There was an article in the NYT some time ago about the same topic. In this article, they calculated the number of genes that turned off as one ages without exercise or with exercise. Exercise offered a better outcome. The force of the exercise i.e. HITT or strength application was not discussed as being and advantage or disadvantage.
My problem is that I drank the strength training Kool Aid in 1974 and it dominates my worldview. Of course, anything that supports ones world view is noteworthy.
FWIW, I like to strength train and I am doing it now as part of next years racing preparation. I belong to a gym and I have been using the Hammer Strength Olympic lifting station for the back lifts and deadlifts. We have 5 stations at the gym. I have not seen anyone older than me lifting there (generally 50 is the cliff). In fact, it is mostly young men and women and some juniors.
What I find interesting is the amount of weight the young women can lift and some of the skinny junior men. There was a kid yesterday back squatting 115 albeit with poor form and just a couple of wobbly reps. And he had no muscle mass to speak of. The point is he was doing it and he will get a lot stronger.
I have a lot more musculature than many of the kids and they can kill me on these lifts. That is my motivation. Keep up with the juniors.
Why not? There is a lesson there. Even if I always get beat my question is what if I were doing nothing. At least I am getting beat.
Raging hormones is hard to beat and is probably one of the many reasons strength decays with age.
And there are a few men who are just monsters doing the back lift. They are large men genetically built like football players. There are a couple of skinny men who back lift a lot. These guys are the other group that I follow. As a cyclist, I want to be very strong but not too heavy.
Taking all of the above into consideration, I have decided that putting on weight due to heavy lifting is fabulous. I should be so lucky and maybe improve my epigenetics. YMMV.