Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Aerobic and strength training reduce fatigue in multiple sclerosis patientsAerobic or strength training eases MS fatigue, trial finds

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider aerobic or strength training as safe options to reduce fatigue severity and impact in patients with multiple sclerosis.

This randomized effectiveness trial enrolled 62 persons with multiple sclerosis who reported fatigue as a main symptom. Participants were assigned to an 8-week intervention of strength training (ST), aerobic training (AT), strength plus aerobic (Combo), or global rehabilitation (Rehab). The primary outcomes were subjective fatigue impact and severity measured by the Fatigue Severity Score and Modified Fatigue Impact Scale.

Aerobic training led to the largest reduction in Fatigue Severity Score (-18.8%, -0.81 pts; CI: -1.53, -0.09; P = 0.03). Strength training also reduced fatigue severity (-16.8%, -0.84 pts; CI: -1.56, -0.12; P = 0.02). On the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, significant reductions were seen with AT (-35.3%, -12.44 pts; P < 0.01), Combo (-33.8%, -13.36 pts; P < 0.01), and Rehab (-26.2%, -8.18 pts; P = 0.04).

Secondary outcomes included improvements in walking speed with Rehab (+0.16 m·s-1 and +0.22 m·s-1; both P < 0.01) and 6-minute walk distance with ST (+55 m; P = 0.02) and Combo (+62 m; P = 0.01). No adverse events were reported.

A key limitation is that between-group comparisons did not detect significant differences among the interventions, so superiority of one treatment over another cannot be claimed. All interventions proved beneficial for reducing fatigue impact, but only AT and ST reduced both fatigue severity and impact. These findings support exercise as a safe, effective option for managing fatigue in MS, though the optimal modality remains unclear.

If you have multiple sclerosis and fatigue is your biggest complaint, a new study suggests that exercise can help. In a randomized trial of 62 people with MS, those who did eight weeks of aerobic training, strength training, or a combination all reported less fatigue. The aerobic group saw the biggest drop in fatigue severity, about 19%, while strength training cut it by nearly 17%. Both also reduced the overall impact of fatigue on daily life by more than a third.

The study compared four groups: aerobic training, strength training, a combo of both, and a general rehabilitation program. All four groups improved on the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, a measure of how fatigue affects physical, cognitive, and social functioning. The aerobic and combo groups showed the largest reductions, around 35% and 34% respectively. The rehab group also improved by 26%.

Beyond fatigue, the strength training and combo groups walked farther in six minutes, gaining about 55 to 62 meters. The rehab group walked faster. No adverse events were reported, which is reassuring.

But here's the catch: when the researchers directly compared the groups, they didn't find a clear winner. All interventions helped, but no single type of exercise proved superior. So the takeaway isn't which exercise is best, but that exercise itself matters. If you have MS and fatigue, talk to your doctor about starting a program that fits your abilities.

What this means for you:
Aerobic and strength training both reduce MS fatigue, but no single exercise type stands out as best.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
PURPOSE: To test and compare the effects of the four most common exercise-based interventions employed to manage subjective fatigue and functional impairments due to multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Persons with multiple sclerosis complaining of fatigue as a main symptom were enrolled. After a comprehensive baseline assessment evaluating subjective fatigue impact and severity (primary endpoints), quality of life, cardiorespiratory performance, and mobility and motor-functional outcomes, participants were randomly assigned to an 8-wk intervention consisting of strength training (ST) or aerobic training (AT) or strength + aerobic (Combo) or global rehabilitation (Rehab). RESULTS: Sixty-two mildly-moderately disabled PwMS (median Expanded Disability Status Scale 3.5 ± 1.6; age 46.6 ± 11.8 yr; 75% women) completed the study. No adverse events were reported. Between-group comparisons did not detect significant differences among groups. Considering training-induced effects separately for each group, AT showed the largest reduction in the Fatigue Severity Score (-18.8%; -0.81 points [pts], confidence interval [CI]: -1.53, -0.09, P = 0.03), followed by ST (-16.8%; -0.84 pts, CI: -1.56, -0.12, P = 0.02). Fatigue impact assessed by Modified Fatigue Impact Scale was significantly reduced after AT (-35.3%; -12.44 pts, CI: -19.00, -5.87, P < 0.01), followed by Combo (-33.8%; -13.36 pts; CI: -20.38, -6.34, P < 0.01) and Rehab (-26.2%; -8.18 pts; CI: -16.10, -0.26, P = 0.04). Regarding motor-functional outcomes, beyond the expected training-specific effects (e.g., muscle strength gains after ST, increased cardiorespiratory fitness after AT), comfortable and fastest walking speed increased significantly after Rehab (+0.16 m·s -1 , CI: 0.08, 0.23, P < 0.01; +0.22 m·s -1 , CI: 0.11, 0.329, P < 0.01, respectively) exceeding established thresholds for clinically important changes. Also, the increased distance covered in 6 min was found to exceed clinically important thresholds after ST (+55 m, CI: 9.15, 101.02, P = 0.02) and Combo (+62 m, CI: 14.04, 109.13, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although the superiority of one treatment over the others has yet to be claimed, and all interventions proved beneficial to reduce fatigue impact, only AT and ST reduced both fatigue severity and impact, with the former intervention associated with the largest within-group effect sizes. When testing the effects of interventions on mobility outcomes, AT led to the largest improvements, followed by Combo.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.