That is exactly the issue with incorrectly gauging 1rm- if it’s too low, than the supposed ‘resistance’ training with 70-80% of 1rm isn’t actually that.
Is it fair to compare A to B, when the A in question isn’t exactly an A, but rather something closer to B?
It is fairly irrelevant when you're dealing with a group of people who are all using the same means of determining their 1RM.
The point isn't the precise effect on a given percentage of 1RM, but the relative difference between groups.