I could be talking about anything when I say that reworking the same old same old and having it lead to something helpful is a wonderful thing. But the talk today is when the same old same old is a very healthful thing called weight training.

Which is why I issued a challenge to you last week: to press your back against a wall, lower yourself until your thighs are parallel to the floor, and then lift up a leg. In technical terms, to perform a single-leg, static wall squat — and then see how long it takes until the burn in the quadriceps still-parallel thigh forces you to stand on two legs.

The challenge was issued not only as an alternative to a same old same old weight training exercise, the squat, but also to illustrate two important points Dr. Gabrielle Lyon makes on a SHE MD podcast. That weight training is really nothing more “than simply moving the body with force” and that doing so as a way to engender optimal health “matters more than whether you lift heavy or light.”

But the doing-so part . . . aye, there’s the rub. For whatever reason, whether it’s heavy or light, about four out of five American adults don’t lift weights.

The nearly 50,000 members of the American College of Sports Medicine would love to remedy that, which in large part is why they’ve recently changed their “resistance training prescription.” Actually, it’s an update on their “position stand for muscle function, hypertrophy, and physical performance in healthy adults,” and it’s the first one they’ve made in 17 years.

More than 30,000 papers about resistance training have been published since that time, which you might think would muddle the issue. According to human performance, longevity science researcher, and PhD Mark Kovacs, however, the opposite has occurred.

He tells Yasemin Nicola Sakay of Medical News Today, ”Over the last decade, the science has become much clearer.” It’s lead us to realize “resistance training is not just about building muscle. It is fundamental to healthspan, longevity, metabolic function, injury prevention, and long-term durability.”

Hence, the ACSM has a new stance on what most of us call weight training. It’s somewhat technical and totals 22 pages, so I’m guessing you’ve never read it — that you’re never going to — and that’s why I’m going to write about it.

While the title of Sakay’s MNT article is indeed true, “New resistance training guidelines debunk 3 myths for stronger muscles,” the real keeper from this overview of 137 systematic reviews involving over 30,000 healthy adults is this single summation. “Few RT prescription variables (RTx) affected primary adaptations.”

See, I wasn’t lying when I said the paper’s somewhat technical, and I’m not lying now when I say this summation is super good for you. For it means, as Saul Goodman the unforgettable lawyer in “Breaking Bad” and “Better Call Saul” used to say, “It’s all good, man.”

That it’s the act of lifting weights, not the manner in which you do it, that’s most important for you to attain all the advantages weight training offers. That as long as you lift regularly, with a fair degree of effort, and in decent form, you’ll improve your body — as well as help your overall health.

Help that leads to “reduced mortality and risk for and management of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, reduced depression, and improved sleep quality.” Help that goes “beyond the hallmark improvements in skeletal muscle mass and function.”

But even if it’s those hallmark improvements you’re after, the manner in which you lift doesn’t seem to matter, either. For the ACSM review found muscle growth was never adversely affected by altering the number of sessions per week, the amount of weight used, or the order of the exercises performed.

One difference it did uncover is “load has repeatedly been shown to impact strength more than other RT adaptations.” So if you want to have more muscle strength as opposed to bigger size and better function, it’s best to lift heavier weights — although the benefit to lifting heavier weight has been found to plateau if you do more than three sets of a single exercise.

The study also found if you’re seeking it all — muscle size, strength, and function — “the exact number of sets required cannot be ascertained.” What can be, though, is performing two sets of an exercise in a given session is “clearly superior” to doing one.

Consequently, that’s the number of sets healthy adults are advised to do, with the acknowledgment even doing more “may provide additional benefits.” Though the authors speculate “these benefits diminish with each subsequent set.”

It’s apropos to end with that, even if it doesn’t explain why Jimmy McGill felt the need to change his name to Saul Goodman. For it does convey the same message that McGill’s name change subliminally sends.

It’s all good, man.