts (RR 0.90, 0.73-1.11). A small milk signal in cohorts (RR 1.09 per 200 g, 1.07-1.11, 8 cohorts) (Malmir et al., 2019) is judged fragile on Dairy and Bone Health. Dairy neither prevents fractures nor puts bone at risk Dairy and Bone Health.

Hormone therapy protects bone mainly while taken, and starting it late is contested

This applies to women only. In the WHI trial (women aged 50-79), oestrogen plus progestin meant 5 fewer hip fractures per 10,000 person-years (HR 0.66, 0.45-0.98), with no change in total mortality, though WHI concluded that «Overall health risks exceeded benefits» (for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators, 2002). The fracture benefit fades once treatment stops (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2024) Hormone Therapy After Menopause.

NAMS and NICE disagree on whether the age at starting matters. NAMS reports pooled WHI mortality HRs of 0.69 (0.51-0.94) at 50-59, 1.04 (0.87-1.25) at 60-69 and 1.13 (0.94-1.36) at 70-79 (P for trend = .01) (2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel of The North American Menopause Society, 2022); NICE finds no significant variation by starting age (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2024) Does Timing Modify HRT Cardiovascular and Mortality Effect.

For a woman of 70, oestrogen plus progestin started after 65 doubled dementia (23 more cases per 10,000 women), while oestrogen alone did not significantly raise it (2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel of The North American Menopause Society, 2022), and NAMS calls use in older women «not appropriate for reduction in the risk of CHD or dementia» (2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel of The North American Menopause Society, 2022).

NAMS says hormone therapy «may be considered for prevention of fracture in healthy older women at elevated fracture risk when bothersome VMS persist or when hormone therapy remains the best choice because of lack of efficacy or intolerance of other fracture-prevention ther- apies». Its key point on long-term use, graded at its lowest evidence level (III: consensus and expert opinion), says such use past 60 «may be considered in healthy women at low risk of CVD and breast cancer» with persistent VMS or at elevated fracture risk where other therapies are not appropriate (2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel of The North American Menopause Society, 2022).

That point is about continuing. On starting after 60, NAMS’s key point graded Level I (its highest: good and consistent scientific evidence) says initiation «requires careful consideration of individual benefits and risks» (2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel of The North American Menopause Society, 2022). VMS are vasomotor symptoms such as hot flushes. Whether to start, which formulation and what dose are prescriber decisions this guide does not make.

Acid-suppressing drugs link to hip fracture, and confounding may explain much of it

In observational data on over 2 million people, those taking proton pump inhibitors (acid-suppressing drugs) had more hip fractures, RR 1.20 (1.14-1.28). In the COMPASS trial, 17,598 people randomized to pantoprazole or placebo showed no excess of any listed adverse event except enteric infection (Salvo et al., 2021). Sicker people are more likely to be prescribed these drugs, which may explain much of the fracture signal Proton Pump Inhibitors and Adverse Outcomes. Whether to stop one is a deprescribing decision; this guide flags it but does not assess it.

What the evidence cannot yet say

Seven of Hoffmann’s 11 fracture trials enrolled only women, and the bone-density review enrolled only postmenopausal women, so the evidence for older men is thin (Hoffmann et al., 2022). This guide has no review of bisphosphonates (the standard bone-strengthening drugs) among its sources, so it cannot say how much of the bone benefit such a drug would already capture. Exercise acts on falls, muscle and function as well, which no bone drug replaces Exercise and Bone Mineral Density.

People at this age also ask about the brain, where most of the trials this guide draws on found no effect.

Protect thinking through blood pressure and hearing; programmes built for the brain have not prevented dementia

For obese adults around 70, one lever has randomized evidence against dementia: lowering blood pressure. Hearing loss is the other correctable risk factor; treating it plausibly helps, but that is unproven. The programmes built specifically for the brain have not lowered dementia in people this age, and several popular associations probably run backwards, from early disease to the behaviour Dementia Prevention and Modifiable Risk Factors.

Lowering blood pressure slightly reduces dementia

Lowering blood pressure slightly reduces dementia. Five placebo-controlled antihypertensive trials, pooled at the level of individual patients (28,008 people, mean age 69.1), gave an adjusted odds ratio of 0.87 (95% CI 0.75-0.99) for incident dementia after a mean fall of about 10/4 mmHg (Peters et al., 2022). Dementia occurred in 2.9% on treatment and 3.3% on placebo (Peters et al., 2022) — about 4 fewer cases per 1,000 people over a median 4.3 years .

Age did not modify the effect (Peters et al., 2022): «There was no evidence of a U-shaped re- lation of the effect at any age, nor any increase in risk of dementia with treatment in the oldest age.» (Peters et al., 2022) The authors also took a graphical, non-randomized look at pressure achieved after a year, pooled across both arms. In it, lower pressure tracked lower dementia risk linearly down to at least 100/70 mmHg, with no interval reported. Participants started at a mean of 155.8/82.9 mmHg (Peters et al., 2022).

Observational studies report a U-shaped link between blood pressure and dementia in older age (Peters et al., 2022). The trials enrolled people with high blood pressure, so they did not test the low end of that U, people whose pressure is already low .

The trials stopped early on cardiovascular endpoints, so they likely under-count dementia, which arrives later (Peters et al., 2022). The same blood-pressure treatment prevents strokes and heart attacks; dementia is a second outcome of it, not a separate lever Blood Pressure Lowering and Cardiovascular Events.

Bundled brain-health programmes have not prevented dementia in unselected people in their seventies

Bundled brain-health programmes (several interventions delivered together) moved a test score in one selected trial and did not prevent dementia in unselected people in their seventies. FINGER randomized 1,260 Finns aged 60-77, chosen for high dementia-risk scores, to diet, exercise, cognitive training and vascular monitoring. Over 2 years the programme improved a combined cognitive-test score by 0.022 SD per year (95% CI 0.002-0.042), a small effect on a surrogate. Dementia itself was not measured (Ngandu et al., 2015).

preDIVA gave nurse-led vascular care to 3,526 unselected Dutch adults aged 70-78 for a median 6.7 years. Dementia developed in 7% of each arm (HR 0.92, 0.71-1.19). The programme lowered systolic pressure only 2.06 mmHg more than usual care, and the authors call the trial underpowered for the 2-9% reductions that blood-pressure drugs plausibly give (van Charante et al., 2016). Its authors write that the results «mitigate fears that antihypertensive treatment in older age groups evokes cognitive decline» (van Charante et al., 2016). With so small a difference in pressure between the groups, the trial says little about pushing pressure much lower. Read it as insufficient evidence on dementia, not proof of no effect. It is also consistent with the blood-pressure trials, whose difference in pressure was about five times larger .

When researchers pooled preDIVA with a second late-life trial, they found no group that responds. An individual-patient analysis of MAPT and preDIVA (5,205 people over 70, up to 12 years) gave HR 0.98 (0.80-1.21) for all-cause dementia. Neither the pre-specified subgroups (including high risk scores and untreated hypertension) nor an unconstrained search algorithm found a subgroup with a different effect (Coley et al., 2025). On test scores alone, a network meta-analysis of 109 trials (median age 70) ranked exercise plus cognitive training highest (SMD 0.26, 0.10-0.42), above the fuller diet-exercise-training-education bundle (0.14, 0.02-0.27) (Mendes et al., 2025). Adding more components did not automatically add benefit, and no trial among this guide’s sources shows the pair prevents dementia Multidomain Lifestyle Intervention and Cognitive Decline.

Whether activity itself protects against dementia is unsettled

Whether activity itself protects against dementia is unsettled. Pooled cohorts show active people with a lower dementia risk (RR 0.80, 0.77-0.84), but that is an association (Iso-Markku et al., 2022). An individual-participant analysis of 19 cohorts split follow-up in two: inactivity predicted dementia when measured under 10 years before diagnosis (HR 1.40, 1.24-1.59) and not when measured 10 or more years before (HR 1.01, 0.89-1.14). The lack of a link persisted in participants aged 60 or over at baseline (Kivimäki et al., 2019).

The cohort meta-analysis reads its own long-follow-up data the other way. Its 16 studies with at least 20 years of follow-up gave RR 0.79 (0.71-0.87; mean baseline age 50.5), and its four high-quality studies gave RR 0.82 (0.67-0.99). Three high-quality studies with young baselines and over 20 years of follow-up gave RR 0.79 (0.62-1.01), which the authors call «also similar to the pooled RR in all studies, but not significant» (Iso-Markku et al., 2022). They write that «we did not find evidence to suggest that reverse causation or regression dilution bias» affected the associations, while noting that funnel plots suggested some publication bias (Iso-Markku et al., 2022).

The two analyses disagree, and the long-follow-up cohorts began in midlife, not at 70. Activity ranks high in this guide because of falls, muscle and blood pressure. Whether it directly prevents dementia is insufficient evidence, not shown absent, and this guide leaves the disagreement unresolved -> Does Physical Activity Protect Against Dementia Beyond Ten Years.

Treat hearing loss, but do not count on it to prevent dementia

Treat hearing loss because it is cheap and correctable, but do not count on it to prevent dementia. Hearing loss is a consistent risk marker (HR 1.35, 1.26-1.45, 30 cohorts) (Yu et al., 2024). Hearing-aid users show less cognitive decline than people with uncorrected loss (HR 0.81, 0.76-0.87). Those studies are observational and GRADE certainty was low (Yeo et al., 2023); people who choose hearing aids may differ in other ways.

The one randomized trial, ACHIEVE, enrolled 977 adults aged 70-84 with untreated hearing loss. It found no difference in 3-year cognitive decline overall (0.002 SD, -0.077 to 0.081) and no reduction in incident cognitive impairment (HR 0.90, 0.61-1.33). In a pre-specified subgroup at higher baseline risk, decline was smaller (difference 0.191 SD, 0.022-0.360) (Lin et al., 2023). That is one subgroup of one trial: a hypothesis, and a reason to put high-risk people first, not proof Hearing Loss and Dementia.

Diet, sleep, social contact and weight: the links rest on observation, and some may run backwards

The MIND diet’s brain benefit is observational; its one trial found no effect. In cohorts, each 1-SD higher MIND score tracked a 0.042-unit higher global-cognition z-score (Huang et al., 2023). A 3-year trial of 604 overweight adults aged 65 or older with a family history of dementia found a difference of 0.035 SD (-0.022 to 0.092, P=0.23), with both arms losing about 5 kg (Barnes et al., 2023). The trial rules out a large effect; it neither confirms nor refutes a small one MIND Diet - Observational Benefit vs Randomized Null.

Long sleep looks like a sign of early dementia, not a cause. The Lancet Commission concludes that «further evidence indicates that prolonged sleep is not a risk factor for dementia, although dementia and its prodrome may cause prolonged sleep. People should not curtail their sleep to reduce dementia risk.» (Livingston et al., 2024) No trial among this guide’s sources tests whether treating a sleep disorder lowers dementia Sleep and Cognitive Decline.

Social contact and late-life weight are associations that may run backwards. Less frequent social contact is associated with higher dementia risk (RR 1.57, 1.32-1.85, in one review; 1.18, 1.08-1.30, in a second) (Livingston et al., 2024). For mortality, living alone carries no measurable excess in older adults (RR 1.05, 0.91-1.22), against 1.41 in younger ones; the authors suggest healthier older people are the ones who live alone (Zhao et al., 2022) Social Connection and Mortality. People with a late-life BMI of 23-30 have less dementia (RR 0.81, 0.75-0.88) (Zhang et al., 2022). Weight lost in the years before a dementia diagnosis would produce this pattern. So the association is not evidence against intentional weight loss, which the weight section handles on its own terms The U-Shaped Association Artifact.

Beyond blood pressure and hearing, this guide’s sources support no further lever for the brain. Beyond the steps in this guide, what remains to gain is small.

Stop optimizing once these are in place; the remaining levers are small

Most supplement pills do not prevent disease in people who are not deficient. For healthy adults aged 50 to 74, the Endocrine Society’s commissioned meta-analyses judged, with high certainty, that vitamin D has little or no effect on fractures, cardiovascular events, cancer or death (Demay et al., 2024). The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends against beta carotene (harm outweighs benefit) and vitamin E (no net benefit). For multivitamins it found insufficient evidence, which is not the same as a shown lack of effect: «The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of supplementation with multivitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer.» (US Preventive Services Task Force, 2022a) -> Vitamin and Mineral Supplements for Disease Prevention.

Supplements may help in a few narrow cases, each small or tied to a diagnosis. From age 75 the Endocrine Society suggests a low daily vitamin D dose for a borderline mortality benefit (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-1.00; about 6 fewer deaths per 1,000 people; conditional recommendation, moderate certainty) (Demay et al., 2024). The mortality trials averaged about 900 IU a day (range 400-3,333 IU), and the guideline prefers a daily lower dose over intermittent large ones (Demay et al., 2024). A person already diagnosed with intermediate macular degeneration probably slows its progression with an AREDS-type antioxidant-and-zinc formula (OR 0.72, 0.58-0.90, for progression to late AMD; 3 trials, moderate certainty) (Evans & Lawrenson, 2023) -> Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Modifiable Exposures.

Vitamin D only slightly lowers the chance that prediabetes becomes diabetes, and it did not help the heavier participants. It cut progression to diabetes by 15% (HR 0.85, 0.75-0.96) in trial participants averaging 61 years with a mean BMI of 30 (Pittas et al., 2023), well short of the Diabetes Prevention Program’s lifestyle effect in the blood-sugar section above. In the pooled cholecalciferol trials the benefit appeared only below a BMI of 31.3 (HR 0.74, 0.60-0.90), not at or above it (HR 1.01, 0.84-1.22) (Pittas et al., 2023). These trials enrolled people about a decade younger than this guide’s reader, so the result applies to obese adults around 70 only by assumption. For them, with high blood sugar, the lifestyle programme remains the lever.

A mildly raised TSH (thyroid-stimulating hormone, a blood test of thyroid function) is not worth treating for tiredness or low mood. Across 21 trials in 2,192 non-pregnant adults, levothyroxine brought TSH into range but did not improve quality of life (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.03) or thyroid symptoms (SMD 0.01, -0.12 to 0.14). Certainty was high for both. Mood, cognition and muscle strength did not move either (Feller et al., 2018). Trial mean ages topped out at 74, so the result may not carry to people over 80 or to a TSH above 10 mIU/L. Cardiovascular events and death were measured in one trial only, at low certainty (Feller et al., 2018) -> Levothyroxine for Subclinical Hypothyroidism.

Once a diet is broadly sound, switching to a named diet (Mediterranean, DASH-type or plant-based) adds little to survival that studies can detect. The US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s review graded diets rich in vegetables, fruit, legumes, nuts, whole grains and fish as associated with lower all-cause mortality (Strong), with Mediterranean, DASH-type and plant-based scores performing alike (Boushey et al., 2020).

All but one of its 153 articles were observational, and it pooled no effect size (Boushey et al., 2020). Its cohorts mostly excluded people with chronic disease, so its results lean toward people healthier than average (Boushey et al., 2020). Improving an already decent diet further can add only a small gain, almost by definition. That gain is hard to separate from confounding, the other ways in which people who eat that diet differ -> Dietary Patterns and All-Cause Mortality.

The large levers also have limits to what they add; the sections above set out what is known for each:

• Steps. The step region where the mortality curve levels off after 60 is set out in the daily-movement section -> Physical Activity Dose and Mortality.
• Resistance training. The volume band that matched higher volumes on most function tests, and what higher volume added (fast walking; a higher but unconfirmed strength ranking), are set out in the muscle section -> Resistance Training Prescription - Load Sets and Frequency.
• Protein. Above the PROT-AGE minimum, no study among this guide’s sources finds where extra protein stops helping an older adult -> Protein Intake for Older Adults.

Reach each level and hold it. No study among this guide’s sources shows that going further keeps paying .

This guide does not answer one question: when to stop medicines already being taken. Deprescribing needs the person’s full medication list and history, which makes it a prescriber’s decision. The evidence behind this guide does not cover it. Below is a short, ordered list of things to do.

What to do, in order

If you smoke, stop; if you drink heavily, cut down -> Smoking and Mortality, Alcohol and Mortality and Vascular Disease. Then:

• Join a supervised balance-and-strength programme, at least three sessions a week for at least 12 weeks (the minimum the falls guideline sets, not a tested best dose), and keep it going. If frail, start low and supervised; for an obese person’s painful knee, choose water or cycling -> Exercise for Preventing Falls in Older Adults, Frailty.
• Add resistance training if the programme lacks it. Two sessions a week of two sets on each of three lower-limb exercises matched or beat higher volumes on timed up and go and the 6-minute walk. Fast walking speed favoured higher volume (low certainty; mostly healthy participants, median BMI 26.8). Start light and add load as sets get easier (standard practice, not trial-tested); power-style lifting improves function tests more than slow, heavy lifting -> Resistance Training Prescription - Load Sets and Frequency, Power Training and Physical Function in Older Adults.
• Eat at least 1.0-1.2 g of protein per kg a day (the PROT-AGE minimum; which kilogram to count in obesity is open, see below). With reduced kidney function, a clinician sets the number -> Protein Intake for Older Adults, Protein Intake and Kidney Function.

Next:

• Keep moving through the day. After 60, the mortality curve levelled off at about 6,000-8,000 steps a day in cohort comparisons; above about 8,000, more steps buy little extra -> Physical Activity Dose and Mortality.
• Treat blood pressure with a clinician. A potassium-enriched salt substitute is one evidenced option, after a clinician’s check if kidney function is reduced or a drug raises potassium -> Blood Pressure Lowering and Cardiovascular Events, Chronic Kidney Disease and Modifiable Exposures.

Take the next steps when they apply to you; the last one lists what to skip.

• With raised blood sugar, use a structured lifestyle programme; metformin does not substitute for it at this age -> Lifestyle vs Metformin for Diabetes Prevention.
• Lose weight only for a named target, with resistance training and protein alongside, and track function rather than the scale; the same package applies on a weight-loss drug -> Resistance Training During Caloric Restriction, GLP-1 and Lean Mass.
• Treat hearing loss because it is cheap and correctable, without counting on it to prevent dementia -> Hearing Loss and Dementia.
• Skip routine vitamin D and calcium pills for fractures if you live at home and are not deficient; confirming a deficiency takes a clinician and labs. Do not start aspirin for prevention. Starting a statin after 75 without heart disease is a decision to make with a clinician -> Deficiency Repletion vs Enhancement, Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

What the evidence cannot yet say. It cannot say whether muscle-sparing weight loss at 70 changes strength, falls, fractures or survival, or how fast to lose. It cannot say whether to count protein per kilogram of actual weight or of a lower reference weight in obesity, or what resistance-training dose suits the frail. It cannot say whether the fall reduction outlasts a programme once it stops, or when to stop medicines already being taken, which is a prescriber’s decision -> Weight-Loss Maintenance and Metabolic Adaptation, Detraining and Residual Effects in Older Adults.

Evidence box

Question	’For an obese older adult (~70, sarcopenic obesity, hypertension/dysglycemia/MASLD common, reduced BMD, polypharmacy), which modifiable exposures carry the largest expected effect on the patient-important outcomes that matter at this age ranked by effect x certainty, where does the remaining marginal return flatten, and where (if anywhere) does a lever that helps a younger adult change sign for this stratum?‘
Evidence included	116 sources — 69 gold, 41 high, 5 moderate, 1 method
Overall certainty	Moderate (see Rating Certainty of Evidence)
Source-selection note	5 source(s) below the gold/high evidence bar feed this page: Song (meta-analysis, moderate); Kreider (consensus, moderate); Kodama (meta-analysis, moderate); Ross (narrative review, moderate); Montani (narrative review, moderate). Their roles and limitations are described in the text.
Last updated	2026-10-22 · Independently reviewed: No · Full edit history

References

2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel of The North American Menopause Society. (2022). The 2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society (Menopause 2022;29(7):767-794). Menopause, 29(7), 767–794. https://doi.org/10.1097/gme.0000000000002028

Barnes, L. L., Dhana, K., Liu, X., Carey, V. J., Ventrelle, J., Johnson, K., Hollings, C. S., Bishop, L., Laranjo, N., Stubbs, B. J., Reilly, X., Agarwal, P., Zhang, S., Grodstein, F., Tangney, C. C., Holland, T. M., Aggarwal, N. T., Arfanakis, K., Morris, M. C., & Sacks, F. M. (2023). Trial of the MIND Diet for Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Older Persons. New England Journal of Medicine, 389(7), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2302368

Bauer, J., Biolo, G., Cederholm, T., Cesari, M., Cruz-Jentoft, A. J., Morley, J. E., Phillips, S., Sieber, C., Stehle, P., Teta, D., Visvanathan, R., Volpi, E., & Boirie, Y. (2013). Evidence-Based Recommendations for Optimal Dietary Protein Intake in Older People: A Position Paper From the PROT-AGE Study Group. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 14(8), 542–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.05.021

Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists Collaboration. (2021). Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis. The Lancet, 397(10285), 1625–1636. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00590-0

Blumenthal, R. S., Morris, P. B., Gaudino, M., Johnson, H. M., Anderson, T. S., Bittner, V. A., Blankstein, R., Brewer, L. C., Cho, L., de Ferranti, S. D., Gianos, E., Gluckman, T. J., Gradney, K. F., Isiadinso, I., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., Marrs, J. C., Martin, S. S., McLain, K. H., Mehta, L. S., … Young, J. (2026). 2026 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Dyslipidemia: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation, 153(17). https://doi.org/10.1161/cir.0000000000001423

Bolland, M. J., Grey, A., Avenell, A., Gamble, G. D., & Reid, I. R. (2011). Calcium supplements with or without vitamin D and risk of cardiovascular events: reanalysis of the Women’s Health Initiative limited access dataset and meta-analysis. BMJ, 342(apr19 1), d2040–d2040. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2040

Boushey, C., Ard, J., Bazzano, L., Heymsfield, S., Mayer-Davis, E., Sabaté, J., Snetselaar, L., Van Horn, L., Schneeman, B., English, L., Bates, M., Callahan, E., Venkatramanan, S., Butera, G., Terry, N., & Obbagy, J. (2020). Dietary Patterns and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review. https://doi.org/10.52570/nesr.dgac2020.sr0108

Brickwood, K.-J., Watson, G., O’Brien, J., & Williams, A. D. (2019). Consumer-Based Wearable Activity Trackers Increase Physical Activity Participation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 7(4), e11819. https://doi.org/10.2196/11819

Buendía‐Romero, Á., Vetrovsky, T., Hernández‐Belmonte, A., Izquierdo, M., & Courel‐Ibáñez, J. (2025). Residual Effects of Physical Exercise After Periods of Training Cessation in Older Adults: A Systematic Review With Meta‐Analysis and Meta‐Regression. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.70010

Celis-Morales, C. A., Welsh, P., Lyall, D. M., Steell, L., Petermann, F., Anderson, J., Iliodromiti, S., Sillars, A., Graham, N., Mackay, D. F., Pell, J. P., Gill, J. M. R., Sattar, N., & Gray, S. R. (2018). Associations of grip strength with cardiovascular, respiratory, and cancer outcomes and all cause mortality: prospective cohort study of half a million UK Biobank participants. BMJ, k1651. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1651

Centner, C., Wiegel, P., Gollhofer, A., & König, D. (2018). Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy in Older Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine, 49(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0994-1

Choi, M., Kim, H., & Bae, J. (2021). Does the combination of resistance training and a nutritional intervention have a synergic effect on muscle mass, strength, and physical function in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatrics, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02491-5

Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. (2019). Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised controlled trials. The Lancet, 393(10170), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31942-1

Coley, N., Hoevenaar‐Blom, M. P., Shourick, J., van Charante, E. P. M., van Dalen, J., van Gool, W. A., Richard, E., & Andrieu, S. (2025). Searching for responders to multidomain dementia prevention in late life: A pooled analysis of individual participant data from the MAPT and preDIVA trials. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14472

Cruz-Jentoft, A. J., Bahat, G., Bauer, J., Boirie, Y., Bruyère, O., Cederholm, T., Cooper, C., Landi, F., Rolland, Y., Sayer, A. A., Schneider, S. M., Sieber, C. C., Topinkova, E., Vandewoude, M., Visser, M., Zamboni, M., Bautmans, I., Baeyens, J.-P., Cesari, M., … Schols, J. (2018). Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age and Ageing, 48(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afy169

CURRIER, B. S., D’SOUZA, A. C., SINGH, M. A. F., LOWISZ, C. V., RAWSON, E. S., SCHOENFELD, B. J., SMITH-RYAN, A. E., STEEN, J. P., THOMAS, G. A., TRIPLETT, N. T., WASHINGTON, T. A., WERNER, T. J., & PHILLIPS, S. M. (2026). American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 58(4), 851–872. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000003897

de Santana, F. M., Premaor, M. O., Tanigava, N. Y., & Pereira, R. M. R. (2021). Low muscle mass in older adults and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Experimental Gerontology, 152, 111461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2021.111461

Demay, M. B., Pittas, A. G., Bikle, D. D., Diab, D. L., Kiely, M. E., Lazaretti-Castro, M., Lips, P., Mitchell, D. M., Murad, M. H., Powers, S., Rao, S. D., Scragg, R., Tayek, J. A., Valent, A. M., Walsh, J. M. E., & McCartney, C. R. (2024). Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 109(8), 1907–1947. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgae290

Deng, Y., Tang, Z., Yang, Z., Chai, Q., Lu, W., Cai, Y., Luo, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2024). Comparing the effects of aquatic-based exercise and land-based exercise on balance in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-024-00349-4

Devries, M. C., Sithamparapillai, A., Brimble, K. S., Banfield, L., Morton, R. W., & Phillips, S. M. (2018). ’Changes in Kidney Function Do Not Differ between Healthy Adults Consuming Higher- Compared with Lower- or Normal-Protein Diets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Nutrition, 148(11), 1760–1775. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxy197

Duong, V., Abdel Shaheed, C., Ferreira, M. L., Narayan, S. W., Venkatesha, V., Hunter, D. J., Zhu, J., Atukorala, I., Kobayashi, S., Goh, S. L., Briggs, A. M., Cross, M., Espinosa-Morales, R., Fu, K., Guillemin, F., Keefe, F., Stefan Lohmander, L., March, L., Milne, G. J., … Cooper, C. (2025). Risk factors for the development of knee osteoarthritis across the lifespan: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 33(10), 1162–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2025.03.003

Ekelund, U., Tarp, J., Fagerland, M. W., Johannessen, J. S., Hansen, B. H., Jefferis, B. J., Whincup, P. H., Diaz, K. M., Hooker, S., Howard, V. J., Chernofsky, A., Larson, M. G., Spartano, N., Vasan, R. S., Dohrn, I.-M., Hagströmer, M., Edwardson, C., Yates, T., Shiroma, E. J., … Lee, I.-M. (2020). Joint associations of accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary time with all-cause mortality: a harmonised meta-analysis in more than 44 000 middle-aged and older individuals. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(24), 1499–1506. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-103270

Ekelund, U., Tarp, J., Steene-Johannessen, J., Hansen, B. H., Jefferis, B., Fagerland, M. W., Whincup, P., Diaz, K. M., Hooker, S. P., Chernofsky, A., Larson, M. G., Spartano, N., Vasan, R. S., Dohrn, I.-M., Hagströmer, M., Edwardson, C., Yates, T., Shiroma, E., Anderssen, S. A., & Lee, I.-M. (2019). Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. BMJ, l4570. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4570

el Hadouchi, M., Kiers, H., de Vries, R., Veenhof, C., & van Dieën, J. (2022). Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-022-00297-x

Estruch, R., Ros, E., Salas-Salvadó, J., Covas, M.-I., Corella, D., Arós, F., Gómez-Gracia, E., Ruiz-Gutiérrez, V., Fiol, M., Lapetra, J., Lamuela-Raventos, R. M., Serra-Majem, L., Pintó, X., Basora, J., Muñoz, M. A., Sorlí, J. V., Martínez, J. A., Fitó, M., Gea, A., … Martínez-González, M. A. (2018). Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet Supplemented with Extra-Virgin Olive Oil or Nuts. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(25). https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1800389

European Association for the Study of the Liver. (2024). EASL–EASD–EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Journal of Hepatology, 81(3), 492–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2024.04.031

European Association of Urology, Skolarikos, A., Davis, N. F., Gambaro, G., Geraghty, R., Jung, H., & et al. (2026). EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis.

European Society of Cardiology. (2021). 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. European Heart Journal, 42(34), 3227–3337. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab484

Evans, J. R., & Lawrenson, J. G. (2023). Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for slowing the progression of age-related macular degeneration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2023(9). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000254.pub5

Feller, M., Snel, M., Moutzouri, E., Bauer, D. C., de Montmollin, M., Aujesky, D., Ford, I., Gussekloo, J., Kearney, P. M., Mooijaart, S., Quinn, T., Stott, D., Westendorp, R., Rodondi, N., & Dekkers, O. M. (2018). Association of Thyroid Hormone Therapy With Quality of Life and Thyroid-Related Symptoms in Patients With Subclinical Hypothyroidism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA, 320(13), 1349. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13770

for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators, W. G. (2002). Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women: Principal Results From the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 288(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.3.321

Franklin, B. A., Thompson, P. D., Al-Zaiti, S. S., Albert, C. M., Hivert, M.-F., Levine, B. D., Lobelo, F., Madan, K., Sharrief, A. Z., & Eijsvogels, T. M. H. (2020). Exercise-Related Acute Cardiovascular Events and Potential Deleterious Adaptations Following Long-Term Exercise Training: Placing the Risks Into Perspective–An Update: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation, 141(13). https://doi.org/10.1161/cir.0000000000000749

Franz, M. J., VanWormer, J. J., Crain, A. L., Boucher, J. L., Histon, T., Caplan, W., Bowman, J. D., & Pronk, N. P. (2007). Weight-Loss Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Weight-Loss Clinical Trials with a Minimum 1-Year Follow-Up. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107(10), 1755–1767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2007.07.017

Garber, C. E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M. R., Franklin, B. A., Lamonte, M. J., Lee, I.-M., Nieman, D. C., & Swain, D. P. (2011). Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory, Musculoskeletal, and Neuromotor Fitness in Apparently Healthy Adults: Guidance for Prescribing Exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(7), 1334–1359. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e318213fefb

Global BMI Mortality Collaboration. (2016). Body-mass index and all-cause mortality: individual-participant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospective studies in four continents. The Lancet, 388(10046), 776–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30175-1

Goh, S.-L., Persson, M. S. M., Stocks, J., Hou, Y., Lin, J., Hall, M. C., Doherty, M., & Zhang, W. (2019). Efficacy and potential determinants of exercise therapy in knee and hip osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 62(5), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2019.04.006

Goldberg, R. B., Orchard, T. J., Crandall, J. P., Boyko, E. J., Budoff, M., Dabelea, D., Gadde, K. M., Knowler, W. C., Lee, C. G., Nathan, D. M., Watson, K., & Temprosa, M. (2022). Effects of Long-term Metformin and Lifestyle Interventions on Cardiovascular Events in the Diabetes Prevention Program and Its Outcome Study. Circulation, 145(22), 1632–1641. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.121.056756

Gómez-Redondo, P., Valenzuela, P. L., Morales, J. S., Ara, I., & Mañas, A. (2024). Supervised Versus Unsupervised Exercise for the Improvement of Physical Function and Well-Being Outcomes in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Sports Medicine, 54(7), 1877–1906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02024-1

Hamman, R. F., Wing, R. R., Edelstein, S. L., Lachin, J. M., Bray, G. A., Delahanty, L., Hoskin, M., Kriska, A. M., Mayer-Davis, E. J., Pi-Sunyer, X., Regensteiner, J., Venditti, B., & Wylie-Rosett, J. (2006). Effect of Weight Loss With Lifestyle Intervention on Risk of Diabetes. Diabetes Care, 29(9), 2102–2107. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc06-0560

Hoffmann, I., Kohl, M., von Stengel, S., Jakob, F., Kerschan-Schindl, K., Lange, U., Peters, S., Schoene, D., Sieber, C., Thomasius, F., Bischoff-Ferrari, H. A., Uder, M., & Kemmler, W. (2022). Exercise and the prevention of major osteoporotic fractures in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis with special emphasis on intensity progression and study duration. Osteoporosis International, 34(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-022-06592-8

Huang, L., Tao, Y., Chen, H., Chen, X., Shen, J., Zhao, C., Xu, X., He, M., Zhu, D., Zhang, R., Yang, M., Zheng, Y., & Yuan, C. (2023). Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) Diet and Cognitive Function and its Decline: A Prospective Study and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 118(1), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.04.025

Huang, L., Trieu, K., Yoshimura, S., Neal, B., Woodward, M., Campbell, N. R. C., Li, Q., Lackland, D. T., Leung, A. A., Anderson, C. A. M., MacGregor, G. A., & He, F. J. (2020). Effect of dose and duration of reduction in dietary sodium on blood pressure levels: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ, m315. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m315

Iso-Markku, P., Kujala, U. M., Knittle, K., Polet, J., Vuoksimaa, E., & Waller, K. (2022). Physical activity as a protective factor for dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: systematic review, meta-analysis and quality assessment of cohort and case–control studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 56(12), 701–709. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-104981

Jayedi, A., Soltani, S., Zargar, M. S., Khan, T. A., & Shab-Bidar, S. (2020). Central fatness and risk of all cause mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 72 prospective cohort studies. BMJ, m3324. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3324

Jha, P., Ramasundarahettige, C., Landsman, V., Rostron, B., Thun, M., Anderson, R. N., McAfee, T., & Peto, R. (2013). 21st-Century Hazards of Smoking and Benefits of Cessation in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa1211128

Jiménez-Lupión, D., Chirosa-Ríos, L., Martínez-García, D., Rodríguez-Pérez, M., & Jerez-Mayorga, D. (2023). 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, 104(9), 1514–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2023.01.022

Kahwati, L. C., Weber, R. P., Pan, H., Gourlay, M., LeBlanc, E., Coker-Schwimmer, M., & Viswanathan, M. (2018). Vitamin D, Calcium, or Combined Supplementation for the Primary Prevention of Fractures in Community-Dwelling Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA, 319(15), 1600. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.21640

Kim, J. E., O’Connor, L. E., Sands, L. P., Slebodnik, M. B., & Campbell, W. W. (2016). Effects of dietary protein intake on body composition changes after weight loss in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition Reviews, 74(3), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuv065

Kivimäki, M., Singh-Manoux, A., Pentti, J., Sabia, S., Nyberg, S. T., Alfredsson, L., Goldberg, M., Knutsson, A., Koskenvuo, M., Koskinen, A., Kouvonen, A., Nordin, M., Oksanen, T., Strandberg, T., Suominen, S. B., Theorell, T., Vahtera, J., Väänänen, A., Virtanen, M., … Jokela, M. (2019). Physical inactivity, cardiometabolic disease, and risk of dementia: an individual-participant meta-analysis. BMJ, l1495. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1495

Knowler, W. C. (2002). Reduction in the Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes with Lifestyle Intervention or Metformin. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(6), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa012512

Kodama, S. (2009). Cardiorespiratory Fitness as a Quantitative Predictor of All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Healthy Men and Women: A Meta-analysis. JAMA, 301(19), 2024. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.681

Komar, B., Schwingshackl, L., & Hoffmann, G. (2015). Effects of leucine-rich protein supplements on anthropometric parameter and muscle strength in the elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging, 19(4), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-014-0559-4

Kreider, R. B., Kalman, D. S., Antonio, J., Ziegenfuss, T. N., Wildman, R., Collins, R., Candow, D. G., Kleiner, S. M., Almada, A. L., & Lopez, H. L. (2017). International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: safety and efficacy of creatine supplementation in exercise, sport, and medicine. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12970-017-0173-z

Kunutsor, S. K., Leyland, S., Skelton, D. A., James, L., Cox, M., Gibbons, N., Whitney, J., & Clark, E. M. (2018). Adverse events and safety issues associated with physical activity and exercise for adults with osteoporosis and osteopenia: A systematic review of observational studies and an updated review of interventional studies. Journal of Frailty, Sarcopenia and Falls, 03(04), 155–178. https://doi.org/10.22540/jfsf-03-155

Laverde, L. P., Muñoz-Velandia, O. M., Alfonso, D., & Gómez Medina, A. M. (2026). Effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists at doses for obesity management on muscle health: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). International Journal of Obesity. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-026-02118-y

Lean, M. E. J., Leslie, W. S., Barnes, A. C., Brosnahan, N., Thom, G., McCombie, L., Peters, C., Zhyzhneuskaya, S., Al-Mrabeh, A., Hollingsworth, K. G., Rodrigues, A. M., Rehackova, L., Adamson, A. J., Sniehotta, F. F., Mathers, J. C., Ross, H. M., McIlvenna, Y., Welsh, P., Kean, S., … Taylor, R. (2019). Durability of a primary care-led weight-management intervention for remission of type 2 diabetes: 2-year results of the DiRECT open-label, cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 7(5), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-8587(19)30068-3

Lean, M. E., Leslie, W. S., Barnes, A. C., Brosnahan, N., Thom, G., McCombie, L., Peters, C., Zhyzhneuskaya, S., Al-Mrabeh, A., Hollingsworth, K. G., Rodrigues, A. M., Rehackova, L., Adamson, A. J., Sniehotta, F. F., Mathers, J. C., Ross, H. M., McIlvenna, Y., Stefanetti, R., Trenell, M., … Taylor, R. (2018). Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet, 391(10120), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)33102-1

LeBoff, M. S., Chou, S. H., Ratliff, K. A., Cook, N. R., Khurana, B., Kim, E., Cawthon, P. M., Bauer, D. C., Black, D., Gallagher, J. C., Lee, I.-M., Buring, J. E., & Manson, J. E. (2022). Supplemental Vitamin D and Incident Fractures in Midlife and Older Adults. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(4), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2202106

Lin, F. R., Pike, J. R., Albert, M. S., Arnold, M., Burgard, S., Chisolm, T., Couper, D., Deal, J. A., Goman, A. M., Glynn, N. W., Gmelin, T., Gravens-Mueller, L., Hayden, K. M., Huang, A. R., Knopman, D., Mitchell, C. M., Mosley, T., Pankow, J. S., Reed, N. S., … Coresh, J. (2023). Hearing intervention versus health education control to reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss in the USA (ACHIEVE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 402(10404), 786–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(23)01406-x

Livingston, G., Huntley, J., Liu, K. Y., Costafreda, S. G., Selbæk, G., Alladi, S., Ames, D., Banerjee, S., Burns, A., Brayne, C., Fox, N. C., Ferri, C. P., Gitlin, L. N., Howard, R., Kales, H. C., Kivimäki, M., Larson, E. B., Nakasujja, N., Rockwood, K., … Mukadam, N. (2024). Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission. The Lancet, 404(10452), 572–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01296-0

Look AHEAD Research Group. (2013). Cardiovascular Effects of Intensive Lifestyle Intervention in Type 2 Diabetes (N Engl J Med 2013;369(2):145-154). New England Journal of Medicine, 369(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1212914

López-Bueno, R., Andersen, L. L., Koyanagi, A., Núñez-Cortés, R., Calatayud, J., Casaña, J., & del Pozo Cruz, B. (2022). Thresholds of handgrip strength for all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality: A systematic review with dose-response meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 82, 101778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2022.101778

Luan, L., Bousie, J., Pranata, A., Adams, R., & Han, J. (2020). Stationary cycling exercise for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Rehabilitation, 35(4), 522–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215520971795

Ma, C., Avenell, A., Bolland, M., Hudson, J., Stewart, F., Robertson, C., Sharma, P., Fraser, C., & MacLennan, G. (2017). Effects of weight loss interventions for adults who are obese on mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, j4849. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4849

Malmir, H., Larijani, B., & Esmaillzadeh, A. (2019). Consumption of milk and dairy products and risk of osteoporosis and hip fracture: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60(10), 1722–1737. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1590800

Mandsager, K., Harb, S., Cremer, P., Phelan, D., Nissen, S. E., & Jaber, W. (2018). Association of Cardiorespiratory Fitness With Long-term Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Exercise Treadmill Testing. JAMA Network Open, 1(6), e183605. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3605

Mendes, A. J., Ribaldi, F., Sayin, O., Khachvani, G., Mulargia, R., Volpara, G., Remoli, G., Nencha, U., Gianonni-Luza, S., Cappa, S., & Frisoni, G. B. (2025). Single-domain and multidomain lifestyle interventions for the prevention of cognitive decline in older adults who are cognitively unimpaired: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Healthy Longevity, 6(9), 100762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100762

Messier, S. P., Mihalko, S. L., Legault, C., Miller, G. D., Nicklas, B. J., DeVita, P., Beavers, D. P., Hunter, D. J., Lyles, M. F., Eckstein, F., Williamson, J. D., Carr, J. J., Guermazi, A., & Loeser, R. F. (2013). Effects of Intensive Diet and Exercise on Knee Joint Loads, Inflammation, and Clinical Outcomes Among Overweight and Obese Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: The IDEA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 310(12), 1263. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.277669

Millwood, I. Y., Walters, R. G., Mei, X. W., Guo, Y., Yang, L., Bian, Z., Bennett, D. A., Chen, Y., Dong, C., Hu, R., Zhou, G., Yu, B., Jia, W., Parish, S., Clarke, R., Davey Smith, G., Collins, R., Holmes, M. V., Li, L., … Chen, Z. (2019). Conventional and genetic evidence on alcohol and vascular disease aetiology: a prospective study of 500 000 men and women in China. The Lancet, 393(10183), 1831–1842. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31772-0

Mohebbi, R., Shojaa, M., Kohl, M., von Stengel, S., Jakob, F., Kerschan-Schindl, K., Lange, U., Peters, S., Thomasius, F., Uder, M., & Kemmler, W. (2023). Exercise training and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies with emphasis on potential moderators. Osteoporosis International, 34(7), 1145–1178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-023-06682-1

Momma, H., Kawakami, R., Honda, T., & Sawada, S. S. (2022). 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, 56(13), 755–763. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-105061

Montani, J. ‐P., Schutz, Y., & Dulloo, A. G. (2015). Dieting and weight cycling as risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases: who is really at risk? Obesity Reviews, 16(S1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12251

Morton, R. W., Murphy, K. T., McKellar, S. R., Schoenfeld, B. J., Henselmans, M., Helms, E., Aragon, A. A., Devries, M. C., Banfield, L., Krieger, J. W., & Phillips, S. M. (2017). A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(6), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608

Myung, S.-K., Kim, H.-B., Lee, Y.-J., Choi, Y.-J., & Oh, S.-W. (2021). Calcium Supplements and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials. Nutrients, 13(2), 368. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020368

Naci, H., Salcher-Konrad, M., Dias, S., Blum, M. R., Sahoo, S. A., Nunan, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). How does exercise treatment compare with antihypertensive medications? A network meta-analysis of 391 randomised controlled trials assessing exercise and medication effects on systolic blood pressure. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(14), 859–869. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-099921

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2024). Menopause: identification and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng23

Neal, B., Wu, Y., Feng, X., Zhang, R., Zhang, Y., Shi, J., Zhang, J., Tian, M., Huang, L., Li, Z., Yu, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhou, B., Sun, J., Liu, Y., Yin, X., Hao, Z., Yu, J., Li, K.-C., … Elliott, P. (2021). Effect of Salt Substitution on Cardiovascular Events and Death. New England Journal of Medicine, 385(12), 1067–1077. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2105675

Ngandu, T., Lehtisalo, J., Solomon, A., Levälahti, E., Ahtiluoto, S., Antikainen, R., Bäckman, L., Hänninen, T., Jula, A., Laatikainen, T., Lindström, J., Mangialasche, F., Paajanen, T., Pajala, S., Peltonen, M., Rauramaa, R., Stigsdotter-Neely, A., Strandberg, T., Tuomilehto, J., … Kivipelto, M. (2015). A 2 year multidomain intervention of diet, exercise, cognitive training, and vascular risk monitoring versus control to prevent cognitive decline in at-risk elderly people (FINGER): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 385(9984), 2255–2263. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60461-5

Noetel, M., Sanders, T., Gallardo-Gómez, D., Taylor, P., del Pozo Cruz, B., van den Hoek, D., Smith, J. J., Mahoney, J., Spathis, J., Moresi, M., Pagano, R., Pagano, L., Vasconcellos, R., Arnott, H., Varley, B., Parker, P., Biddle, S., & Lonsdale, C. (2024). Effect of exercise for depression: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 384, e075847. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075847

Nordic Council of Ministers. (2023). Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023: Integrating Environmental Aspects. https://pub.norden.org/nord2023-003/

Paluch, A. E., Bajpai, S., Bassett, D. R., Carnethon, M. R., Ekelund, U., Evenson, K. R., Galuska, D. A., Jefferis, B. J., Kraus, W. E., Lee, I.-M., Matthews, C. E., Omura, J. D., Patel, A. V., Pieper, C. F., Rees-Punia, E., Dallmeier, D., Klenk, J., Whincup, P. H., Dooley, E. E., … Fulton, J. E. (2022). Daily steps and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts. The Lancet Public Health, 7(3), e219–e228. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00302-9

Patterson, R., McNamara, E., Tainio, M., de Sá, T. H., Smith, A. D., Sharp, S. J., Edwards, P., Woodcock, J., Brage, S., & Wijndaele, K. (2018). Sedentary behaviour and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and incident type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis. European Journal of Epidemiology, 33(9), 811–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0380-1

Peters, R., Xu, Y., Fitzgerald, O., Aung, H. L., Beckett, N., Bulpitt, C., Chalmers, J., Forette, F., Gong, J., Harris, K., Humburg, P., Matthews, F. E., Staessen, J. A., Thijs, L., Tzourio, C., Warwick, J., Woodward, M., & Anderson, C. S. (2022). Blood pressure lowering and prevention of dementia: an individual patient data meta-analysis. European Heart Journal, 43(48), 4980–4990. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac584

Pillay, J., Gaudet, L. A., Saba, S., Vandermeer, B., Ashiq, A. R., Wingert, A., & Hartling, L. (2024). Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences. Systematic Reviews, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02681-3

Pittas, A. G., Kawahara, T., Jorde, R., Dawson-Hughes, B., Vickery, E. M., Angellotti, E., Nelson, J., Trikalinos, T. A., & Balk, E. M. (2023). Vitamin D and Risk for Type 2 Diabetes in People With Prediabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data From 3 Randomized Clinical Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 176(3), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.7326/m22-3018

Polo-Ferrero, L., Navarro-López, V., Fuentes, M., Lacal, J., Cancelas-Felgueras, M. D., Santos-Blázquez, N., Méndez-Sánchez, R., & Sánchez-González, J. L. (2025). Effect of Resistance Training on Older Adults with Sarcopenic Obesity: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Blood Biomarkers, Functionality, and Body Composition. Nursing Reports, 15(3), 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15030089

Racey, M., Ali, M. U., Sherifali, D., Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., Lewis, R., Jovkovic, M., Bouchard, D. R., Giguère, A., Holroyd-Leduc, J., Tang, A., Gramlich, L., Keller, H., Prorok, J., Kim, P., Lorbergs, A., & Muscedere, J. (2021). Effectiveness of physical activity interventions in older adults with frailty or prefrailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ Open, 9(3), E728–E743. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20200222

Radaelli, R., Rech, A., Molinari, T., Markarian, A. M., Petropoulou, M., Granacher, U., Hortobágyi, T., & Lopez, P. (2024). Effects of Resistance Training Volume on Physical Function, Lean Body Mass and Lower-Body Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of 151 Randomised Trials. Sports Medicine, 55(1), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02123-z

Reith, C., Baigent, C., Blackwell, L., Emberson, J., Spata, E., Davies, K., Halls, H., Holland, L., Wilson, K., Armitage, J., Harper, C., Preiss, D., Roddick, A., Keech, A., Simes, J., Collins, R., Barnes, E., Fulcher, J., Herrington, W. G., … Yamaguchi, J. (2022). Effect of statin therapy on muscle symptoms: an individual participant data meta-analysis of large-scale, randomised, double-blind trials. The Lancet, 400(10355), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01545-8

Reith, C., Preiss, D., Blackwell, L., Emberson, J., Spata, E., Davies, K., Halls, H., Harper, C., Holland, L., Wilson, K., Roddick, A. J., Cannon, C. P., Clarke, R., Colhoun, H. M., Durrington, P. N., Goto, S., Hitman, G. A., Hovingh, G. K., Jukema, J. W., … Zannad, F. (2024). Effects of statin therapy on diagnoses of new-onset diabetes and worsening glycaemia in large-scale randomised blinded statin trials: an individual participant data meta-analysis. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 12(5), 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-8587(24)00040-8

RIEBE, D., FRANKLIN, B. A., THOMPSON, P. D., GARBER, C. E., WHITFIELD, G. P., MAGAL, M., & PESCATELLO, L. S. (2015). Updating ACSM’s Recommendations for Exercise Preparticipation Health Screening. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 47(11), 2473–2479. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000000664

Roerecke, M., Kaczorowski, J., Tobe, S. W., Gmel, G., Hasan, O. S. M., & Rehm, J. (2017). The effect of a reduction in alcohol consumption on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health, 2(2), e108–e120. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(17)30003-8

Ross, R., Blair, S. N., Arena, R., Church, T. S., Després, J.-P., Franklin, B. A., Haskell, W. L., Kaminsky, L. A., Levine, B. D., Lavie, C. J., Myers, J., Niebauer, J., Sallis, R., Sawada, S. S., Sui, X., & Wisløff, U. (2016). Importance of Assessing Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Clinical Practice: A Case for Fitness as a Clinical Vital Sign: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation, 134(24). https://doi.org/10.1161/cir.0000000000000461

Salvo, E. M., Ferko, N. C., Cash, S. B., Gonzalez, A., & Kahrilas, P. J. (2021). Umbrella review of 42 systematic reviews with meta‐analyses: the safety of proton pump inhibitors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 54(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16407

Sardeli, A. V., Komatsu, T. R., Mori, M. A., Gáspari, A. F., & Chacon-Mikahil, M. P. T. (2018). Resistance Training Prevents Muscle Loss Induced by Caloric Restriction in Obese Elderly Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 10(4), 423. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10040423

Schünemann, H., Brożek, J., Guyatt, G., & Oxman, A. (n.d.). GRADE Handbook: for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. https://gradepro.org/handbook/

Sherrington, C., Fairhall, N. J., Wallbank, G. K., Tiedemann, A., Michaleff, Z. A., Howard, K., Clemson, L., Hopewell, S., & Lamb, S. E. (2019). Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012424.pub2

Snyder, P. J., Bauer, D. C., Ellenberg, S. S., Cauley, J. A., Buhr, K. A., Bhasin, S., Miller, M. G., Khan, N. S., Li, X., & Nissen, S. E. (2024). Testosterone Treatment and Fractures in Men with Hypogonadism. New England Journal of Medicine, 390(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2308836

Song, Z., Pan, T., Tong, X., Yang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2023). The effects of nutritional supplementation on older sarcopenic individuals who engage in resistance training: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2023.1109789

SPRINT Research Group. (2015). A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control (SPRINT Research Group; N Engl J Med 2015;373(22):2103-2116). New England Journal of Medicine, 373(22), 2103–2116. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1511939

Stockwell, T., Zhao, J., Panwar, S., Roemer, A., Naimi, T., & Chikritzhs, T. (2016). Do “Moderate” Drinkers Have Reduced Mortality Risk? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Alcohol Consumption and All-Cause Mortality. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 77(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2016.77.185

US Preventive Services Task Force. (2022a). Vitamin, Mineral, and Multivitamin Supplementation to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA, 327(23), 2326. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.8970

US Preventive Services Task Force. (2022b). Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA, 327(16), 1577. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.4983

US Preventive Services Task Force. (2022c). Statin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA, 328(8), 746. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.13044

van Charante, E. P. M., Richard, E., Eurelings, L. S., van Dalen, J.-W., Ligthart, S. A., van Bussel, E. F., Hoevenaar-Blom, M. P., Vermeulen, M., & van Gool, W. A. (2016). Effectiveness of a 6-year multidomain vascular care intervention to prevent dementia (preDIVA): a cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 388(10046), 797–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30950-3

Vermeiren, S., Vella-Azzopardi, R., Beckwée, D., Habbig, A.-K., Scafoglieri, A., Jansen, B., Bautmans, I., Bautmans, I., Verté, D., Beyer, I., Petrovic, M., De Donder, L., Kardol, T., Rossi, G., Clarys, P., Scafoglieri, A., Cattrysse, E., de Hert, P., & Jansen, B. (2016). Frailty and the Prediction of Negative Health Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 17(12), 1163.e1-1163.e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.09.010

Wilding, J. P. H., Batterham, R. L., Davies, M., Van Gaal, L. F., Kandler, K., Konakli, K., Lingvay, I., McGowan, B. M., Oral, T. K., Rosenstock, J., Wadden, T. A., Wharton, S., Yokote, K., & Kushner, R. F. (2022). Weight regain and cardiometabolic effects after withdrawal of semaglutide: The <scp>STEP</scp> 1 trial extension. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 24(8), 1553–1564. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.14725

World Health Organization. (2020). 2020 WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5–17 years: summary of the evidence. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-01037-z

Yao, P., Bennett, D., Mafham, M., Lin, X., Chen, Z., Armitage, J., & Clarke, R. (2019). Vitamin D and Calcium for the Prevention of Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open, 2(12), e1917789. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17789

Yeo, B. S. Y., Song, H. J. J. M. D., Toh, E. M. S., Ng, L. S., Ho, C. S. H., Ho, R., Merchant, R. A., Tan, B. K. J., & Loh, W. S. (2023). Association of Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants With Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Neurology, 80(2), 134. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.4427

Yu, R.-C., Proctor, D., Soni, J., Pikett, L., Livingston, G., Lewis, G., Schilder, A., Bamiou, D., Mandavia, R., Omar, R., Pavlou, M., Lin, F., Goman, A. M., & Gonzalez, S. C. (2024). Adult-onset hearing loss and incident cognitive impairment and dementia – A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ageing Research Reviews, 98, 102346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2024.102346

Zhang, Y.-R., Xu, W., Zhang, W., Wang, H.-F., Ou, Y.-N., Qu, Y., Shen, X.-N., Chen, S.-D., Wu, K.-M., Zhao, Q.-H., Zhang, H.-N., Sun, L., Dong, Q., Tan, L., Feng, L., Zhang, C., Evangelou, E., Smith, A. D., & Yu, J.-T. (2022). Modifiable risk factors for incident dementia and cognitive impairment: An umbrella review of evidence. Journal of Affective Disorders, 314, 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.07.008

Zhao, Y., Guyatt, G., Gao, Y., Hao, Q., Abdullah, R., Basmaji, J., & Foroutan, F. (2022). Living alone and all-cause mortality in community-dwelling adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. eClinicalMedicine, 54, 101677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101677

Zheng, H. T., Phyo, A. Z. Z., McCubbin, C., Wu, Z., Bischoff-Ferrari, H. A., & Ryan, J. (2026). Interventions that prolong multidimensional healthspan in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 81(7). https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glag133

Zheng, S. L., & Roddick, A. J. (2019). Association of Aspirin Use for Primary Prevention With Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA, 321(3), 277. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.20578

Zou, H., Yin, P., Liu, L., Liu, W., Zhang, Z., Yang, Y., Li, W., Zong, Q., & Yu, X. (2019). Body-Weight Fluctuation Was Associated With Increased Risk for Cardiovascular Disease, All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00728