Brandt · Frontiers in public health 2024 · prospective non-randomized controlled pilot study · n=30

Resistance exercise snacks improve muscle mass in female university employees: a prospective, controlled, intervention pilot-study.

Cited 18 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Prospective non-randomized controlled intervention study with self-selected group allocation.

PubMed 38379679 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1347825 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Sedentary female university employees performing resistance training fewer than two days per week were enrolled in a 12-week prospective, controlled pilot study. Participants self-selected into an intervention group (n=15, mean age 42.1 years) that performed 10 minutes of daily resistance exercise snacks on workdays, or a control group (n=15, mean age 49.9 years) that maintained habitual physical activity. The primary endpoint was change in muscle mass. Secondary and exploratory outcomes included maximum isometric strength (trunk extension, trunk flexion, upper body push and pull), balance, cardiovascular fitness, perceived health, and general life satisfaction.

What was found

A total of 26 participants completed the trial (12 intervention, 14 control). Muscle mass increased significantly in the intervention group (+0.42 [SD=0.54] kg) compared to the control group (-0.16 [SD=0.51] kg; p=0.01, partial eta-squared=0.24). Between-group differences in maximum isometric strength were not statistically significant, though non-significant trends favored the intervention group for trunk extension, trunk flexion, and upper body push. Exploratory endpoints (balance, cardiovascular fitness, perceived health, life satisfaction) showed no significant between-group differences.

Why it matters

Short, 10-minute bouts of resistance exercise during the workday may serve as a low-barrier intervention to support muscle mass maintenance in sedentary female office workers.

Limits

The study used non-randomized self-selection, resulting in a baseline age difference between groups (42.1 vs. 49.9 years). The sample size was small (n=30 enrolled, n=26 completed), and the abstract does not report the measurement modalities used to assess muscle mass or fitness.

Cited by