Flywheel training beat traditional weights for cognitive flexibility
In short
In a randomized controlled trial, 46 women with a mean age of 66.8 years trained twice weekly for 36 weeks (72 sessions) with either flywheel resistance training or traditional resistance training. Both groups significantly improved inhibitory control (Stroop test) and working memory (Digit Span). Cognitive flexibility (Trail Making Test) showed a significantly better course in the flywheel group (group × time p = 0.001). Serum IGF-1 did not change in either group, suggesting the cognitive gains were not driven by systemic hormones.
That lifting helps the aging brain is well supported. What this 36-week randomized controlled trial adds is the question of which kind. Women averaging 66.8 years trained twice a week for 72 total sessions — and which cognitive function improved depended on the equipment.
What is flywheel resistance training?
Flywheel (inertial) training replaces weight stacks with the inertia of a spinning flywheel. The strap winds back with whatever energy you put in, which overloads the lowering (eccentric) phase and forces you to regulate speed and force on every rep — a larger motor-control and attentional demand than conventional weights. That cognitive-motor load is exactly why the researchers chose it as the comparison.
What improved?
Inhibitory control (Stroop test) and working memory (Digit Span) improved significantly in both groups: forward Digit Span rose from 6.2 to 7.9 with flywheel training and from 6.7 to 8.7 with traditional weights. Where the groups split was cognitive flexibility (Trail Making Test): the flywheel group showed a significantly better course than the traditional group (group × time p = 0.001), which the authors attribute to the flywheel's higher cognitive-motor demands.
It was not the hormones
Serum IGF-1 was essentially unchanged in both groups across 36 weeks (flywheel 112.9 to 115.3 ng/mL, traditional 104.7 to 103.0 ng/mL). If the cognitive gains rode on a systemic hormonal rise, this is where it should have appeared. That leaves local central-nervous-system adaptations, or neurotrophic pathways this study did not measure, as the more likely route — a theme continued in resistance training rewires the brain.
Is this feasible in your late 60s?
Forty-two of 46 participants completed all 72 sessions, with no severe adverse events. That a nine-month strength program held together at a mean age of 66.8 is itself part of the result. It is also why Muscle Index applies an age-correction coefficient from 40 up — strength responds to training at any starting age, and in this data the brain responded with it. See training hard after 50 and lifting and cognitive health for what comes next.
Participants were healthy older women; the result is not guaranteed to transfer to men or other age groups. And the traditional-weights group improved inhibitory control and working memory just as much — lacking a flywheel machine does not mean lacking a cognitive benefit.
Frequently asked questions
What is flywheel resistance training?
A training mode that uses the inertia of a spinning flywheel instead of weight stacks. It overloads the eccentric (lowering) phase and requires regulating speed and force on every rep, demanding more motor control and attention than conventional weights.
Do traditional weights provide no cognitive benefit?
They do. In this trial, inhibitory control (Stroop) and working memory (Digit Span) improved significantly with both training modes. The only outcome that split the groups was cognitive flexibility, where flywheel training came out ahead.
Why was flywheel training better for cognitive flexibility?
The authors point to its higher cognitive-motor demands. Because serum IGF-1 did not change in either group, nervous-system adaptations are a more likely route than a systemic hormonal one.
Was 36 weeks of lifting safe for women in their late 60s?
Forty-two of 46 participants completed all 72 sessions and no severe adverse events were reported — a nine-month program finished with high adherence at a mean age of 66.8.
Source: PubMed