Nordic walking for aerobic capacity, strength, balance, and quality of life in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Design

• Included studies: 15 peer-reviewed reports; participant ages ~60–92 years
• Comparators: sedentary, walking without poles, and resistance training (different subgroup contrasts—not one single control)

Versus sedentary (headline pooled effect sizes, authors’ g)

• Aerobic capacity: ~0.92
• Upper-limb strength: ~0.66
• Lipid profile: ~0.67
• Functional balance: ~0.62
• Lower-limb strength: ~0.43
• Body composition: ~0.30
• Cardiovascular outcomes (composite): ~0.23
• Dynamic balance: ~0.30
• Static balance: authors report a negative pooled signal (~−0.72)—interpret with caution (measurement heterogeneity)

Versus walking without poles

• Nordic walking better for dynamic balance (~0.30), lower-body flexibility (~0.47), quality of life (~0.53)
• Walking alone showed higher aerobic-capacity effect in that contrast (~−0.21 favoring walking)—useful reminder that pole work shifts stress toward upper body and balance, not always peak VO₂ in short trials

Versus resistance training

Nordic walking showed larger standardized gains in several domains (e.g., aerobic capacity ~0.75, QoL ~0.93, dynamic balance, lower-body strength, upper-body flexibility)—different prescription class; not a recommendation to replace progressive overload programs.

Evidence hygiene

Older, often small RCTs; standardized mean differences are not % change in clinical labs. Pair with ross-2019-nordic (cardiorespiratory focus) and walking-for-glucose-control when postprandial glucose is the primary endpoint.