For many clients, the question is not whether exercise is good for them. They know it is. They have heard the recommendations, read the headlines and maybe even bought the shoes, joined the gym or bookmarked a workout plan. The harder question is this: How much do I really need to do?

The question is understandable. People are busy. They are caring for children or aging parents, working long hours, managing stress, trying to sleep more and, in many cases, attempting to maintain some version of a social life. At the same time, more people are thinking not only about lifespan, but also healthspan—the number of years they can live with strength, independence, energy and the ability to do what matters to them.

For health and exercise professionals, this creates both an opportunity and a responsibility. Clients need encouragement, but they also need clarity. They need to know that exercise does not have to be extreme to be meaningful. They need realistic starting points, evidence-based targets and a way to fit movement into real life.

A long-term study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine offers useful insight into one piece of that puzzle: resistance training. The study followed 147,374 adults from three large cohorts for up to 30 years and examined the relationship between long-term resistance training, aerobic physical activity and risk of death from all causes and specific causes. The key finding was practical and memorable: About 90 to 120 minutes of resistance training per week appeared to be a sweet spot for lowering overall mortality risk, with no additional mortality benefit observed above 120 minutes per week.

To be clear, the study did not suggest that there is a single, optimal amount of resistance training that every client should be doing. Rather, the findings offer a helpful framework for conversations with clients who want to improve their long-term health and are wondering what amount of strength work may be enough to matter.

The Study

The researchers used data from three well-known prospective cohort studies: the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Nurses’ Health Study and the Nurses’ Health Study II. Together, the analysis included 31,540 men and 115,834 women. Participants were followed for up to three decades, with physical activity information updated every two years or every two to four years, depending on the cohort.

It’s worth noting that many exercise studies assess activity once at baseline and then compare that snapshot with later outcomes. In real life, people’s exercise habits change. A person may lift regularly in one decade and stop in another, or start resistance training later in adulthood. This study took a different approach. By using cumulative averages from repeated questionnaires, the researchers attempted to better capture long-term patterns rather than a single moment in time.

Participants reported how much time they spent each week doing resistance training, described in the study as weight machine or resistance training. They also reported aerobic leisure-time activities, including walking, jogging, running, cycling, lap swimming, tennis or squash, other aerobics, heavy outdoor work and stair climbing. Aerobic exercise was converted into MET-hours per week, a measure that reflects the energy cost of activity.

The analysis accounted for many factors that could influence mortality risk, including age, smoking, alcohol intake, diet quality, family history of cardiovascular disease and cancer, total calories, and, in women, postmenopausal hormone use. The researchers also adjusted for aerobic activity when examining the independent relationship between resistance training and mortality.

During the follow-up period, 35,798 participants died. The researchers then looked at whether different amounts of long-term resistance training were associated with different mortality risks.

The Significance of 90 to 120 Minutes of Training

Compared with people who did no resistance training, those who reported 90 to 119 minutes per week had a 13% lower risk of death from any cause after adjustment for aerobic activity and other factors. That same amount of resistance training was associated with a 19% lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease and a 27% lower risk of death from neurological disease.

In plain language, the people who consistently did roughly an hour and a half to two hours of resistance training per week had lower mortality risk than those who did none. And importantly, the study did not show additional mortality risk reduction above 120 minutes per week.

For clients, that can be an encouraging message. The goal doesn’t have to be “as much as possible.” For general health and longevity, this research suggests there may be a reasonable range that is both beneficial and realistic. Two or three strength sessions per week (which, by the way, is consistent with current industry guidelines for resistance training) may be enough to help many adults move toward that 90- to 120-minute range, depending on session length and how much actual training time is included.

This is particularly relevant for clients who feel overwhelmed by fitness messaging. Some people assume that unless they can commit to five or six days per week, they have failed before they have started. This study offers you another way to frame the conversation: The minimum effective dose may be smaller than clients think, and consistency over time may matter more than chasing high-volume programs.

Aerobic Activity is Still Really Important

The study does not suggest that resistance training should replace aerobic activity. In fact, aerobic exercise showed a strong relationship with lower mortality risk.

Compared with participants who had low aerobic activity and no resistance training, those who met higher aerobic activity levels had substantially lower mortality risk. Aerobic activity alone at levels above 7.5 MET-hours per week was associated with a 26 to 43% lower risk of death, depending on the amount performed. The current federal physical activity guidelines define 7.5 to 15 MET-hours per week as roughly equivalent to 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous activity. (Note: MET-hours are a unit used to measure the total amount of physical activity you do by multiplying an activity's intensity score by the hours spent doing it.)

The lowest mortality risk was seen among people who combined higher aerobic activity with resistance training. For example, participants doing 30 to less than 45 MET-hours per week of aerobic activity plus 60 to 119 minutes per week of resistance training had a 45% lower mortality risk compared with those who had inadequate aerobic activity and no resistance training. Participants with 45 or more MET-hours per week of aerobic activity had 53 to 58% lower mortality risk regardless of resistance training level.

Of course, this doesn’t mean resistance training is unnecessary for highly active people. Mortality is only one outcome. Strength training also supports muscular strength, power, function, bone health, metabolic health and the ability to maintain independence with age. These are core healthspan outcomes, even when they are not fully captured by mortality statistics.

Importantly, the takeaway is not “cardio or strength.” It is both. Aerobic activity appears to be especially powerful for mortality risk reduction, while resistance training adds important benefits and, in this study, further reduced mortality risk across most aerobic activity levels.

As the researchers note, adding resistance training “further reduced mortality risk” across many levels of aerobic activity. As you know, clients often do best when they build a balanced movement routine rather than relying on one mode of training alone.

How Resistance Training Impacts Cancer, Cardiovascular and Neurological Disease Risk

The cause-specific findings were more nuanced. For cardiovascular disease mortality, 90 to 119 minutes per week of resistance training was associated with a 19% lower risk. That finding is relevant because many clients still think of heart health primarily in aerobic terms. Walking, cycling and swimming are great forms of cardiorespiratory activity, but resistance training should also be part of a heart-healthy lifestyle, especially when appropriately programmed and paired with aerobic exercise.

For neurological disease mortality, the same 90- to 119-minute range was associated with a 27% lower risk. The researchers cautioned that this finding should be interpreted carefully. Neurodegenerative diseases can have long prodromal periods, which means changes may begin years before diagnosis. It is possible that declining health could reduce activity before a disease is formally recognized. Still, the association remained similar after longer lag analyses, and the finding adds to growing interest in how physical activity may support brain health and function with age.

Cancer mortality followed a different pattern. Lower risk was seen only at lower levels of resistance training: 1 to 29 minutes per week and 30 to 59 minutes per week. (Note:  Researchers grouped exercise participation into increasing periods of 29 minutes; i.e., 1 to 29 minutes, 30 to 59 minutes, 60 to 89 minutes, and so on). Higher amounts were not associated with additional reduction in cancer mortality. The researchers noted that the explanation for this pattern is unclear and that more research is needed.

This is an important reminder for client conversations. Exercise is powerful, but it is not a single-purpose prescription. Different outcomes may have different dose-response relationships. The amount of resistance training associated with lower overall mortality may not be the same amount associated with lower risk for every specific cause of death. As the researchers noted, “different amounts of resistance training may be needed” to optimize benefits across outcomes.

Limitations of the Study

As promising as these findings are, they should not be oversold. This was an observational study, which means it can identify associations but cannot prove cause and effect. The participants were not randomly assigned to lift weights for different amounts of time. People who did more resistance training also tended to be younger, have lower body weight, have healthier lifestyles and do more aerobic exercise than people who did no resistance training.

The researchers adjusted for many of these factors, but adjustment cannot remove every possible source of bias. There may be other differences between people who strength train and people who do not that influence mortality risk.

The study also relied on self-reported physical activity. Participants reported weekly time spent in resistance training, but the study did not capture details such as intensity, sets, repetitions, load, rest periods, proximity to fatigue or the structure of each workout. It also did not fully capture all forms of muscle-strengthening activity, such as calisthenics and Pilates. A person doing two focused 45-minute strength sessions with progressive overload is not necessarily training the same way as someone spending the same amount of time casually moving through machines.

The study population also limits how broadly the findings can be applied. Participants were mostly white, middle-aged to older health professionals. Women made up the majority of the sample, although more than 31,000 men were included and sex-stratified analyses were generally consistent. Still, it is a good idea to be cautious about assuming the exact same numbers apply to every population, age group, health status or training background.

Even with these limitations, the study’s findings nonetheless support resistance training as part of a long-term health strategy.

How to Apply the Findings in Your Work With Clients

For health and exercise professionals, one of the most useful aspects of this study is that it makes it easier to talk about resistance training in a way that feels relevant to your clients.

Many clients are trying to figure out how to realistically fit resistance training into their lives. This study gives you a credible answer: Aiming for roughly 90 to 120 minutes of resistance training per week appears to be a meaningful target for long-term health, especially when paired with regular aerobic activity.

That could look like two 45- to 60-minute sessions per week, three 30- to 40-minute sessions or shorter sessions distributed throughout the week. For a beginner, the first goal may be even smaller: 20 to 30 minutes once or twice weekly, then gradually progressing as confidence and capacity improve. The evidence suggests that some resistance training is better than none, and for many clients, starting small is what makes consistency possible.

Programming should still be individualized. A client’s age, training history, goals, recovery capacity, orthopedic limitations, medical conditions and preferences all matter. For general health, a balanced routine should train the major movement patterns and muscle groups over the course of the week, using loads and exercises the client can perform with good technique. Progression can come from adding repetitions, sets, resistance, range of motion, control or complexity over time.

The study also reinforces the importance of not allowing strength work to crowd out aerobic activity. If a client has only limited time, help them build a plan that includes both. A weekly routine might include two strength sessions and several bouts of brisk walking, cycling or other moderate-intensity activity. For clients who already walk or run regularly, the message may be to add two realistic strength sessions. For clients who love lifting but avoid aerobic work, the message may be to build cardiovascular activity gradually and in a way they enjoy.

Just as important, stay within scope of practice. When clients have diagnosed medical conditions, symptoms, new pain, neurological changes, cardiovascular concerns or questions about disease risk, refer them to the appropriate licensed healthcare professional. Your role is to design safe, effective exercise programs; communicate general health information; support behavior change; and coordinate with medical providers when appropriate.

Perhaps the biggest practical lesson is that “more” is not always the most useful message. Many clients need permission to pursue enough. Enough to build strength, improve function and support healthspan. And, importantly, enough to be sustainable.

For the client who feels too busy to train, 90 to 120 minutes per week may feel far more approachable than a complete lifestyle overhaul. For the client who thinks strength training is only for athletes or bodybuilders, this study helps reframe lifting as a long-term health behavior. And for the client who is chasing longevity but neglecting the basics, it is a reminder that the foundation remains surprisingly simple: move often, build strength, do aerobic activity and keep showing up.