He does his work, I do mine, and sometimes it’s pretty similar.

Sometimes he experiments and writes about it. Sometimes I write about such experiments, do my own as a result, and then write about how that goes.

His work is certainly more important, but the goal of both is the same. And the “he” — Michael P. Snyder, PhD, professor of genetics at Stanford University School of Medicine — shares that goal with Corrie Pelc for a Medical News Today article.

“To have people live long healthy lives.”

Pelc’s article focuses on a study where Snyder serves as senior author. It examines how aging affects the body’s molecules and microorganisms.

Published earlier this month in the journal Nature Aging, the study of blood and biological samples from 108 Californians between the ages of 25 and 75 taken at different times in their lives found that molecules and microorganisms aged the most at two specific times, around the ages of 44 and 60, more than 80 percent of the time. The reason why, however, is not clear, so Snyder says more studies are needed.

Studies beget studies. It’s the scientific way.

That way, though, does you no immediate good, so I’ll offer my very unscientific take on the matter.

That these two periods of greater-than-normal aging are unfortunately inevitable. But that you can mitigate both to some degree by doing something Snyder suggests in the MNT article.

By making sure you exercise — not just during those two times in your life your molecules and microorganisms age the most — but “through life.”

To urge for exercise and the continuation of it through life, however, simply because it helps counteract aging of your body you cannot see is, for lack of a better phrase (and a better pun), a hard sell. So what comes next is an easier one.

To encourage you to exercise and keep doing so because it will improve how you perform and feel right now — as well as years from now.

While any exercise is good exercise and doing a few different types is better than doing just one, I hold to the belief that the one type that absolutely has to be included in your personal mix is weightlifting. (Although other forms of progressive resistance are nearly as good.)

If you don’t feel the same, it could very well be because of a misunderstanding. That the be-all and the end-all to weightlifting is adding muscle.

Granted, that’s often one of the results, but it doesn’t need to be for your efforts to produce a myriad of other positive ones: improved strength, flexibility, mobility, and balance. With these improvements, others tend to follow that promote better sleep, better overall mood, and an increase your self-esteem.

The latter occurs not — with the emphasis on “not” — because your body undergoes a radical visual transformation (though it could), but because lifting weights often leads to you becoming more attuned to the movements and functions of your body. For that reason, you learn to be more appreciative of it, whether it’s the shape you’d really like it to be or not.

Now to dispel the falsehood successful weightlifting has to mean lifting really heavy weights and developing bigger muscles, think about playing golf and the clubs you use.

No single one is inherently superior to another.

You select one over another because it best suits a specific shot and your strengths and weaknesses. For instance, where your big, brawny buddy may use his three iron for a tee shot on a par-3 hole, you may use your one wood because you lack his power.

Similarly, the weight you choose when lifting is merely a matter of what amount is needed to elicit the proper response. According to a number of studies, that proper response occurs when you take the targeted muscles close to the point of failure.

“Close” in this context is usually defined as getting within two or three reps of not being able to do another.

But how you get to this point is purely a personal matter.

If you want your weightlifting to produce some additional muscle, select an amount of weight for the majority of your sets that brings the targeted muscles close to the point of failure after six to eight reps. But if your goal is to engender good health or combat muscle loss as you age, you can lighten the weight dramatically, to the point where you do 15, 18, 20 or even 25 reps before approaching failure.

Which leads us back to the second two parts of my job as explained in the intro. Experimenting based on studies I read and then writing about how that goes. Which is exactly what I did as a result of those aforementioned studies that suggest you don’t need to go to muscle failure when lifting for the lifting to be a benefit.

It also leads to a bit of a tease.

Those results are part of next week’s article.