Racket Sports After 60: New Review Finds Promise, Not a Winner

On October 15, 2026, European Review of Aging and Physical Activity published an open-access review comparing tennis, badminton and table tennis for physical and cognitive function in adults aged 60 or older.

Who was studied, and how was the review carried out?

The researchers brought together existing trials rather than recruiting participants for a new exercise program. They searched six databases through December 2025 and updated that search in August 2026. Eligible studies included randomized and quasi-experimental trials involving older adults.

The review included 13 trials reported in 14 publications. Its primary analysis covered 10 randomized trials involving 469 participants. Those figures describe the evidence pooled for analysis rather than one group that followed the same training program.

The researchers examined five areas of function:

• Muscular strength.
• Balance.
• Cognitive function.
• Aerobic capacity.
• Flexibility.

They used network meta-analysis for strength, balance and cognition. Aerobic capacity and flexibility were examined through pairwise analysis. This means the findings came from different forms of evidence synthesis rather than one uniform comparison across every outcome.

The search dates describe when evidence was collected, not how long participants trained. The findings do not establish a sport-specific program duration or training schedule. There is no supported prescription here for how many weeks someone should play before expecting a particular result.

That distinction keeps the review in its proper role: an assessment of existing research rather than a ready-made training plan.

What physical and cognitive changes were reported?

Table tennis had the most developed evidence base in the review. It was the only sport with comparisons informed by more than one trial. The authors reported the following findings:

• Against non-exercise control: Estimates favored table tennis in four of five outcome domains. Standardized mean differences ranged from 0.82 to 1.42.
• Strength against active exercise comparators: The estimate favored table tennis with a standardized mean difference of 0.89. The 95% confidence interval ran from 0.28 to 1.50.
• Cognition against active exercise comparators: The estimate favored table tennis with a standardized mean difference of 1.16. The 95% confidence interval ran from 0.69 to 1.64.

Both estimates against active exercise comparators came from combined evidence. They should be read as findings from the review's analysis rather than results from one direct contest between exercise programs.

A standardized mean difference puts study outcomes on a shared statistical scale. It is not a percentage increase in strength or a measure of how much extra weight someone could lift. The numbers describe differences in study outcomes rather than a personal forecast.

The comparison group also matters. A result against non-exercise control answers a different question from a result against another form of exercise. Keeping those comparisons separate is more useful than grouping every favorable estimate under a broad claim that a sport “works.”

For men concerned about remaining physically capable, the strength findings are the most directly relevant part of this review. Balance and cognition add other dimensions to the picture. The paper examined these as separate outcomes rather than treating them as one overall measure of healthy aging.

Readers interested in that broader physical goal can also find a separate discussion of strength in relation to everyday capability.

Why is there no reliable ranking of the sports?

The main limitation is the uneven evidence base. Badminton evidence was sparse. Tennis evidence came from one trial involving 16 men without a non-exercise control group. Every tennis estimate against non-exercise control was therefore indirect.

No included trial directly compared tennis, badminton and table tennis. The authors concluded that the available evidence could not establish whether one sport was superior. That is an unresolved question rather than proof that the sports produce equal effects.

The certainty ratings also temper the favorable results. The authors rated table tennis comparisons with non-exercise control for strength, balance and cognition as low certainty. Most other estimates were rated very low certainty.

There was one between-sport estimate whose confidence interval excluded no difference. It favored table tennis over badminton for cognitive function with a standardized mean difference of 0.83. Its 95% confidence interval ran from 0.24 to 1.43.

That comparison was indirect and rated very low certainty. It also did not hold up across all sensitivity analyses. It is therefore not a sound basis for declaring table tennis the better choice for brain function.

The population sets another boundary. These were adults aged 60 or older. The findings do not establish identical effects for men in midlife or predict how any individual will respond.

The scope of the outcomes matters too. A favorable strength estimate does not establish that a sport alone provides a complete plan for muscle retention. The review also does not establish that racket sports alone are sufficient for strength, aerobic fitness, flexibility and cognition.

The authors called for adequately powered randomized trials that compare the sports directly. Such research would address the central gap: whether apparent differences reflect the sports themselves or the small and imbalanced body of studies available so far.

How should men put the findings in context?

The practical takeaway is to treat racket sports as one possible component of an active lifestyle. The review supports interest in activities that combine movement with balance or cognitive demands. For someone who enjoys sport more than another exercise format, that is a useful option to understand rather than a reason to chase a ranking.

Preference and suitability are the sound basis for choosing among these activities. A reader who enjoys tennis does not need to interpret the larger table-tennis evidence base as an instruction to switch. The amount of research available for a sport is a different issue from which activity fits a person's circumstances.

For men focused on retaining strength, the useful question is how a sport fits within that broader goal. It is not whether a favorable headline makes every other form of training unnecessary. That framing keeps attention on continued capability rather than on finding a single activity that promises every benefit.

A related way to organize that thinking is to look at physical reserve as a broader goal. A sport can be part of the discussion without becoming the whole plan.

Where health conditions or physical limitations affect suitability, personal decisions belong with qualified care rather than a study ranking. This review provides research context for those decisions, not an individual exercise prescription.

What this changes: The review adds preliminary support for racket sports as part of an active lifestyle, but it does not change current best practices or justify replacing strength training.

How Everfitguys helps

Racket-sport rankings can distract from the question of keeping useful strength with age, so Everfitguys grounds its coverage in research rather than slogans. Men concerned about declining muscle and physical capacity get plain-language reporting focused on understanding the science behind continued participation in work, sport and family life.

Read the research

Sources

1. Comparative effects of racket sports on physical and ...