A trainer’s hip-strength advice favors varied movement and controlled, low-impact resistance. Here’s how to read it in a recovery context.
In an opinion article last updated October 12, 2026, Tom’s Guide trainer Sam Hopes recommended controlled, low-impact resistance for stronger hips. Her advice concerned a 60-year-old client who had asked about building hip strength. The central idea was to move the hips in several directions and add resistance rather than rely on stretching alone.
The update puts a familiar recovery question in view: is the goal simply to feel less stiff or to work on strength as well? Hopes’ answer emphasizes resistance and deliberate movement. She recommends low-impact exercise performed slowly and with control.
For readers returning after an orthopedic setback, the useful question is how that idea fits the plan already developed with a healthcare professional. The article offers a training perspective to discuss, rather than a reason to rewrite an existing recovery plan.
Hopes frames her advice against a stretching-centered approach to hip mobility. She argues that stretching alone is not a strength-building plan. At the same time, she allows that stretching may help short-term flexibility.
That distinction matters when reading the recommendation. She is not saying that every stretch has no value. She is saying that a routine focused only on stretching does not match the strength goal her client brought to her.
The article also discusses weighted mobility and dynamic stretching. Those terms are part of Hopes’ proposed approach, not evidence that an official standard has changed. The comparison is between training ideas in her commentary rather than between an older clinical guideline and a new one.
An accurate reading therefore keeps the goals separate. Short-term flexibility is the benefit Hopes allows for stretching. Hip strength is the goal behind her recommendation to include resistance. Neither point requires treating stretching and strength work as opposing choices.
Hopes’ first main recommendation is to move the hips in multiple directions and planes. The article lists flexion and extension alongside internal and external rotation. It also names abduction and adduction.
The takeaway is variety of movement rather than one named exercise. Hopes is asking the reader to think beyond a single direction of hip motion. Her discussion places those movement categories alongside resistance work, instead of presenting mobility as stretching only.
Her second main recommendation is to add resistance while keeping the exercise low-impact. She pairs that idea with slow, controlled repetitions. The emphasis is on how the movement is performed as well as the fact that resistance is present.
Low-impact and resistance are not presented as competing options in her article. They are features she wants to combine. That is the practical training concept behind the headline: work toward hip strength through controlled resistance without making impact the center of the routine.
Hopes also gives suggested repetition counts, sets and a number of exercises. Those details explain how she would organize the work. They are best read as her programming choices for the client, not as instructions for every person of the same age.
The person described in Hopes’ article was 60 and wanted stronger hips. That makes the story relevant to a question many older readers may share. It does not turn the client’s age into a rule for everyone over 60.
The article does not describe a studied population recovering from orthopedic surgery or injury. It is a trainer’s account of advice to a particular client. Readers in rehabilitation should not assume that the client’s situation matches their own simply because the age sounds familiar.
For an active adult returning after a setback, the relevant point is the goal of rebuilding capacity. The personal plan belongs in qualified care. Hopes’ general training idea can be part of a discussion without becoming the plan itself.
Age is therefore context for this story, not a clearance to use the routine. The same distinction applies whether a reader is interested in everyday movement or a return to recreation. An appealing training concept and an appropriate individual program are separate questions.
The most useful response to this article is to identify the question it raises. Is a routine mainly intended to help with flexibility or is it intended to develop strength? Hopes’ recommendation makes that difference more visible without settling a reader’s personal exercise choices.
The Tom’s Guide article advises personalized medical advice before beginning a new regimen. An exercise guide for older adults also supports individualized advice when an injury or health condition is involved. For someone recovering after surgery or recurring pain, that is the source-supported route for personal decisions.
A discussion with the healthcare team could focus on the ideas in the article rather than copying its routine:
These are discussion prompts, not a screening checklist or a test of readiness. They help separate the training goal from the choices needed to put it into practice. Exercise selection and loading remain personal decisions for the reader and qualified healthcare professionals.
This is also the broader issue behind thinking about training load during recovery. A general idea needs to be understood in relation to an individual plan. The title of a workout article cannot make that connection on its own.
Related reading on rebuilding strength after inactivity and understanding day-to-day physical responses keeps the wider recovery context in view. The aim is to understand how a training suggestion fits that context, not to treat a short article as the whole picture.
The main evidence gap is straightforward: Hopes’ article reports no trial results or measured improvement in hip function. It gives no study sample size or statistics showing that the proposed routine prevents injury. Its programming suggestions therefore should not be mistaken for demonstrated outcomes.
Hopes also reports a conversation with an unnamed “bone loading expert” who favored producing high force through low-impact movement. The article does not identify that expert or cite the underlying research. That reported opinion is not enough to establish a bone-health benefit from the routine.
Another gap is the program itself. The article names movement categories but does not lay out a complete, reproducible set of exercises. It also does not validate a progression for returning after injury. There is no basis here for filling in those missing details with an assumed recovery routine.
The open questions are about application and results. Which exercise choices would suit different recovery situations? What loading and progression would be appropriate? Would the approach lead to better hip function or fewer injuries in those groups?
Those questions remain unanswered by this article. What remains useful is Hopes’ clearly attributed training perspective: varied hip movement and controlled resistance deserve attention alongside the goal of strength. It is a starting point for understanding an approach, not proof of a recovery outcome.
The quieter lesson is about fit. A useful idea does not have to become a new routine immediately. Sometimes the value of a training article is simply that it makes the next conversation about recovery more precise.
Deciding where online hip-training advice fits after a physical setback needs context, which is ReboundBody’s editorial focus. For adults in midlife and later life, the site brings clarity to competing claims about exercise and treatment while keeping recovery expectations realistic. Its role is to inform understanding, not to prescribe a personal routine.
Follow ReboundBody for practical articles on injury recovery, rehabilitation, mobility and rebuilding strength. New posts turn research into clear ideas for the road back to activity after injury or surgery.
Read practical guidance on injury recovery, rehabilitation, mobility and rebuilding strength as you work your way back to activity.
Explore Resources