The Hidden Costs of Hypertrophy
A Contrastive Inquiry into Hypertrophy and the Biological Trade-Offs of Resistance Training
Why are so many elderly individuals advised to stop resistance training, despite decades of being told it’s essential for healthy aging? How is it that an activity widely promoted as protective against frailty, osteoporosis, and metabolic decline is so often deemed too risky for those who seemingly need it most? From cardiologists recommending caution after heart surgeries to orthopedic specialists warning about joint degeneration, the pattern is hard to ignore. If resistance training is truly a universal good, why do so many have to abandon it later in life? Have we overlooked something fundamental in how we interpret the role of muscle, mass, and metabolic load in aging? Perhaps the issue lies not in the aging body itself, but in the biological cost of the methods we’ve come to promote.
We live in an era where fitness culture glorifies mass, muscle, and maximal strength. The pressure is real. However, much like our diets, few ever pause to ask whether this is truly the right path. Let’s explore that, because there seems to be a subtle, crucial question that has been hiding in plain sight: What if building muscle is incompatible with living long?
While the dominant view holds that resistance training promotes longevity (and not without some justification), a compelling alternative emerges when we reframe the issue through the lenses of evolutionary biology, metabolic economics, and the observable realities of human aging. Of course, this contrast likely wouldn’t have emerged through confirmation bias or tradition-bound thinking. It required Contrastive Inquiry (the structured examination of opposites) to expose a few blind spots of prevailing assumptions. I’ll show you:
- Claim: Lifting weights is great for health
- Contrast: Lifting weights is bad for health
- Question: Is there any evidence to suggest that lifting weights is bad for health?
Indeed, most would not think to ask such a question. Too many of us simply take the answer as granted or obvious. But what if the very thing we do to preserve function and strength in the short term quietly undermines the biological processes required for long-term survival? If outcomes matter, then so does the accuracy of the answer. So, let us begin this inquiry with a simple question: Is there any evidence that this contrastive idea might be true or warrants further investigation?
The funny thing is that if you think of this objectively, you don’t even have to begin with the science. Just start with this simple observation: guys like Ronnie Coleman, Dorian Yates, and Lou Ferrigno (famous bodybuilders) have mostly abandoned heavy lifting. In fact, many bodybuilders have said that heavy lifting contributed to their countless health issues. Moreover, beyond professional bodybuilders, many older adults are advised to adjust their weightlifting routines, effectively reducing the weight and duration as they age. That’s an interesting commonality among populations, one that underpins an interesting “cause and effect” scenario.
Of course, these patterns raise an even deeper biological question—not just why older individuals lift less, but why visibly muscular elders are so rare in the first place. This isn’t merely anecdotal. As a scientist, I can’t help but wonder whether it reflects a deeper biological reality. On the surface, it appears that the energetic and metabolic demands of hypertrophy are inherently unsustainable over time. When we look around, nature seems to be telling us that the aging body favors cellular economy (efficiency, stability, and repair), not continuous growth. Perhaps the long-term biological trade-offs of hypertrophy have been misunderstood, underappreciated, or ignored altogether.
I believe that there is enough evidence to move forward. Hence, this article will lay out and defend the contrastive hypothesis—that resistance training may actually reduce longevity when compared to more biologically aligned models of physical maintenance. However, you should consider this as a demonstration of Contrastive Inquiry and an intellectual exercise to find greater truths. Our goal here is not to reject all strength training, but to scrutinize our assumptions and to gain a better understanding of the cost-benefit landscape of muscular development over a full lifespan.
Note: This is not advice. Learn what you can. Question everything. And above all, pursue accuracy.
Okay, so we have our Contrastive Inquiry established, and we have some interesting observations. Now, let’s explore whether there is any scientific support for the contrastive view. As it turns out, there is some literature to support the contrast. In fact, I was somewhat shocked to see that the volume of literature was so plentiful. For this exercise, I’ll just share a few of the more compelling points.
Theoretical Foundations
1. Disposable Soma Theory and Energy Trade-Offs
The Disposable Soma Theory argues that organisms prioritize reproductive success and short-term survival over indefinite cellular maintenance (Lorenzini, Stamato, & Sell, 2011). In this model, energy is a finite resource. Muscle growth (hypertrophy) requires continuous cellular repair, inflammation management, and hormonal activation (notably via mTOR), drawing down reserves that would otherwise be allocated toward long-term tissue stability, immune regulation, or DNA repair (Kirkwood, 2017). This could mean that lifting weights might not be in our best interests because the body may sacrifice longevity-promoting maintenance processes in order to support the energetically expensive task of muscle growth, thereby accelerating age-related decline at the cellular level.
2. Kleiber’s Law and the Cost of Size
Kleiber’s Law shows that as body size increases, metabolic rate does not scale linearly (Kleiber,1932). Larger organisms burn less energy per unit of mass but more overall (Speakman, 2005). In humans, pushing the body beyond its genetically and evolutionarily designed mass range (via added muscle) might actually strain mitochondrial output, vascular pressure, and oxygen delivery systems over decades.
3. Fast-Twitch Fibers and Oxidative Stress
Hypertrophy training (increasing the physical size of your muscles and their cells) favors Type II (fast-twitch) muscle fibers, which are less oxidative and more prone to sarcopenia and oxidative damage with age (Chen & Thompson, 2013; Moro et al., 2020). In other words, these fibers fatigue faster and regenerate less effectively. Prioritizing Type II over Type I (slow-twitch) fibers may lead to earlier breakdown of function, especially in the absence of sufficient aerobic conditioning.
4. Aging, mTOR, and Autophagy
The mTOR pathway (which is central to muscle growth) is inversely related to autophagy, which is the process of cellular cleanup and repair (Bodineau et al., 2022). In fact, mTORC1 directly suppresses autophagy (Dossou & Basu, 2019). Accordingly, overactivation of mTOR across a lifetime has been linked to cancer, insulin resistance, and reduced lifespan in several animal models (Cornu, Albert,& Hall, 2013; Papadopoli, Boulay, Kazak, & Pollak, 2019). Another way to look at this is to say that longevity-associated pathways (AMPK, FOXO, sirtuins) often operate in direct contrast to hypertrophy signaling.
Rate of Living and the Metabolic Cost of Muscle
While the previous four points offer strong biological arguments, there is yet another framework worth considering—albeit one that has sparked considerable debate. The Rate of Living Theory, originally proposed by Raymond Pearl (1928), posits that lifespan is inversely proportional to metabolic rate. In other words, the faster the metabolism, the shorter the lifespan. Closely related to the so-called “law of heartbeats” and metabolic scaling laws, the theory suggests that most organisms, regardless of size, have a relatively fixed number of metabolic cycles or energy units to spend before death (Calder, 1983).
Although the theory has fallen out of favor in modern comparative biology, largely because interspecies comparisons (e.g., birds vs. mammals) often fail to follow its predictions, it remains instructive, especially when viewed through a more nuanced, intraspecific lens. For example, when metabolism is examined within a species, particularly in controlled experiments, there is growing evidence that increasing or decreasing energy expenditure can measurably influence lifespan. These effects have been especially notable in ectotherms, but emerging mammalian studies are beginning to reflect similar trends (Speakman, 2005). This should raise some eyebrows.
Of course, this brings us to strength training. Resistance exercises promote hypertrophy, which increases basal metabolic rate by expanding metabolically active tissue. From a conventional standpoint, this is generally considered beneficial because a faster metabolism aids in blood glucose regulation, supports body composition, and elevates functional capacity. However, when viewed through the refined lens of this framework, we have to admit that an elevated resting metabolic rate also implies greater mitochondrial throughput, more oxidative phosphorylation, and potentially more oxidative stress, which is a biochemical burden that must be managed continuously.
So, let’s think about that. Muscle tissue requires constant nutrient delivery, mitochondrial activity, hormonal support, and immune regulation to remain viable. The more tissue one carries, especially beyond what is functionally necessary, the more energetic and systemic strain is imposed on the organism. This strain may not be immediately damaging, but chronic elevation of these demands over decades could redirect energy away from long-term repair mechanisms like autophagy, DNA maintenance, and immune surveillance.
It’s important to note that some emerging theories of mitochondrial behavior suggest that metabolism doesn’t always correlate linearly with oxidative damage. For instance, mitochondrial uncoupling may reduce ROS production even at high metabolic rates under specific conditions (Speakman, 2005). However, hypertrophy-focused training does not inherently promote these mitochondrial efficiencies. In other words, without such protective adaptations, the body may function like a high-revving engine—strong in the short term but wearing down more quickly.
Of course, this doesn’t invalidate the value of strength training outright, but it should probably raise a critical question: Could the long-term biological cost of hypertrophy, particularly when pursued as a primary goal, quietly undermine the very longevity we seek to protect? If so, then traditional resistance training for mass may be a double-edged sword: enhancing short-term capability while subtly diminishing the long-term biological reserve.
Observational Evidence
Let’s step away from the science for a second and just use our eyes. Does our liveable reality align with the science we have explored? Here’s what I see:
- Built elders are rare. The elderly tend to lose muscle mass not just due to inactivity but perhaps due to biological programming that favors leanness, reduced oxygen demand, and tissue efficiency.
- Longevity hotspots (e.g., Blue Zones) emphasize daily movement, lean frames, and slow-twitch endurance, not hypertrophy or heavy resistance training.
- Strength and power athletes, including many bodybuilders and NFL linemen, have been shown to experience elevated risk of earlier mortality in population studies, often due to cardiovascular or metabolic burden associated with size and intensity.
Of course, we could continue, but I think our contrastive case stands on fairly solid ground. In a court of law, we may have established some reasonable doubt. That said, I think we should also (re)acknowledge the substantial body of evidence supporting the value of resistance training. So, which is it? Which path should we choose? What are we supposed to believe or do?
Thankfully, this doesn’t require us to take sides. In fact, I would argue that we should resist falling into a false dilemma and simply forge a new path. The reality is that context matters. Most truths in biology are situational, not absolute. The goal, then, is not to dismiss one view in favor of the other, but to seek an objective balance that draws strength from both perspectives. To do that, we must proceed with the assumption that each side holds a measure of truth, and that wisdom lies in discerning when and how to apply it.
Finding a Balance Between Contrastive Truths
If resistance training is important, but it can also impose a biological cost (especially one that manifests later in life), then we probably need a new approach. In other words, the path to both functionality and longevity probably needs to be recalibrated (not abandoned). Remember that it’s not an “all or nothing” situation. That said, here’s an evidence-based example of how one might create or navigate that balance:
1. Prioritize Muscle Quality Over Size
Muscle should be built for utility—balance, control, endurance, and metabolic efficiency—not mass. High-quality muscle is dense, functional, and relatively low-maintenance. Think “tonic” strength over “phasic” hypertrophy.
Training Tactic:
- Low to moderate resistance
- Controlled eccentric movement
- High time-under-tension
- Emphasis on form, posture, and joint alignment
2. Balance Resistance with Aerobic Conditioning
Cardiovascular health isn’t optional. It’s protective. Mitochondrial efficiency, enhanced by aerobic work, plays a central role in aging well.
Training Tactic:
- Zone 2 aerobic work (60–70% of max HR) 3–5x/week
- Light tempo runs, incline walking, cycling, or rucking
- Moderate HIIT only occasionally to avoid excessive mitochondrial strain
3. Limit mTOR Stimulation
Cycle or periodize resistance training. Allow space for autophagic states via fasting, light days, or aerobic-only blocks.
Training Tactic:
- 2–3 resistance sessions per week (full-body or alternating splits)
- Protein within RDA ranges, not hyper-loading
- Occasional fasted cardio to induce AMPK signaling
4. Train Movement Patterns, Not Muscle Groups
Movements like squats, carries, lunges, rotations, and overhead motions preserve neuromuscular integrity, proprioception, and joint health.
Training Tactic:
- Use kettlebells, bands, suspension trainers, and calisthenics
- Focus on gait, symmetry, and body control
- Avoid overuse of machines that isolate and compress
5. Stay Light, Stay Strong
Strength-to-weight ratio is the ideal metric, not absolute strength. We must understand that excess mass (fat or muscle) is a metabolic burden.
Training Tactic:
- Maintain a body weight that allows effortless movement
- Emphasize mobility, posture, and range over mass or volume
- Adjust the diet to a true omnivore diet
How This Aligns (and Conflicts) with Mainstream Fitness Recommendations
| Recommendation Type | Mainstream View | Longevity-Focused Contrast |
|---|---|---|
| Resistance Training | 2–4x/week for strength and hypertrophy | 2–3x/week for neuromuscular health, movement control |
| Protein Intake | 1.6–2.2g/kg for muscle retention/growth | 0.8–1.2g/kg for maintenance and reduced mTOR load |
| Cardiovascular Focus | Often secondary | Primary pillar of mitochondrial and heart health |
| Body Composition | Emphasis on visible muscle definition | The primary pillar of mitochondrial and heart health |
| Goal Framing | Aesthetics and strength | Emphasis on metabolic flexibility and a light frame |
How to Train When the Data Is Conflicting
Again, it’s really not an “all or nothing” debate. The truth is often somewhere in the middle. Yes, weightlifting is usually good, but it can definitely be bad. Even from a logical standpoint, that seems self-evident. After all, one can easily go too heavy, too soon, and too often. Other detriments are bound to exist. So, how can we balance in the face of uncertainty? Well, here are some thoughts:
- Prioritize What Is Not in Doubt
- Cardiovascular fitness improves lifespan.
- Lean body mass (not hypertrophy) is protective.
- Sedentarism kills. Movement matters more than metrics.
- Adopt a Cyclical Strategy
- Rotate between strength, endurance, mobility, and rest.
- Periodize intensity, volume, and caloric load.
- Err on the Side of Sustainability
- Old people are not typically “jacked.” That’s a big clue. If your current regimen can’t be sustained into your 70s or 80s, it’s not biologically or physiologically sound. Act accordingly.
- Monitor Vital Metrics Over Vanity
- Unless you have adopted a “Life Fast – Die Pretty” mindset, then resting heart rate, HRV, VO2 max, grip strength, mobility, and joint integrity are better proxies than muscle circumference.
- Respect Your Recovery
- Recovery capacity declines with age. Long-term adaptation depends more on recovery efficiency than on training stimulus.
Final Thoughts
At the very least, the contrastive case is worth serious consideration. I have been studying health since 1999, but I will be honest and say that I have learned several things in this experiment. If outcomes matter, it’s okay to change our minds. Choose accuracy over “being right” or stop defaulting to the status quo because it’s familiar. Unfortunately, most people are going to experience a bit of Epistemic Rigidity over what was covered or suggested. But does that rigidity change what we’ve learned?
I used to be an athlete, so I understand the allure of gaining muscle. However, Contrastive Inquiry has exposed a few quiet signals that nature may be telling us to do something different. If the true goal is not merely to live long but to thrive into old age, then we must be willing to scrutinize even our most cherished fitness beliefs.
Look around: visibly muscular elders are remarkably rare. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, once the global icon of hypertrophy, was ultimately advised to abandon heavy lifting. Why? Because of the strain it placed on his cardiovascular system. It makes total sense, but Contrastive Inquiry exposed an interesting insight: if hypertrophy were the pinnacle of health, the medical recommendation likely wouldn’t be to walk away from it so often.
Indeed, hypertrophy may serve us well in youth, in competitive sport, or in survival-driven contexts, but when the endgame is longevity, the wiser path is likely to be one that is leaner, lighter, and more mitochondrial than muscular. If this contrastive hypothesis holds true, it would suggest a need for a fundamental reevaluation of how we define health, longevity, and optimal training across the lifespan. Maybe the true principles of health are to eat physiologically, train smart, move often, and above all, grow only what you can sustain.
Learn More: Physical Activity and Overall Wellness and Resilience
Dr. Robertson is a health researcher and educator, not a physician. The information provided here is not medical advice, a professional diagnosis, opinion, treatment, or service to you or any other individual. The information provided is for educational and anecdotal purposes only and is not a substitute for medical or professional care. You should not use the information in place of a visit, call, consultation, or the advice of your physician or other healthcare providers. Dr. Robertson is not liable or responsible for any advice, course of treatment, diagnosis, or additional information, services, or products you obtain or utilize. IF YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE A MEDICAL EMERGENCY, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CALL 911 OR YOUR PHYSICIAN.
Resources and Reading
Bodineau, C., Tomé, M., Murdoch, P. D. S., & Durán, R. V. (2022). Glutamine, MTOR and autophagy: a multiconnection relationship. Autophagy, 18(11), 2749-2750.
Calder, W. A. (1983). Ecological scaling: Mammals and birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 14, 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.14.110183.001241
Chen, C. N., & Thompson, L. V. (2013). Interplay between aging and unloading on oxidative stress in fast-twitch muscles. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 68(7), 793–802. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gls240
Cornu, M., Albert, V., & Hall, M. N. (2013). mTOR in aging, metabolism, and cancer. Current opinion in genetics & development, 23(1), 53-62.
Dossou, A. S., & Basu, A. (2019). The Emerging Roles of mTORC1 in Macromanaging Autophagy. Cancers, 11(10), 1422. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11101422
Kleiber, M. (1932). Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia, 6(11), 315–353. https://doi.org/10.3733/hilg.v06n11p315
Kirkwood, T. B. (2017). The disposable soma theory. The evolution of senescence in the tree of life, 552, 23-39.
Lorenzini, A., Stamato, T., & Sell, C. (2011). The disposable soma theory revisited: Time as a resource in the theories of aging. Cell Cycle, 10(22), 18302. https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.10.22.18302
Moro, T., Brightwell, C. R., Volpi, E., Rasmussen, B. B., & Fry, C. S. (2020). Resistance exercise training promotes fiber type-specific myonuclear adaptations in older adults. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 128(4), 795–804. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00723.2019
Papadopoli, D., Boulay, K., Kazak, L., & Pollak, M. (2019). mTOR as a central regulator of lifespan and aging. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6611156/
Pearl, R. (1928). The Rate of Living. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Speakman J. R. (2005). Body size, energy metabolism and lifespan. The Journal of experimental biology, 208(Pt 9), 1717–1730. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01556
