We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Photo above is Edith Traina at age 97. A youthful 97 for sure due to many years of fitness pursuits. I think those are 50 lb. plates so she is lifting 145 lbs. Not bad for 97.
You can join that organization AARP at age 50, so I guess that's "mature." Another measure of seriously "mature" is if you remember Jack LaLanne - the Godfather of American Fitness.
Should "mature" people (50-80+) do powerlifts? Of course, and should push the weight as possible. The Maggie's General Fitness protocol calls for heavy weights only twice weekly but that's partly because it's designed to fit in all of the other aspects of fitness.
However, a group of people, whether mature or youth, male, female or confused, care mostly about building or maintaining strength and physical sturdiness. Getting buff and sexy. Like people who only want to run, they are not after balanced fitness. To each his or her own although I will debate you on the value of the single road (and Mark Rippetoe and Glenn Reynolds might debate me back).
For mature adults who want to focus only on strength, 3 days/week of heavy weights is right with the emphasis on powerlifts. In fact, I can see some value in myself occasionally taking two months to do heavy weights 3/wk to see if I can get past my current plateau. Especially in winter when hiking on ice is not fun or even sensible. Hmmm. I have to mention, though, that I had a pal who climbed Mt. Washington in January. Kudos to him, for sure. Tough SOB, Vietnam vet. Once was enough for him to check that off his bucket list.
I'm going to assume from this and other posts that you still have not gotten a copy of The Barbell Prescription. Which is too bad, as it's really worth a read.
This article, "Strength & Barbells: The Foundation of Fitness", is also worth a read, as it presents the case for why building strength using the big four lifts (squat, deadlift, bench press, overhead press) is the most effective and efficient way you can increase your fitness level (at any age), using Jim Cawley's "Ten Aspects of Fitness" as a reference. Those are the points you'll have to debate if you want to say people prioritizing strength are not "balanced" and are on a "single road".
So what? I didn't mention anything about body-builders, The Barbell Prescription is most definitely not aimed at body-builders and the article I linked to never refers to body-building.
Body-building is a fringe activity pursued by those more interested in aesthetics than general strength, often, especially at the higher competitive levels, to the determent of their health. It has nothing to do with to the discussion at hand.
As he refers to GLENN REYNOLDS (Instapundit - law professor at University of Tennessee) instead of MATT REYNOLDS - and totally ignore Jonathan Sullivan - that's probably a safe bet.
Holy$h1# - did he just conflate body builders with power/olympic lifters? That blows his "I know the arguments" claim all to hell.
My only nit to pick with your post is that everybody prioritizes something. Perhaps you should have pointed out the metabolic conditioning section of Barbell RX - HIIT has been demonstrated to be an excellent "substitute" for LSD training especially in terms of preserving muscle mass and strength. Although a good argument can be made for getting in the miles if one's goal is middle to long distance running competition (although even these guys benefit from the strength needed for a finishing kick).