I don't think it was that disappointing. All it says it that the difference between elderly high-intensity and medium-intensity training is very little, and not statistically significant. Same with both combined compared to an elderly control group that is (I think) also physically active.
If you were to compare these groups to physically inactive groups I'm sure you would have seen quite a big difference.
I'm firmly in the camp that exercise is extremely beneficial. Likely one of the most beneficial things one can do (with not smoking and eating a diet high in fruits/veggies low in processed carbs).
We (society/physicians/etc) need tools to get people to exercise. This is more a study of how effective one of those tools might be (ie supervised exercise vs recommendations). If supervised exercise is no better than recommendations, I find that pretty disappointing. Because as we all know, recommendations don't work very well, or at least most people don't adhere to them.
>We (society/physicians/etc) need tools to get people to exercise.
One simple thing is making sure our infrastructure makes it safe to do so. Living in the south, I can't tell you how many side walks just end. How many roads have no crosswalks. Don't even get me started on bike infrastructure!
The car is king here, and I sincerely hope that ends some day.
If you were to compare these groups to physically inactive groups I'm sure you would have seen quite a big difference.