Heavy resistance training at retirement age induces lasting beneficial effects

Are you under the impression that the HRT group was training by only performing 1 RM lifts? That wasn't the case:

> At a commercial gym, HRT performed a supervised full body programme three times per week, with 6–8 weeks of initial habituation. The periodisation programme was machine based and each exercise included 3 sets of 6–12 repetitions at ~70%–85% of 1 RM, which was estimated using the prediction equation according to methods by Brzycki

Meanwhile the moderate group did something very similar, just with more repetitions and less weight:

> 3 sets of 10–18 repetitions at ~50%–60% of 1 RM

I don't see how one is more "realistic" than the other.

People who have trained for some time know their actual 1rm which in itself has factors that influence it on the day such as sleep, food intake, hormone levels etc.

Even then trained individuals can fail their 1rm at maximum.

Untrained individuals belief of their 1rm vary wildly. Those who overestimate their 1rm at retirement age have much larger recovery times (and from my observation, more risk of long term damage) than the average 20 year old.

> At a commercial gym, HRT performed a supervised full body programme three times per week, with 6–8 weeks of initial habituation. The periodisation programme was machine based and each exercise included 3 sets of 6–12 repetitions at ~70%–85% of 1 RM, which was estimated using the prediction equation according to methods by Brzycki.

This seems pretty reasonable to me regardless of age, the heavy program didn't include testing 1RM. It was 3x6-12 of each exercise at around 75% of 1RM. Sounds like an ordinary weight training program. With 6-8 weeks of habituation most older people could probably do this. All machines so pretty safe.

The medium program didn't even use weights - it was all bands and bodyweight and unusually high reps at 55% of 1RM. I don't know any serious lifter who would recommend that program, I haven't even thought about how you would measure a 1RM for exercises that don't use weights? So not sure what this is but I'm unsurprised that the heavy program worked better.

The medium program included circuit training and kinda sounds more like a cardio routine, wonder if that's the comparison they were going for

Basically, pick the weight that you can do super slow, for about 60-90 seconds max. You should be at total failure at the end, but since the weight will be MUCH lower than 1rm, it's very safe.

I think this is a LOT more effective than doing exercises for sustained periods of time.

Someone once told me any exercise you can do for several minutes is just dancing. Not strength training. And from trying many methods over the years, I agree.

I've had friends that can squat impressive numbers try super slow body weight squats. They can do more squats with 225+ lbs at their usual pace than they can body weight super slow. Considering how much safer super slow body weight squats are (basically no risk) compared to 225+, I don't know why more people don't do it.

1RM is almost purely CNS adaptation rather than strength (~3-5 reps), muscle hypertrophy (~5-10 reps) or cardio/endurance/conditioning (~10+ reps)

I know older former athletes who still train their 1RMs but I agree it’s well beyond what most health conscious people are training for

I wonder if there was a public health campaign around this whether it would do more harm than good. I can see a lot of potentially fatal cardiac issues arising