Postal Results Error

[dwagman]

Postal Results Error

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Mike Pringle]

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

[dwagman]

Pringle, your mommy didn’t waste her money sendin’ you to college!

You earned an extra white light at your next meet.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Mike Pringle]

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”

[Al Myers]

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!!!

[dwagman]

Sorry guys, but I think this will have to be a longer one. So get some coffee, or preferably a beer, sit back, and take your time on this one. Hehehe

The first thing I’d like to comment on is that I’m dismayed at the fact that the age formula was used in calculating my placing, even though with my claimed birth date of July 4, 1976 this does not apply to me. Using this computation in my case is unfair to the other competitors and this mistake should be corrected.

Al, I think the reason nobody wants to bite on this one is because they all know that there’s absolutely no rational argument to be made for giving a person a 1% age credit per year starting with age 40. So why go there? And even you can only defend this practice by stating that it’s always been done that way. Though this might be true, and of course this practice is part of the rule book, it’s not a rational defense. I also think that the several people who have complained about this before, such as Thom, ET, and a few others might not find it necessary to restate their position.

As to those who like the formula, and those that would like it to have an even higher percentage “credit,” I fail to understand how an athlete would want to receive credit for something completely out of his/her control and receive a higher ranking based on something that has nothing at all to do with his/her performance. Doesn’t that go against the spirit of sport and high achievement?

The simple fact is, there’s absolutely no rational and defensible reason to employ such a formula. It’s apparently purely based on conjecture and the 1% figure is arbitrarily chosen because there is no physiological/medical research to support it. This formula makes a mockery of all-round and turns what could be otherwise fair competition among athletes into a joke. And since there doesn’t seem to be any desire to have a rational discussion about this and to abandon this ridiculous practice, I’m sticking to a birth date of July 4, 1976. I call on anybody with an actual birth date before July 4, 1976 to join me in protest. YEAH!

Heil to our Founding Fathers, who rejected the status quo and were consumed by enlightened, progressive, and science-based thinking.

Mike, what you tend to see has nothing at all to do with chronological age. People drop out of sport, or their performance declines, because they burn out, get injured, and/or use ineffective training programs that don’t address their particular challenges via proper training variable manipulations. And as I stated before, chronological age is not a variable scientists have been able to tie to loss in performance, to injury, or to burnout. It’s all just an easy and convenient excuse for the media to explain something of high physiological complexity. And athletes tend to use that excuse as well because it’s simply too complicated to get to the real issue(s) and admit to screwing up. Not everybody is man enough, like Al, and admits to not always training the most scientific ways and having that cause injury and other issues.

And to digress slightly, every year when I go to the VA for my annual, the Dr. makes some comment regarding my age. Of course I ask him which diseases are CAUSED by age and he/she lists several. But then I tell him/her that all he/she is telling me is that ON AVERAGE these diseases appear in most people at a given chronological age and that he/she did not tell me which disease is CAUSED by chronological age. Mike, think back on your nursing studies…what disease is CAUSED by age? Moreover, as it relates to sport, what injury is CAUSED by age?

Anyway, if you use a science-based approach in your training, then you’ll never burn out, you will only get injured due to a mistake in technique or an external factor, and 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. Research is unclear at what exact point (i.e., chronological age) performance starts to decline because there are so many factors related to performance it’s hard to pinpoint it. Suffice to say, several studies have found 90+ year olds to be able to make 300% gains in strength. Yes, you read that correctly…THREE HUNDRED PERCENT! Of course the scientists trained them based on science and not the nonsense you read in magazines or see on the Net…or in old time strongman texts. So even into high age, the body is capable of making strength gains.

Mike, this is a highly complex issue and addressing it would entail a semester’s worth of work. In fact, several universities do offer course work in aging in athletics from both a sport psychological and physiological perspective. How do I do justice to that here? It would be like asking Al to explain why your dog got lung cancer. The short answer would be highly devoid of the necessary details to understand that. Same here.

So instead, the discussion should be directed toward the rationale for having an age formula and then the evidence that supports this rationale. Then we go about tearing into it. As it stands, employing this age factor is highly unfair to younger competitors, gives older competitors a false sense of achievement, and just has to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen in sport. There’s a reason no Olympic sport employs this sort of formula and instead limits the age issue to placing people into different Masters age categories instead.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Tom Ryan]

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

[dwagman]

Tom, thank you for your enlightening reply. I very much enjoyed reading it.

I think that as a statistician you’ll recognize that all you can do is gather data in order to draw a conclusion or to ascertain what trend may exist. Naturally, the strength of the conclusion(s) is highly dependent on the number of data points that you have (though there are other considerations as well). As it relates to strength sport, there simply isn’t enough data available to hang your hat on regarding the influence of age on performance. But of course you actually mention that in your reply. Conclusion: all-round’s age formula is nonsense.

But you’re also educated enough, and have the lifting experience, to know that whatever data you would receive in regard to age and performance is heavily influenced by physiology and psychology…

Before I go on, please let me state here that when I talk about performance, I’m obviously only talking about strength and power, as they are the predominant physical components being tested in all-round. In no way should my comments be generalized to all forms of sports performance such as what’s seen in baseball, football, endurance sports, gymnastics, etc. And as it relates to the old baseball guys, are you, Dr. Statistician, really going to generalize to all athletes of all sports based on the observation of one baseball player? Gottcha there, eh? 🙂

…OK, so since the person’s all-round performance is heavily mediated by physiology and psychology, and the approach each person uses should[/i] be the same in terms of addressing his/her unique challenge areas if it’s based on science, the simple fact is it is not. Indeed, as scary as it might be, there are lifters today who still train the way the old-timers did in circus acts…or the 1950’s, or 70’s, or even 2000’s, not to mention the idiocy of Crossfit which violates many of the most basic strength training principles outlined by the American College of Sports Medicine and the National Strength and Conditioning Association. Point being, if you don’t stay up to date on the latest exercise science developments—and incorporate them in your training—you might as well misload your barbell by a few hundred pounds. 🙂 Now, obviously, and I’m sure you’d agree, all of these variables constitute confounding variables. And as you’d likely also agree, unless you can control for them, whatever formula you derive at will have high error rates. Since apparently none of these variables have been controlled for, all-round’s age formula is nonsense.

One more thing Tom…you mentioned Art. As the body ages it does lose some of it’s performance capabilities. As an example, with increased age the body’s ability to produce power declines first, then later on its ability to generate strength. Thing is, the decline in power can be ameliorated with science-based training…same with strength (force production). That’s the prime reason why from a physiological perspective scientists have not been able to state, “When you reach X years in chronological age you can expect to lose Y% in power production.” So as it relates to Art, if he’s training based on old training ideas, I would be able to guarantee you that I could increase his strength by probably a minimum of 100%…because research in people his age and older has shown this to be possible. The question is, would he have the psychological strength to discard old ideas and incorporate the new? Well, if not, the field of sport psychology would be able to help him get on the right track in a jiffy.

And the point to this is that we’re talking about a highly complex issue. Statisticians have a hard time solving the problem of comparing a person’s performance based on age (and even body weight for that matter), even with more complex computations than simply giving a 1% credit as all-round does. So anyway you dice it and slice it, this all-round approach is pure nonsense, is based on fiction, and needs to go.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Al Myers]

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.

[dwagman]

Al, it actually makes little difference whether your study found significance or not. Let’s assume that the correlations you found between decline in performance were in fact significantly correlated with increased chronological age. By no stretch of the imagination is that an indication that increased chronological age causes a decrease in performance. I might as well count each lifter’s cavities and when I find that performance decreases with increased numbers of cavities, argue that we should give people a percentage credit in the amount they lifted based on the number of cavities they have.

Since we already know that chronological age does NOT cause a decrease in performance&#8212at least not until some point in to the 60’s and to some undefined degree&#8212the percentage-based observations between chronological age and performance point to something else as the cause. Based on research in this area, it’s far more likely that decades worth of poor training practices in the older lifter is rearing its ugly head in the form of declines in performance. It’s also more likely that the injuries sustained due to poor training practices are finally taking its toll in a drastic way.

So, based on that, basically stupid training, we’re going to reward an older lifter with a higher placing simply because of his chronological age? Does it get any more unfair than that? It’s simply outrageous.

So here’s more science to consider. A recent study wanted to know if age makes a difference in the amount of strength gains a person can make. The scientists looked at untrained men of college age and middle age. They had them perform a science-based strength-training regimen for several months. They found that the younger men made significantly faster and significantly greater strength gains than the older guys.

HOWEVER…

…this held true only early on in the study. Over the many weeks of the study this all evened out to where by the conclusion of this investigation, the average rate of strength gain and the average amount of strength gain was the same between the young guys and the old guys.

Tom made a comment about the years worth of wear and tear the body accumulates and how that’s gonna eventually catch up. That’s actually quite wrong. The fact is that with strength training and conditioning the human body will be more resistant to the effects of aging, the impact of many diseases, and will also be significantly more injury resistant. There are too many studies on this to mention and they’re all in agreement. In addition&#8212and I just have to stress this again&#8212the body’s ability to positively adapt to science-based strength training remains until deep in to old age. The poor range of motion in joints, the limping around, the aches and pains, and the poor performances that we tend to observe in the older guys is solely due to poor training practices, not a number in age.

So let’s reject this archaic notion that your age makes you weak and let’s jump into the 21’st century.

Well…wait…I suppose that there’s a serious flaw in my above recital of research on aging and performance. Now that I’m younger than Mike Pringle, and stronger than him, that must mean all of the above is just a bunch of science mumbo jumbo.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[KCSTRONGMAN]

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.

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[Tom Ryan]

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

[dwagman]

ET, I really hate to see a beast like you all torn up and have that negatively impact your training. I know you’re doing the best you can and I also know that you’re trying to be as smart about your training as possible. Obviously, your wrestling injuries don’t fall into the category of “stupid training,” nor would a car accident or other negative life events. But for any lifter who has encountered such trauma, it becomes even more important to train with the latest scientific developments as a guide because we’re no longer just talking about pulling more in the Jefferson, we’re talking about being able to go about life’s chores without pain and other impediments.

Tom, you’re really going to use 50-year old Russian “research” to guide your training and opinion? There are two things to consider:

1. When it comes to weight training, we’re talking about creating a physiological stimulus upon the entire body, not just muscle, that we want our body to primarily respond to by getting stronger, more powerful, and bigger. And since we’re talking about physiology, it’s no different than that seen in medical research. So unless you’re content with a physician who operates under 50-year old knowledge to treat you for whatever ails you, you need to completely reject 50-year old training “wisdom.”

2. That Russian stuff is by and large the biggest crap known to man. As part of my graduate work and dissertation I had to obtain many Russian “studies” regarding strength training. Their stuff was utterly unintelligible, graphs didn’t match the text, graphs didn’t ID what you’re looking at, they used the wrong stats to analyze their data, their math didn’t add up (e.g., 2+2=5…LITERALLY!), etc., etc. At that time I didn’t see a single study that met the methods required for scientific investigation. In fact, since I actually did want to graduate and earn a doctorate, I thought it best to remove any and all Russian “science” from my dissertation…that stuff would’ve gotten me crucified. Luckily western scientists looked at what they had and were able to find out how the human body actually responds to training and how to most effectively manipulate all of the requisite training variables in order to reach peak performance. Of course these efforts are on-going—just like medical science advances—and we’re learning more day by day. My advice would be to categorically disregard all of that old Russian stuff and everybody will be a lot better off.

But we’re getting off topic here. How do we best get rid of the unfair age formula in USAWA? Alternatively, if it really is that important for people to have their chronological age recognized in some way, how do we change it from what it is to simply putting people into masters categories such as 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, etc.?

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[KCSTRONGMAN]

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'm the lyrical Jesse James

[dwagman]

So we have to have a way to compare the lifts accross the divisions.

Why?

And is doing this so important that we’ll go ahead and employ false reasoning and poor math that results in anything but a fair comparison?

Wasn’t it you, ET, who complained before about how ridiculous it is that you get beat by some 60-year old who lifts half as much as you?

And let’s not forget Al’s vein in his forehead throbbing about Ruth coming in 3rd overall in the 2012 Worlds.

I think it’s time to move past the idiocy of it and toward a solution.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Mike Pringle]

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

[KCSTRONGMAN]

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.

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[dwagman]

Hey Mike, you think you’re being a smart-ass, eh? But it should come as no surprise to you that I actually have a scientific answer to your comment. Exercise scientists refer to your point as Time in Sport[/i]. This is actually a much more significant predictor of performance than chronological age.

But Mike, really, isn’t it time by now for grasshopper to kick master’s ass?!
(For those who don’t know, Mike and I used to train together when I was working on my doctorate at KU. Although Mike didn’t kick my ass, he kicked everybody else’s ass in the nation at the high school national powerlifting championships…two years in a row! Then, sadly, he got into bodybuilding…but now he’s back on track in having found all-round. Wew…)

ET, I totally see your point. And I find all of the divisions exacerbating, if not downright silly. It’s like you couldn’t NOT win even if you tried. Don’t EVEN get me started. From a business perspective, NASA certainly has the right idea. From a sporting perspective I question this approach. But let’s get back to all-round and USAWA…

So what you’re really saying is that one of the problems with USAWA is that we just don’t have enough competitors at meets while at the same time we have too many divisions. So if you want to have more competition, there’s only that left to do, which you’ve already done…reduced divisions.

I can see it now, the bitching and moaning because lifter X would have to compete against lifter Y who weighs 20 pounds more, or is 8 years older, or…And I’m sorry if I’m going to offend anybody, but what the heck…are we athletes or crybabies?!

So I’m totally in your corner…LW, MW, HW, Open, Junior (up to 18), Masters where the “old guys” division would start at 60 and have 10-year increments. Then the same thing for women…Lynch…done.

But aren’t we jumping the gun a bit? Wouldn’t as a first step repealing the 1% age factor be the most sensible thing to do before anything else?

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Al Myers]

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

[Thom Van Vleck]

[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…..

Thom Van Vleck
Jackson Weightlifting Club
Highland Games athlete and sometimes All-Rounder

[Denny Habecker]

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.

[Tom Ryan]

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

[dwagman]

I think you guys misunderstood what I said regarding 300% gains in strength. I stated is that several studies have demonstrated that 90+ year old people can make 300% gains in strength. I used this to illustrate that with age the human body does not lose it’s ability to adapt to science-based strength training. Also note that I said that if Art doesn’t train in a scientific manner, then I could probably get him to lift 100% more than what he can currently lift, not 300% more. The same would go for Denny or any other lifter, regardless of age—if he/she doesn’t train based on current scientific knowledge. How much you can gain depends on many factors. I also stated that not until some point into one’s 60’s is there something going on that might lead to chronological age increasing in importance as a potential variable impacting strength performance. But in USAWA/IAWA it’s believed that ageing reduces strength starting at 40, a belief that does not enjoy any scientific support.

Tom, your examples relate to overuse injuries, not age, and, I’m sorry, but there’s absolutely no evidence to support the concept that weight training will cause injury or reductions in health. The exact opposite, however, is what research has found over and over again. Consider, therefore, that by definition overuse cannot occur unless you…well…overuse your body. And this can only occur if your training exceeds your recuperative abilities. Something you had mentioned before, but this, too, has little to do with age. In fact, research has shown that far too many youth athletes are suffering from back injuries. Nearly all of these back injuries have been tied to overuse, which is solely a function of poor training practices, and as you can see, the injurious consequences of overuse aren’t limited to a given chronological age. Also, a brand-new study published in January of this year investigated injuries in strongman competitors. The authors conclude that to reduce risk of injury these athletes must pay attention to proper technique and training progressions before anything else. (Details of this study may appear in the April issue of JOPP.)

You also talk about the height of lifters. Though your assessment in the strictest interpretation and application of math is correct, it doesn’t consider human physiology. We’ve seen before where using engineering examples fall short in accurately explaining mechanics related to human physiology. I hope you find it interesting and enlightening that research on anthropometrics (basically the study of body dimensions) has not been able to link body height, or even segment lengths (referring to, as an example, the relationship of the length of your upper arm to that of your forearm) to an athlete’s strength performance. This is because a human’s strength is dependent on the interaction of many factors such as the overall dimensions of all parts of the body, lean body mass, fat mass, muscle fiber type, motor units, muscle cross sectional area, hormonal milieu, etc., etc. In fact, researchers have found that an athlete’s body height or length of arms and legs and torso are least related to overall strength performance. Researchers looking into this actually had to conclude that the more body parts are involved in a lift, the less[/i] important body height and similar factors become in predicting strength. If you look at how in the Olympic lifts all segments of the body are involved, you can see that the role of body height isn’t a variable that would reliably predict strength. In short, strength is poorly related to overall segmental body dimensions and so another myth dies!

Al, I have to agree with you regarding your observation of what most USAWA members want and believe. That, however, is besides the point. I observed something that’s nonsensical, not supported by research, that’s unfair to competitors, and provided evidence thereto. USAWA now has science-based information rather than just personal opinion and conjecture. The organization is now in a better position to make a determination on what to do. But you should really not refer to the numbers you crunched regarding age anymore, as they really don’t indicate anything other than a non-causal relationship between age and a few lifts performed by a few people without controlling for any[/i] of the many variables that actually do impact strength.

RJ, I think you raise an interesting point regarding choices. ET mentioned NASA before and all of the divisions they offer. Certainly, it ends up being ridiculous, but at least the lifter has a choice and their organization offers many different ways to earn money. In USAWA/IAWA you don’t have any choices and besides all of the age stuff we’ve been talking about, the current approach makes little business sense as it ignores additional revenue streams that a few more choices could provide.

I think that the bottom line in all of this is that if we take on the approach of our country’s Founding Fathers, which Al had mentioned in a related topic, then progressiveness guided by enlightenment will improve our organization. If we stick to the status quo and allow myths and conjecture to guide our decisions, then we’re doomed to die out. And that, I think we can all agree on, is unacceptable.

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Tom Ryan]

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

[dwagman]

Tom, I have to admit that I’m relatively shocked at how quickly you’re willing to dismiss research and replace it with anecdote and opinions of people who wouldn’t know the difference between a motor unit and a motor mount. Are you really willing to substitute Kaz’s opinion over that of a biomechanist who uses force plates, 3-D video analysis, computer interfaced barbells, software, anthropometrics, etc., etc., to ascertain in a quantifiable and repeatable way to what extent body dimensions impact strength?

You’re also denigrating new research at the time regarding the impact of squatting on the knees, yet in this instance you’re seemingly willing to accept the advancement of science that has shown us that the impact of squatting on the knees is dependent on a myriad of factors allowing for the conclusion that squatting can be bad for the knees…or the best thing you can imagine…depending on how you squat. Tom, I don’t think it’s appropriate to pick and choose from exercise science that which happens to support your personal opinion and reject that which doesn’t.

You’re absolutely right, though, I don’t know that the injury examples you provided are caused by overuse. It’s just the most likely conclusion based on an abundance of sports medicine research on the long-term effects of poor training practices. And Tom, I know already what you’re thinking…LOL…“Dan, how do you know they were training poorly?” Well, I don’t know that, either, but I do know that proper training practices don’t result in injury or any long-term ill effects on any portion of human physiology. So what’s left?

Of course I can’t change your mind about any of this, I can only provide you with scientific evidence. But considering how young you were when you reached your peak, it might be worthwhile to re-evaluate your approach. You’re obviously still very passionate about lifting and it would be wonderful to see you break PR’s. But it obviously ain’t gonna happen if you keep doin’ what you’ve been doin’ because those training decisions have been made by a brain with a blown fuse from training. LOL

Science is true whether or not you believe in it.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, PhD, MPhil
Dir. Hayden Planetarium, American Museum of Natural History

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[dwagman]

Denny, I’m sorry that I forgot to address your post in more detail. Please note that there isn’t a specific training method that will increase your strength by 300%. To get you on the right track would entail assessing what you’ve been doing, what your personal challenge areas are, etc., and then devising a program based on science that manipulates over time the requisite training variables to maximize your strength and power.

You mention a loss in flexibility, but that, too, is not due to age. You can always increase your flexibility with a properly designed flexibility program. But the design thereof follows the same approach as that for a strength training program. Now, the loss of quickness you’ve experienced is a different issue as there are age-dependent effects that take their toll on power production. But since strength and power are related, you might be able to make up some of those deficits via increased strength. But you are currently of a more advanced age where this becomes more challenging, but science can nevertheless provide advancement.

A properly designed training approach can indeed positively impact joint health. Of note, training in and of itself doesn’t cause arthritis, nor does chronological age. Improperly designed training programs can, however, cause joint damage and perhaps hasten the onset of arthritis, regardless of chronological age. Without knowing more about your situation, I can’t say any more with any degree of confidence. Suffice to say, in the event that your joints are reflecting decades worth of abuse via training approaches that didn’t properly balance stress and recovery, it might be impossible to reverse these effects. Although I would be fairly confident that you could experience improvement. But that also depends on what type of arthritis you have (if you have it), how advanced it is, etc.

At any rate, it might be worth you calling me at the office. Alternatively we can chat this weekend at Al’s if you’re heading that way. I am planning on going, but it looks like there’s a snow storm coming all the way from CO through KS and on east. I’ll know more Friday…

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[KCSTRONGMAN]

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

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[Al Myers]

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??!!!

[dwagman]

BIG AL…it’s all about beating YOU, isn’t it. You sure you shouldn’t take your narcissistic self into the sport of bodybuilding? LOL(squared!) If you want, I could bring you some Colorado baby oil made with mountain-grown plant oil extract…

Now Al, do you not recall our conversation regarding 2012 Nationals? You didn’t offer an Open class, so I stayed home. And whenever I make it clear on my entry that I want to only compete in Open, it never happens. But I’m over it. What needed to be said has been said, the info is out there, and now the ball is in USAWA’s court…

On that note, ET, I actually appreciate the digression you offer. A lot of people share your opinion about science, but I’d like to offer some more info.

Now, a lot of times people will say “gravity is only a theory.” But what does that mean? It means that first, there was a hypothesis that there is such a thing as gravity. Then this hypothesis, and many related ones, were tested leading to the conclusion that gravity does indeed exist. At that point it got raised from hypothesis to theory and it’s a solid part of our understanding regarding physics.

As it relates to other science, let’s take it into the realm of lifting and let’s just go with what Tom offered regarding that early study on squatting effects on the knee. What that study found is true whether or not you believe in it. That study, however, offered various limitations. What layperson’s tend to do is not consider the limitations of research, rather they just take one aspect&#8212squatting is bad for the knees&#8212and run with it. But what exercise scientists do is ask additional questions and build upon the initial findings. And so you will find that subsequent research has looked at the effect of bar height on the back, degree of forward lean, knee position, foot position, stance width, hip movement, knee movement, ankle movement, depth, degree of squatting experience, strength levels, muscle recruitment patterns, gender, age, and probably several more aspects and their effects on the knee and other structures. With every additional detail, our scientific understanding of the squat and its effects on the knee advances. But along the way, unless the scientists screwed up badly and a shit study got published, their findings are true whether or not you believe in it. And this even holds true when one study found the opposite of another study…there are likely specific reasons for this that laypersons and especially the media miss. That is one of the main reasons why many people don’t trust science and scientists and think that what might be true today might not be true tomorrow.

Here’s another example, this one related to overall health. You guys have probably heard of the beneficial effects of taking an aspirin a day. In fact, medical science has suggested that if everybody does this, the risk of heart attack is significantly reduced. But then a study came out that found taking an aspirin a day not to make a damn difference.

FRIGGIN’ SCIENTISTS!!!…

The thing is, in the first conclusion the subjects were people who had heart issues. The study’s findings were improperly generalized to the population as a whole. The subsequent findings looked at a representative sample of all sorts of people who live in our society, meaning men, women, blacks, whites, heart disease, no heart disease, etc. In looking at EVERYBODY, an aspirin a day makes no difference in terms of heart attacks or heart disease. So obviously, the first study was not wrong, it was just misrepresented. I also talked about this some time ago as it relates to HMB in training studies.

I see what you’re saying about the kids that ask you about your strongman training. They’re lucky to have a guy like you…but I bet the pinhead coaches hate you. LOL At any rate, I think it’s important to consider that when we’re talking about weight training, we’re talking about the effect on human physiology. This is not that much different than talking about the effects of a disease, the response to an injury, a surgical intervention, etc. All humans respond in nearly identical ways, which is why, as an example, the guy who reattached Al’s biceps would likely use the same approach with you, with perhaps some minor differences. But those minor differences don’t amount to all that much, they might be akin to you benching every 3rd day and Al every 4th…big deal. So when it comes to these kids, the advances we’ve made in training science specifically for children should be followed and most kids will benefit greatly from it. A great resource in that regard would be the Position Statements from the American College of Sports Medicine and the National Strength and Conditioning Association.

OK, I gotta go and CRANK on my grip work for Saturday…

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[KCSTRONGMAN]

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

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[KCSTRONGMAN]

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.

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[Tom Ryan]

“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

[Thom Van Vleck]

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!).

Thom Van Vleck
Jackson Weightlifting Club
Highland Games athlete and sometimes All-Rounder

[KCSTRONGMAN]

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

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[dwagman]

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

Thom, I’m sorry, but that’s hogwash. Religious beliefs are based on faith. Science is based on measurable and repeatable facts. And although you could choose not to believe in gravity, or that box squats increase squat power, that wouldn’t change the fact that gravity exists and that box squat’s don’t increase squat power.

And how can you possibly compare what we’ve recently learned about gravity some galaxies away and in black holes to the laws of gravity on earth? C’mon! But wait, that science you are willing to accept? I’m confused…or is that just Marine logic I’m not privy to? 🙂

I was going to let this rest, but you’ve just got my blood pressure up to dangerous levels…well, dangerous for a Marine, not a high-speed, low-drag Army paratrooper. This, in part, because you referred to this thread as a “pissing contest.” And why is there an agenda? I suppose you could call my passion for educating others via science an agenda. But you make it sound like something negative. I guess I don’t understand how it’s a bad thing to live one’s life thinking one thing about training to only later on find out that it’s wrong.

And let me stress this again…when we’re talking about strength training, we’re talking about it’s effects on human physiology. What we learn is no different than what we learn about physiology in the realm of medicine. So let me challenge all of you who don’t hold science in that high a regard to disregard the latest medical findings regarding a future illness and instead go by the knowledge derived 50 years ago. I’d be willing to bet my next 3 white lights that when it comes right down to it none of you’d even settle for 1-year old knowledge. So why is it OK to hold on to myths and conjecture when it comes to lifting weights?

And by the way, anatomists have known for a couple hundred years that there are some people with extra muscles or missing muscles. And in the event that there’s anybody who subscribes to the notion that so-and-so is stronger than most because he must have an extra muscle, even if that were true it doesn’t automatically mean that the extra muscle will be functional to the extent of allowing a joint to produce more torque. There are many reasons for this that I won’t get in to unless requested.

Well, no worries Thom, I’ll go Army all over your ass at Al’s this weekend…HUAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!

Oh, and just in case, I’m bringing my new Henry. I’ve only shot it once so you might actually have half a chance…unless your dog ends up eating your rifle and you can’t bring it. LOL

-d

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Chad Ullom]

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

[Al Myers]

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.

[Thom Van Vleck]

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!

Thom Van Vleck
Jackson Weightlifting Club
Highland Games athlete and sometimes All-Rounder

[KCSTRONGMAN]

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

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[Thom Van Vleck]

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!

Thom Van Vleck
Jackson Weightlifting Club
Highland Games athlete and sometimes All-Rounder

[Scott Tully]

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

[KCSTRONGMAN]

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

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[Al Myers]

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

[Scott Tully]

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

ST

[Author]

Posts