USAWA

July, 4th 1976. The 200th anniversary of us telling the Brits to kiss our collective asses.

It seems no one is gonna bite on this one Dan. Maybe their incisors are worn down from all that heavy teeth lifting. Anyway, this is an interesting topic to me. I am probably one of the younger lifters at 38 (aside from the juniors division) in the USAWA. But, from everything I see and hear…I am past my prime athletically speaking. How do you argue the observation that you simply don’t see elite level athletes competing much past their mid 30’s in any major sport. Is it that they become injured, or burn out, or just stop for some unknown reason? I am encouraged to know that science has shown that I have some years left to make improvements. I would like to hear you discuss that more. Cuz, honestly some days I feel like that Toby Keith song, “I ain’t as good as I once was”

Ok – I’ll “bite” here. I’ve been watching this topic to see if anyone has strong feelings one way or the other – but it doesn’t appear that way.

Plus I’ve been having a team of detectives investigate Dan and his unapparent ability to age chronologically. No proof of his actual birthdate was obtained – and since he has listed his age as 50 for several years now in entry forms I have to wonder if he even knows???

And Dan – the answer to why the USAWA gives a mandatory age adjustment is pretty simple – because we have always done it that way. Its one of those traditional unique things that the USAWA does. Until you – no one who was a master lifter really ever complained about this “handicap”. Actually it’s been the opposite – some older lifters think the age adjustment should be even higher!!!

Okay, Dan, I will bite. There is a LOT I could say about the age adjustment issue because I have experience in comparing the Sinclair and Malone-Meltzer age coefficients for Master’s Olympic lifting and choosing between the two.

Specifically, about 20 years ago I was appointed by then U.S. Masters Olympic lifting chairman Walter Imahara to serve on a committee to decide which age coefficients to use. David Pursley, an MD and active Master’s lifter and official at the time, and Gary Glass, a PhD, also served on the committee. Donald Buchanan of Canada was the chairperson of the committee and Dresdin Archibald, a Canadian Master’s superheavy lifter, also served on the committee. I recall that Roger Sadecki attended a meeting when our discussions began in 1993, but I don’t remember if he was formally on the committee.

The formation of the committee was motivated by the fact that the use of the Sinclair coefficients was causing “Lifter X” to be judged superior to “Lifter Y”, when many Masters lifters “knew” that couldn’t be right!

Roy Sinclair is a retired math professor in Canada who has a PhD in math from M.I.T. He is a very bright guy, but he was never a weightlifter. I interacted with both Roy and David Meltzer, who is also a bright guy in addition to being a talented Master’s lifter who has done well in both national and world meets for many years. (You should have heard him sing the national anthem for every country that was represented at the 1993 World Masters in Newnan, GA. It absolutely blew my mind that someone could learn all of those national anthems and how to sing them, perhaps on short notice.)

At one point Roy told me that he thought I was the only member of the committee who could understand what he was saying. LOL (I have a PhD in statistics and have written several books, won awards, etc.) Meltzer’s PhD is in physics, IIRC, and he and I had some stimulating (for him) statistics discussions that resulted in him thinking more deeply about certain aspects of what he was doing.

I also heard from Jack Lano, a CPA and Master’s lifter with a very long track record of competitions who is now in his 90s if he is still alive. Lano felt very strongly that lifters should not be compared across different ages and he sent me articles to support his position.

To make a long story short, our committee recommended that the Malone-Meltzer age coefficients be used and that is what is still used today. See http://www.mastersweightlifting.org/. It has also been adopted by the CrossFit people, at least by some of them (see http://www.crossfit2232.com/2013/08/beer-city-beatdown/)

The 1% age adjustment that the USAWA uses is just intended to be a simple approximation to reality. There is obviously not enough data to determine what the adjustment should be for someone who is, say, 88 years old, or even 68 or 78.

Old age does indeed kill a person who has enough years on his or her odometer of life, but virtually all of us die before we reach the point where our bodies give out because it is “killed” by a combination of air pollution, radiation, harmful food additives, etc. Otherwise we would live about 120 years. A prominent and highly accomplished statistician died in November — at the age of 104 years and 9.5 months! So some of us live a very long time before we die from something other than old age.

Obviously athletic performance declines with age, however, so if we are going to give out Best Lifter awards, we need some way of comparing lifters across both bodyweights and ages. I don’t have a problem with that.

Dan, you stated “And as I stated before, chronological age is not a variable scientists have been able to tie to loss in performance (my emphasis), to injury, or to burnout.” You’ve got to be kidding! Willie Mays looked absolutely foolish trying to catch routine fly balls when he was 42 and his batting average that year, his last year, was .211 in 209 ABs. Have you ever watched oldtimers games in basketball or major league baseball? What a mess! Art Montini is still competing at the age of 86 or 87, but he lifted much more weight when he was in his early 60s. I know because I was there. And so on.

Tom

I appreciate Dans and Toms responses to this thought provoking issue. Both of their posts clearly stated their viewpoints with intellectual thought.

A few years ago I did an informal study of my own to evaluate the fairness of the 1% age allowance for 40 and above. This study has NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE so please don’t attack it for that issue. It merely reflects the actual lifting performances that have been done by many lifters and many lifts over the 25 year history of the USAWA in four of the most common performed lifts. And that it enough to satisfy my viewpoints on this issue that the 1% age allowance is probably inadequate to fully compensate for strength loss, and only helps in leveling the playing field in meets across the averages of all athletes. Until some better “proof” is shown to me on this as age applies to the USAWA lifts or updated better studies show something different with a larger data set, I will continue to believe our age correction has validity. Al

Is The IAWA Age Adjustment Fair??

Calendar September 25, 2009 | Authored by Al Myers | Edit

by Al Myers

A topic that will be discussed at this year’s World Meeting at the World Championship will be the age adjustment. This was brought up last year and an IAWA committee was formed to investigate it and present a recommendation to the meeting this year. The membership will be called on to vote on this, whether to make a change or keep things as they are.

This subject is very interesting to me as I hear arguments from both sides. Young lifters think the older lifters get too much adjustment, while the older lifters don’t feel like they get enough. Formulas are always hard to develop and make completely fair as there are so many variables to consider.

I did a study of my own on three lifts. I want to emphasize THIS IS NOT THE IAWA STUDY. It is merely a study which I did to satisfy my own curiosity on this subject. I think it is important that I have this information in hand in order to make an informative vote. I just collected some numbers and did a few calculations. I am not doing this to try to “sway votes” one way or the other. I just wanted to see what “the numbers” really show in regard to decreased lifting performance with age.

Study of the Age Adjustment

Objective: To collect information from age group USAWA records, make USAWA and IAWA(UK) age corrections for comparison, and determine what correction for age group records are needed in order for the age group records to be the same as the overall records.

Design: I collected information from age group USAWA records in three lifts – Bench Press Feet in Air, Hack Lift, and the Zercher Lift. I picked these three lifts for these reasons: they evaluate all areas of overall strength -pressing, pulling and squatting, and the data base for these records was full in regard to records in all weight classes and age divisions. I calculated an average of all weight class records within an age group so bodyweight adjustments would not be a factor in this study. I utilized this formula to determine what correction is needed in order to adjust to the average of the Overall Record.

Correction Needed = (Overall Record – Age group Record) / Age Group Record

Assumptions: I used the USAWA and IAWA(UK) age correction for the top age of each division despite the record may have been set a younger age within the division. The record list does not provide that data.

Results:
All Records listed in pounds.

Bench Press Feet in Air

Age Group
Overall Record
USAWA Correction
IAWA(UK) Correction
Correction Needed

Overall 353 353 353 0%
40-44 280 294 305 26.1%
45-49 268 295 306 31.7%
50-54 246 283 293 43.5%
55-59 228 274 274 54.8%
60-64 209 261 270 68.9%
65-69 194 252 268 82.0%
70-74 167 225 247 111.4%
75-79 141 197 223 150.4%
80-84 116 168 195 204.3%

Hack Lift

Age Group
Overall Record
USAWA Correction
IAWA(UK) Correction
Correction Needed

Overall 538 538 538 0%
40-44 465 488 507 15.7%
45-49 401 441 457 34.2%
50-54 382 439 455 40.8%
55-59 330 396 409 63.0%
60-64 320 400 413 68.1%
65-69 321 417 443 67.6%
70-74 304 410 450 77.0%
75-79 242 339 382 122.3%
80-84 168 244 282 220.2%

Zercher Lift

Age Group
Overall Record
USAWA Correction
IAWA(UK) Correction
Correction Needed

Overall 452 452 452 0%
40-44 372 391 405 21.5%
45-49 352 387 401 28.4%
50-54 339 390 403 33.3%
55-59 331 397 410 36.6%
60-64 296 370 382 52.7%
65-69 280 364 386 61.4%
70-74 246 332 364 83.7%
75-79 204 286 322 121.6%
80-84 180 261 302 151.1%

Summary:

Age Group
USAWA Correction
IAWA(UK) Correction
Data Range
Data Average

Overall 0% 0% 0% 0%
40-44 5% 9% 15.7% – 26.1% 21.1%
45-49 10% 14% 28.4% – 34.2%
31.4%
50-54 15% 19% 33.3% – 43.5%
39.2%
55-59 20% 24% 36.6% – 63.0%
51.5%
60-64 25% 29% 52.7% – 68.9%
63.2%
65-69 30% 38% 61.4% – 82.0%
70.3%
70-74
35% 48% 77.0% – 111.4%
90.7%
75-79 40% 58% 121.6% – 150.4%
131.4%
80-84 45% 68% 151.1% – 220.2%
191.8%

As you can clearly see, the USAWA and the IAWA(UK) age corrections do not keep up with the performance decrease with increased age for these three lifts that where selected from the USAWA Record List. No calculations were done to determine the statistical significance of this study.

While I do agree that the 1% per year seems arbitrary, I would lso say that we do need some form of correction for age if we are going to compare all lifters. While there may be no scientific proof that aging does not cause a decrease in strength, there sure does seem to be a huge correlation. Now, you can say it is due to stupid training, but I would argue that. I would say it is a cumulation of life events, thus the longer I live, the more of these events I experience, resulting in potential loss of lifting ability. I have had one injury that has affected my lifting that could be attributed to “stupid training”, a badly herniated disc from pulling improperly, I tore both my labrums wrestling, as well as having much of the cartiledge removed from my knees due to wrestling injuries. Both of these at times hinder me today. I wasnt training foolishly, I was in combat. My dad fell down the steps one day and broke his knee cap and hip. He hasn’t walked the same since that, let alone lifted. Smeone could get hurt in a car wreck, develop carpal tunnel at their job, or just have the body waer out from use. there is no secret that our bodies are machines that deteriorate over time, and ultimately, they will fail and die. That is one undeniable truth about everyones life. Some just do it slower than others.

Dan, you stated “Your performance will continue to improve in one or several of the performance aspects tied to any sport until you’re in your 60’s”.

No, the Russians discovered over 50 years ago that workout frequency must decline with age, and this starts when an athlete is in his or her early 30s. Indeed, when I was in my early 30s I sometimes had to postpone a workout for a day because my body had not sufficiently recovered from previous workouts.

For many years I trained five times a week: Monday-Thursday and Saturday. I would do wide-grip military presses as part of my Monday workout and would do presses inside my power rack on Wednesdays, so that there was only one day between those pressing exercises. By the time I hit my mid-40s, I could press on only every 3rd day, then it became every 4th day as I grew older.

I have been pressing a bit too often during the past several weeks, with the consequence that I developed sore deltoids and had to back off a bit.

I will add that when I was 47 I went on a “pressing binge” and pressed three times a day for a few months. I would do a set of presses off the rack for 3 reps, rest about five minutes and then do another set of three reps with that weight. Then about four hours later I would repeat that, and repeat it again about another four hours later.

I had been unhappy with my pressing strength, which is why I decided to try something that was totally different from anything I had done before, as I never trained with very many sets or reps. I eventually reached 6 sets of 3 reps with 206.5 with that routine and I was pleased with that result for my age.

I was at my peak for pressing between the ages of 30 and 32, so what would I have been able to do if I had used this training regimen then? Well, certainly I would have been able to use much more weight, probably about 250.

So my body adapted to pressing three times in one day, but it certainly would not have been able to adapt to pressing, say, three straight days. The Bulgarian lifters, for example, trained as much as three times a day but steroids helped them do that.

In conclusion, strength is going to decline with age, partly due to the fact that weekly training volume must be adjusted downward as we age. So age does affect performance.

Tom

I think I can answer that last part. We do have all those categories. Most of our meets just dont draw enough competitors to Score each individually. If we did, it would be alot of first places without having to beat anyone (ala first place in the second sub-masters category of the Police fire military division in a PL meet). So we have to have a way to compare the lifts accross the divisions.

I don’t know guys. I feel like I’m at a disadvantage here. Since Dan is stronger than me and older. I think I should get some age adjusted points for having the disadvantage of not yet living as many years to train and get stronger. Ha

You are right, Dan. It is very off putting. And I am not sure that it does not drive some folks away. But if I have a meet that has 3-8 lifters and we have umpteen divisions, what are the chances that even 2 of the lifters are in the same division competing against one another? I once competed in a NASA national PL meet. I entered the open class, hoping that was where teh competition would be. When I looked at the standings after the first event, I was the only one in the open division out of like 20 242#ers. Everybody else was in some bastad division. I compared myself against all the other lifters all day, but in the end we all got first. I like to compete against others as well as myself. I have done 2 different things at my meets, not sure which one I prefer. LAst year, we had a LW, MW, HW and masters classes, and top 3 places were awarded in each according to most weight lifted (masters was done by formula). Then we had one outstanding lifter trophy which was done by formula. This year we scored it 2 ways, by total weight and by formula. I thought both worked ok.

Dan,

Considering over 80% of the USAWA membership is over the age of 40 (and like the age correction), I’m betting you will be out of luck on swaying many votes your way on this!

I’m not doubting your science on the effects of age vs strength gains. I’ve seen many lifters over the age of 60 make significant strength gains. I’ll use my dad as an example – since he has started training just a few years ago he is stronger now than he might ever have been.

But to say that all lifters over 80 can make 300% gains – I don’t believe it. Sure – some 85 year old who can only pick up 30 pounds might, with proper scientific training, increase to 90 pounds. But to say Art Montini can increase his deadlift 300% from 250 to 750 is impossible. I would bet any amount of money on that – and he can use all the available science there is to try to make it possible!!!!

My study of the age allowance vs. age was on the AVERAGES of all lifters who had records. In several cases a master lifter held the overall record, but in no cases did any masters age groups AVERAGE the overall record averages. There is always individual variations in any study.

I believe the 1% is not enough to truly represent the strength losses in the masters classes (as shown by my study). It only “helps” in leveling the playing field – much the same way as the bodyweight correction. A lot of what you say can also apply to bodyweights – as I’ve seen lighter lifters outlift in total pounds heavier lifters ALL THE TIME. But if you look at averages of all lifters this is not the case as well. The real “purists” like my brother in law Bob Burtzloff wished there were not even weight classes OR age classes. The strongest man with the top total wins!!

Since this topic has began, I’ve been trying to determine the reasons the 1% age adjustment over the age of 40 was implemented. I can find none – and it has been in place since the very beginning. So probably an arbitrary number voted on by the membership and accepted. If someone knows the true reason 1% was decided on please let me know.

I do like the way the USAWA allows all lifters to be in “competition” with each other in a meet. I’ve also competed in PL meets where everyone ended up a first place winner across many divisions – sure it feels good and good from a business standpoint as a meet promoter trying to get more numbers – but it gives a false sense of accomplishment when you go home being the champion of one!

I know no formula is “perfect” to fully equate lifters between ages and bodyweights – and there never will be one. But I do think the way we do it is as good as he can be. (now don’t get me started on the Blindt Formula….haha). Also – at Nationals and Worlds best lifters are recognized in each 5 year age group over the age of 40, as well as the best Junior and Senior lifters (20-39).

Al

[b]Quote from dwagman on January 29, 2014, 09:32[/b]
Al, it actually makes little difference whether your study found significance or not.

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

You guys are killin’ me…..

I would like to learn the training method that Dan says will increase my strength by 300 percent. I will definitely use it. I know from personal experience my poundages have gone down slowly but steadily on a lot of lifts since I was in my late forties. I know some of that was due to losing quickness and flexability as I got older. On the lifts that do not require quickness I hadn’t lost nearly as much [ until my hip started giving me problems]. I agree if you take someone over 60 that has never lifted before you may be able to increase his strength 300 percent, but not someone who has been training his whole life. Also I would like to know if this scientific method is going to prevent arthritic joints.

Right, Denny, I don’t think that Dan lives in the same world as the rest of us old lifters. 🙂 Regardless of whatever methods you employed, Dan, you would not be able to increase Art’s strength by 100%, and although Denny would undoubtedly be thrilled if you could triple his strength, that isn’t going to happen, either.

Dan, you stated that with the proper type of training, a lifter will become MORE resistant to wear and tear and injury problems with age. No, I don’t think that is possible. Almost every Olympic lifter will have some type of joint problems eventually. That is inevitable and unavoidable. John Vernacchio had shoulder problems and Denny has mentioned a hip problem. Tommy Kono had a hip replacement in 1996 and Joe Dube has also had at least one joint replacement. Ben Green, a local Olympic lifter I know who just turned 71, had one hip replaced many years ago and the other hip replaced not very many years after that. I tried to make a comeback in Olympic lifting a few years ago but my shoulders told me to forget it. And so on.

The reason that I mentioned a Russian research result, Dan, was to make the point that the need to decrease training frequency as one ages has been known for a very long time.

Of course we are all different and do not age at the same rate. When I was corresponding with David Meltzer, he admitted that he was an exception, so that the Malone-Meltzer formula didn’t really apply to his lifting. His lifts are not dropping off much with age, even though he is now 61. He consistently wins the bronze medal in his class at the World Masters, just as he did last year.

Consider the following. If the age coefficients were “right” and everything else was constant over time (bodyweight, diet, training regimen, absence of injuries etc.), then for a fixed set of lifts, such as the snatch and clean and jerk in Olympic lifting, the total on that set of lifts multiplied by the age coefficient should be approximately constant from year to year.

If any of you wanted to chart yourself in this manner, the results might be interesting.

Al has stated in this thread that he feels as though the age coefficients for old lifters are not high enough and he is undoubtedly right because past a certain age, the coefficients should start increasing at an increasing rate. In general, the world is nonlinear, as is lifting performance over time.

Regarding bodyweight coefficients, anyone who has been a part of Olympic lifting for a long time knows that it is extremely difficult for a lifter in one of the heavier classes to win a best lifter award.

Another factor that I have never seen discussed relative to coefficients is that lifters in the heavier classes are generally much taller than lifters in the lighter classes and have to lift the bar considerably further. When about a quarter of a ton is being lifted, several inches can make a big difference. Salimi of Iran won the gold medal in the superheavy class at the last Olympics. He has snatched 472 at a listed height of 6-6!! Think about that. That is a huge accomplishment! I believe there was an Olympic lifter of some stature during the 1940s who was 6-8 and I think there have been one or two international-caliber superheavies during the past 10 years or so who are also 6-8.

I had some thoughts on determining best lifter awards that Bill Clark presented at an IAWA meeting with the British many years ago and he told me later that they didn’t understand what I was talking about. LOL

Tom

Dan,

I’m sure that a 90-year old man who has never lifted weights before can indeed make considerable progress, so Denny and I would agree with you on that. But how much would a 90-year old untrained man be able to lift? Let’s assume that he could press 20 pounds. Would he be able to reach 60 pounds with the best scientific knowledge available? Perhaps, but I would bet against it.

Now, let’s consider Denny and Art, both of whom have lifted weights for more than a few decades; have undoubtedly tried various methods of training; and know how their bodies respond to different training systems. No training system would allow them to increase their strength in standard lifts like overhead press and squat by 100% or anything close to that, regardless of how their training compares with what might be considered the best way for men their age to train.

Regarding age, it is indeed a major factor. For many years, 28-32 was considered to be the peak period for Olympic lifters and that is probably still considered to be the case. Master’s competition in Olympic lifting of course starts at age 35, with Bill Clark, for example, strongly opposed to the change from 40 to 35. Of course there are other factors involved, as you pointed out, but I set all of my pressing PRs between the ages of 30 and 32, my squat PR for 5 reps when I was 32 or 33, my squat snatch PR when I was 31, and my squat clean PR when I was 25.

Although some Olympic lifters have performed well at the age of 40, most lifters are on the decline when they are much past 30.

Body leverages DO have a major influence on how much a person can lift. Most people reading this have probably never heard of Dwayne Fely, yet at the time when he was squatting with more than Kazmaier, Bill pointed out that Fely had an advantage because Fely was 5-9, whereas Kaz is 6-2 1/2. A lifter who has long legs, relatively speaking, had better have wide hips, otherwise those long legs will be a major disadvantage in squatting. Paul Anderson had the best of both worlds as he was 5-9 and also had wide hips. So it is no surprise that he was such a great squatter.

You don’t know that the examples that I gave of joint replacements resulted from overuse injuries and I don’t know that, either. There is no doubt, however, that squat cleans and squat snatches can wear away knee cartilage, and there have been some serious elbow injuries when world-class lifters have attempted a heavy snatch.

Since you referred to myths, I’ll give you one. Undoubtedly many, if not most, college and even pro strength coaches believe that below parallel squats are bad for the knees. This is false and stems from an improper study by Professor Klein at the University of Texas in 1961. Bill Starr was a participant in that study and he commented on it many years ago. See also http://www.examiner.com/article/are-deep-squats-good-for-your-knees

There is a huge difference in the effect on the knees of a deep squat performed in a controlled manner and a squat snatch with the lifter hitting a very deep position.

You have probably heard the term “joint mice”, which refers to the noises that a person’s knees can make, especially when doing Olympic lifts but also even when getting out of a chair! This of course is due to the wearing away of cartilage. My knees made such noises in USAWA contests and in one contest Bill Clark, upon hearing my knees do their thing during one lift, was motivated to mention an old Missouri Valley lifter named Art Tarwater, whom they called “snap, crackle, and pop” because of the noises that his knees made. LOL

My knees never hurt but one day circa 1998 I was climbing some steps and it felt like my left knee shifted to the left! That was a bit scary and I started taking glucosamine/chondroitin shortly thereafter. I still have my original knees, and they don’t hurt.

So, yes, lifting in general is good for one’s health and most exercises are safe. Of courses the dangers in presses behind the neck are well known and box squats where a lifter sits on a box with each rep rather than just touching it is also not a good idea. I consider some USAWA official lifts to be risky, but I am not going to get into that. 🙂

I will close with a story which, quite frankly, will sound hard to believe, but it did happen to me.

In 1966, Bob Bednarski’s squatting program was given in S&H and it included 5 sets of 5 with the top weight that he used. At that time I was doing one set of 5 with my top weight. I have never believed in doing a lot of sets in training, and I’ve always felt that Olympic lifters doing a of sets with 80% or 90% of their max was wasteful.

But since Bednarski was going great, I decided to try the 5 for 5 system. I had no idea how my body would respond to that, so I used a light weight, 250, for the 5 sets of 5. I always concentrated very intently when doing squats, which I could do because I always trained alone. The next day I felt like a different person, mentally, when I went shopping, and that was scary! The following day I felt like my old self mentally, but I had a horrible headache, the worst I have ever had, and I never had headaches. I also had a fever, as my temperature went slightly past 101. Then both the fever and headache went away quickly and I was able to train that evening.

So what happened, did I blow a fuse in my brain by concentrating intently for 25 reps instead of 5 reps? I never figured that out, but suffice to say, I never did 5 sets of 5 again!!

Tom

Science is true whether or not you believe in it.

Just one point of order on this quote. It is flawed. It may be the truth for today, but it will likely change. Unless it is scientific law (ie. the law of gravity), it is merely a theory. It may have basis in research, study, and experiment, but it has not been difinitively proven. There have been a multitude of scientific theories that have been disproved over the years, and there will be plenty more.

Now I am not a scientist, merely an educator. But I can make an analogy between training methods and pedagogy. It is always changing, and is often cyclical. What is the flavor of the month now, may have been the flavor of the month 50 years ago under a different name. And what I have found in both areas is there is no one size fits all approach. Much of it is valuable to somebody out there; however, much of it may not work well for certain individuals.

I have had many young pups come train with me and want my vast knowledge (LOL) in strongman training. All I can do is tell them what has worked for me in techniques and training methods, and what has not. Then it is up to them to determine if it suits them or not.

I know I have digressed from the original point, but I just wanted to say that I believe that there is no one size fits all in strength training, and just because science says something today, doesnt mean that it wont be saying something else tomorrow.

ET

A few years ago I did an informal study of my own to evaluate the fairness of the 1% age allowance for 40 and above. This study has NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE so please don’t attack it for that issue. It merely reflects the actual lifting performances that have been done by many lifters and many lifts over the 25 year history of the USAWA in four of the most common performed lifts.

Dan – I KNEW eventually you would question the relevance of my informal study!!!!

Good discussion guys – one of the best we have had on this forum.

Just FYI – I recalculated the results of the postal championships taking away any age adjustment and Dan still beat me – so I can’t blame it on the age adjustment!!! haha

Actually the was very little changes in the overall rankings – Chad and ET moved up one place, but the rest lined up just the same as before. So I guess this “age adjustment thing” really doesn’t make that much difference in reality.

Another point – the USAWA does have an age group category that does NOT give age adjustment points over the age of 40 and it’s called the OPEN CLASS. Outlined very clearly in the rulebook (II.3). Maybe Dan you should just enter this and not take your age points and let the rest of us have our age points to give us at least a fighting chance against you??!!!

Thanks for the reply Dan, I appreciate your input.

As far as the grip meet Sat, either I will be unbeatable or I will have my buttockses kicked. I have been developing my grip the past few weeks chopping ice to the point I can barely type this message or close my hands. And I am certain that will not stop between here and Sat. Lets see how it plays out
ET

Another question, is eating whole eggs good for you or crappy for you? It seems to keep changing. I subscribe to it being good for you, cause I like eggs. And no yolk is just not the same.

“Science is true whether or not you believe in it.”

Just one point of order on this quote. It is flawed.
————————————————————————–

As a “final” (?) comment, I want to respond to Dan’s quote about science and Eric’s response to it, both given above.

Studies are very often flawed — in many fields — so no true science will result from them. A case in point is the 1961 study by Professor Klein at the Univ. of Texas that purportedly showed that squatting below parallel is bad for the knees. Bill Starr was a participant in that study and Starr has stated in print that the measuring instrument that Klein used could be manipulated to produce whatever reading Klein wanted to see. So nobody should have paid any attention to the results of that study.

As another example, over 30 years ago a prominent statistician, whose name I can’t recall, read medical journals and wrote letters to the journal editors whenever he encountered analyses and conclusions that were flawed. He encouraged other statisticians to do the same.

Furthermore, it is often stated that the results of studies can be predicted from knowing the identity of the funding organization!

I would have various other thoughts to express (about leverages, etc.), but I am sleepy and I’m going to bed. 🙂

Tom

Science is a religion. You choose to believe it or not.

We have a joke about my mother never admitting she was wrong. Sure, she’s made statements that were wrong but she always seems to point out “had I known ALL the facts, I would not have been wrong” so she basically states that she was never wrong because had she known everything, she would not have made that choice.

Gravity is an interesting “law”. I have seen rapid changes related to what we know about black holes and gravity just in the past few years.

My point is, science is a tool….but whenever someone starts throwing “science” out as the “reason” for they are “right” I immediately see someone with an agenda.

That being said, I love to read what all you guys write on here. What’s a damn shame is when it becomes a pissing contest and all everybody wants to do is discredit the other with their own “science” (empirical or otherwise). I like to see guys try new stuff…you never know….just the other day it was discovered that a certain percentage of the population have an extra tendon in their knee. It came up when not everyone reacted to surgery with the same results. Amazing we can think we know everything about human anatomy and not catch that!

I like the line “Everything works, nothing works forever”. Let’s keep the crazy crap coming….sometimes the craziest stuff ends up being true (like the earth being round…who woulda thought!).

I found out when I was 5 that I have an extra muscle in my stomach. So when I was young and lean, I had a 9 pack. The ladies seemed to love it (LOL)
ET

Ok, I’ll give my $0.02 for what’s it’s worth. I’ve stayed out of this because I am not equiped to debate with you guys on physiology, latest research or studies that have been done, etc. My feelings are when you involve humans, there are too many variables to deal with to make a statement about absolutes. That’s one of the reasons there are so many different medications available for the same health conidition. Different people respond differently to each one. There are hundreds of variables to consider and reasons for each outcome.
To ETs point, I came across this in the pharmacists letter;
“Despite everything you’ve learned since pharmacy school, you’ll see growing acceptance of using inhaled corticosteroids PRN for some asthma patients.
For years, we’ve all been telling patients they have to use their inhaled steroid EVERY day to control asthma…but many patients don’t.
Now evidence suggests that using inhaled steroids PRN works as well as daily steroids…in some situations….”

Have to wonder what will be said about the training we’re doing 50 years from now….

Dan, hope to see you Saturday, I would like to hear more about the science based training, I’m open to trying something diff. It’s time for a change for me

I’m looking to all of us debating this issue “face to face” over a few beers Saturday night. LOL

And Dan – science is a religion. They call it scientology. Maybe that is what Thom was talking about?????

Another thing Dan – I think Thom is scared of you so I doubt if he makes it to the gym this weekend. If he shows – then we will know that is not the case, but I’m betting that he doesn’t show even though he’s told all of us he is gonna to make it here on the forum.

Gee, Al, way to sell me out when you told me not to come when I found out my great Uncle died and the funeral is Saturday.

Dan, Science changes all the time. EVEN gravity here on earth has shown variation once we were able to measure it. What happens the next great leap in technology? What are you gonna say then? I would have been right had I known all the facts.

Let’s face facts right now. The greatest factor in how strong someone is, is GENETICS. After that, it’s willpower, character, drive…whatever you want to call it. And LASTLY….amounting to a tiny amount…is the routine you follow. What about nutrition? unless you are malnourished then it’s bullshit. All of it. That’s right, I said it. The only thing that will significantly boost your gains that you can ingest is controlled by the FDA.

So blow it Vet boy and Army boy……this MARINE has duty to pull this weekend and it reminds me of active duty….the MARINES did all the work while everybody else got to march in the shiny parades!

Sorry to hear about your uncle, Thom-you will be missed.

It was coming….he just decided I needed to be here more than there with his timing. He was a good guy, 91 years old!

I think the age correction in the overall best lifter is complete crap. If you want to use it for best masters lifter then whatever, but if you want to be considered for the overall just use the weight adjusted number.

ST

PRofessor Tully, I thought you were dead on this board. With your esteemed title, I weigh your opinion quite highly.

Well if the professor says it is so…..then it must be so.

and for the record I hate all formulas, because I am Husky, Ok I am fat, lol.
I lurk om here ET, lol

ST