Digestery
Lifestyle practices › Strength Training and Lifespan › Studies

Randomized trial · measured other health measures

4-week trial in 51 people with muscle loss: app and in-person training both helped

Zhang and colleagues · Journal of medical Internet research · 2025

Original title: A 4-Week Mobile App-Based Telerehabilitation Program vs Conventional In-Person Rehabilitation in Older Adults With Sarcopenia: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

Points to benefit

In both groups grip strength rose (TRG 18.10 to 19.92 kg; IRG 18.59 to 19.59 kg) and balance score (BBS) rose by about 3 points. Between-group differences were not significant. There was no no-training group.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Randomized trial
Who or what was studied
51 people · older adults with sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss)
What was tested
4 weeks of resistance training for 6 muscle groups, guided by a phone app vs by a therapist in person
What it measured
Other health or performance measures
How long
4 weeks
Trial registration
2300071648
Who has a stake
No stake declared
No competing interests declared.
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research, 2025
Source
PubMed record 39854716. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Randomized: people were put into groups by chance, so the groups start out alike.
  • •Medium size: 51 people.
  • –Short: 4 weeks. Longer-term effects are unknown.
  • •Measured other health measures, not death from any cause and healthy aging itself.
  • ✓No competing interests declared.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

Each dot is one on-topic paper on this question. Steps near the top answer the question more directly.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: death and healthy aging

    0

    Not done yet. This is the step that would answer the question.

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    9

    7 benefit, 2 no difference

    ↑ This study is the ringed dot

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  4. Population studies

    9

    8 benefit, 1 mixed

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does strength training help you live longer?”

Linked to longer life; not proven.

Confidence: low. Based on 26 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Of the other 8 papers on the same step: 6 benefit, 2 no difference. This one found benefit. It agrees with most of them.

  • Counted on the ladder, but not quoted in the page’s main findings.

Other papers on the same step

See all 26 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The reviewer corrected 1 field after reading the abstract. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.