[dwagman]

ET, thanks for a very eloquently written blog. I think that there are going to be some people who most certainly will view it as being critical of the organization. But I wouldn’t worry about that, after all, if it weren’t for critical thinking—and subsequent action—we’d be bowing to Queen Elizabeth.

Anyway, I often wondered why the popularity of the 90’s hasn’t been sustained—or expanded upon—in USAWA. I do believe that you make a good point regarding how this sport pushes lifters out of their comfort zone and many, if not most people, aren’t willing to go there. Still, I feel that the organization could grow with some pro-active thinking and a progressive approach. And although the closeness that we currently experience with the competitions is undoubtedly wonderful, it doesn’t logically follow that by increasing membership and more competitors at meets this will disappear. And anecdotally speaking, I competed in 4 different IPF world championships with over 35 different nations present and the camaraderie was beyond description.

I feel that as a first step, we need to throw ideas out there and perhaps develop a committee of a few individuals who will be tasked with putting the most salient ones into a document to be presented at nationals for a vote. I would be willing to volunteer, as I’m sure you would, too, ET. Here are a few ideas:

1. Remove the age allowance from the formula as it lacks in validity.
2. All meets must have an entry fee so that the organization can develop a financial basis to offer more, advertise, etc.
3. Allow lifters to enter several divisions (e.g., Open and age category); each division has an entry fee, develop additional divisions in an effort to increase what the organization offers the membership and to generate more revenue.
4. Advertise all meets; I’ll offer this for free in JOPP’s free eNewsletter, there are also other places to do this economically. Developing meet flyers would also be a good idea; members could download it from the USAWA site and distribute/post ’em in their gym, on their Facebook pages, etc.
5. Publish meet results beyond the USAWA website.

What’s on y’alls minds? Keep those ideas going and let’s get something together for a vote at nationals.

-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]

[b]Quote from JWCIII on September 16, 2013, 12:27[/b]
So do I have this correct when I say that HRT is keeping Hormone levels up after they drop with age or health problems while using steroids to build muscle is taking the levels above the “normal” range?

Oh Fearless Leader,

The key here is therapeutic use. WADA recognizes androgen deficiency or male hypogonadism as a legitimate reason for athletes to receive steroid treatment. The symptoms of concern to receive steroid treatment can include, among other things, the testes not producing physiological levels of T or having infertility issues.

WADA outlines six primary causes (e.g., testicular trauma, radiation treatment) and four secondary ones (e.g., pituitary disorders) for androgen deficiency, or not enough T production; they also recognize eight functional causes such as severe emotional distress (Ramos claims this), overtraining, etc.

For WADA to recognize a legitimate claim for HRT, the treating physician must submit a letter that covers excruciating detail regarding the patient’s history, physical exam, lab evaluations, and diagnosis. The approved treatment is either T or human Chorionic Gonadotropin where the route, dosage, and frequency of administration must meet specific criteria. The dosage must also be monitored based on specific criteria and duration of treatment can be life-long, though initial duration of approval is limited to four years with annual reviews.

Now, the WADA documentation doesn’t go into the details of your question regarding building muscle or age-related issues. Of course taking T can build muscle and strength, however, recent research has demonstrated that genetic links must be in place for this to occur in effective ways. What scientists have determined is that not all people respond to any given level of T the same way. So if we’re talking about purely physiologic levels of T that fall in that 4:1 ratio I mentioned earlier, two men might exhibit the exact same amount of T secretion and uptake, but with markedly different results. By extension, it’s quite possible then, that one guy needs HRT to match the T levels of another guy, but will never get ergogenic benefits from it…or might get noticeable ergogenic benefits from it.

Bottom line, T needs to remain within physiologic limits to pass doping control, but even that is difficult to quantify among all men in the world, which is one of the reasons why some endocrinologists suggest that T analysis for doping in sport should also include a method called gas chromatography/combustion/isotope ratio mass spectrometry. With this method, you can determine that a person took synthetic T even when his ratio falls within the 4:1 ratio and apparently some athletes have already been sanctioned for this. This additional testing method isn’t always employed for various reasons. At the end of the day, though, what’s important is what YOUR sports organization has in place and what THEIR rules state.

[b]Quote from KCSTRONGMAN on September 16, 2013, 17:15[/b]
HEre is a question. IF your T remained within acceptable limits, HRT would be permissible by USAWA standards, yes? IF that is the case, then how would this work with the age formula? I would assume this formula is to be the equalizer of aging and losing t levels. I am not pro nor against, just wondering?
ET

ET, that’s a good question. I, too, wonder about the rationale USAWA/IAWA have employed regarding the age standards. I would like to hear what Al, Denny, or any other people involved in this would have to say about that. One of my biggest gripes is that I automatically get placed into this age category, even though my primary purpose and driving motivator is to test myself in the Open Division. Besides, from a fiscal perspective, this is limiting as the organizations could earn more entry fees if competitors were allowed to enter more than one division, say Open and 45, and get to set records only in the division(s) they entered.

To consider from a scientific perspective is that the usual performance decrements associated with age are oversimplified and rather meaningless until a person is 60 or older, especially in strength sport. Also, from a hormonal perspective, and specifically T levels, the actual decrements seen in older men are so friggin’ small, it borders on the ridiculous, especially in trained men. The notion that as you age your T levels decrease and that therefore you’ll be weaker and/or less powerful is such an oversimplification that it borders on the idiotic.

The fact is that performance decrements, and increases, are due to many factors beyond just T and the other androgens floating around. One shouldn’t even state that T is the most important variable to consider. Fact is, I could manipulate your training in such a way that your post-training T levels would look like those of a sedentary 80-year old man. On the other hand, I could adjust a weight training older man’s training regimen in such a way that his T levels are similar to those of a 25-year old sedentary guy. In the end, your performance depends on a heck of a lot more than your T levels…or your chronological age.

-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]

Jim, it’s important to keep this in the realm of weightlifting (WL) and Don Ramos…because it’s about Ramos and WL, and perhaps most importantly, the use of T in HRT. Also, not all substances/methods are banned by WADA year-round, not all sports test for the same substances/methods, there’s a difference between endogenous and exogenous substances, etc., etc.

Although Ramos lives in Colorado Springs, and although USAW has their training hall and administrative offices here, what happened to him in no way sheds any disparaging light on USAW, if that was your implication.

You seem to agree that HRT isn’t the same as doping. Yet you also seem to believe that engaging in HRT at such minute levels that can’t be detected by the insanely accurate, valid, and reliable testing technologies that are employed still constitutes cheating. As it turns out, the scientific community involved in doping control has discussed this issue and would disagree as WADA has specific policies in place for HRT under Therapeutic Use Exceptions. Ramos should’ve taken advantage of that as the policies would’ve been able to help him remain negative in doping control.

Also, and I don’t believe the rules in this regard have changed, whenever Ramos would’ve broken a record or won a national title in the last 20 years he would’ve been drug tested. Therefore, whatever happened most recently doesn’t taint his previous accomplishments. Of course him admitting to HRT for the past 20 years wasn’t necessary, nor a smart thing to do as it might open the door to more severe punitive actions. Besides, if before he didn’t exceed the 6:1 testosterone:epitestosterone ratio, which has been reduced to 4:1, then the ergogenic benefits of T are at best trivial.

Regarding my parts per billion comment, sometimes the forum leaves out digits. One part per billion is the equivalent to a pile of ten million dollars in pennies, and being able to pick out that one “offending” penny. Another way to look at it is one minute in two-thousand years. But in truth, this comparison actually diminishes the complexity of doping control as it goes far beyond just detecting a substance but also looks at several biological markers to confirm and support the notion that doping occurred.

-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]

Jim, if you don’t mind, I’d like to keep this in the realm of weightlifting and with Ramos instead of bodybuilding.

So let me clarify a bit what I mean with no harm was done.

First, I suppose that’s not quite correct. The harm that was done was to Ramos himself, his reputation, his motivation, his records, etc. And along those lines, and perhaps I’m actually being agist here, I don’t think that holding a senior citizen amateur athlete to the same “doping” standards as others is appropriate; after all, there is a difference between doping and HRT.

If I read between your lines accurately, you would seem to suggest, however, that any form of exogenous AAS use is doping, damaging to the sport, cheating, damaging to other athletes, etc. But how can this be if the substance can’t even be detected, as it was in Ramos’ case for 20 years? Consider that the testing methodologies employed can detect one part per billion. That’s the equivalent to a pile of $10 million dollars in pennies, and able to pick out that one bad penny. So not even that much was in his system. Or in the case of T, whatever was found was found to be well within the normal range. Or perhaps he went off several weeks before a meet in order to pee clean, and did. With all of that in mind, can one still consider what he did doping? Moreover, what sort of ergonenic benefits could he possibly have derived from that level or approach of use?

I guess I’m trying to put myself in his shoes and I find it personally difficult to condemn him. After all, he tried to keep his HRT within medically acceptable levels, which would not constitute doping, it didn’t turn out that way and he got busted, and he
‘s man enough to admit to it. At some level I respect him for that.

As to setting masters weightlifting back, perhaps that’s true. But I also think that masters athletes should deserve a different sort of consideration when it comes to HRT. It might be time for sports organizations to engage in some erudite discussion in order to find a fair, sensible, scientific, and medically appropriate way to address this.

-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]

I have mixed feelings about this and am curious what you guys think.

For one, I fail to see how his HRT (hormone replacement therapy) is any different than what a post-menopausal woman would do. The difference is, however, that too much of it for a guy will cause a positive in doping…but not for a woman even though the general effects for the old person are similar regardless of gender.

Also to consider is that a certain higher level of testosterone (T) is permissible under doping control rules. In other words, if you take extra T, but keep it under that level, then even though you’re technically doping, you’re not cheating under the rules of the sport. Of course since T levels fluctuate greatly depending on any number of variables, including how you train and how you manipulate training-specific variables, it’s extremely difficult to predict what, precisely, that level will be, say, the morning of competition, during competition, or when you have to pee in a cup after competition. And that’s why he got busted.

Finally, isn’t this testament that doping control works and that no harm was done?

I guess part of me has a hard time faulting a guy for wanting to remain as manly and strong as possible in old age, and in this pursuit he engages in HRT. Indeed, some sports organizations make allowances for HRT. But we have older competitors in USAWA and IAWA who have not failed doping control and who have not dabbled in HRT, even though they want to be lifting to the end and even though they want to be as strong as possible. I’d like to hear from you guys what your thoughts are about Ramos, his rationale for using, and why you decided not to engage in HRT. Also, if HRT remains below the banned level, do you guys still consider it cheating?

Personally, I’m not sure what I might do 20 years down the road. I mean, when you’re 20, do you have any concept of what you might think or do when you’re 40? And when you’re 40, you have any concept about what you might think or do when you’re 60…etc.? Still, what about some of you younger guys. What are your thoughts on this?

-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]

No, Al, you’re absolutely right. That thing is for the WOB and weighs exactly 42 pounds. On the bottom is a Weider Health & Fitness sticker and I’m wondering if it’s a prototype of what his company used to make. Anyway, Joe referred to it as his kettlebell and I just kept on calling it that.

He had another indiosyncrasy that’s sort of funny. He’d refer to bench pressing as the prone press. Despite the fact others and myself would tell him that’s the wrong term to apply, he stuck to doing so. Bodybuilders…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

[dwagman]

Damn, Jesse, that sucks. Sorry to hear that.

By the way, was nice meeting you on Record Day. You brought a lot of energy to the 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

[dwagman]

Sorry about starting a second thread, I didn’t realize that Al beat me to it. I just moved it over here.

Thom, who can argue the popularity of kettlebells? I think that in the end, if it can get people to be physically active, then it’s a good thing and the guy in your rec center seems to recognize this. Of course for athletes it’s a different question, one of maximized gains.

Researchers have looked at kettlebells and of course we’ve covered it in JOPP. Interesting findings. Basically, you just can’t train based on the old and new myths surrounding kettlebell training…or any other form of training…if you have max gains in mind. Too many people get caught up in the hype, train in ineffective and unscientific ways, and thus never maximize their gains, get injured, and/or drop out.

But you know, I guess for most people it’s about having fun, not popping blood vessels under the strain of a barbell squat or developing so much power in a clean that your feet come clean (pun intended) off the ground. So Thom, I simply must ask, what’s more fun to you?

And Al, as to your question, Joe Weider had this kettlebell in his office. One day while we were hanging out I noticed it. He asked me if I’d like to have it. Before he finished the question I had snatched it up, literally, and almost fell on my ass because of the handle. We had a good laugh. Well, it’s been collecting dust ever since. Does that answer your question?

-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]

(Dan, and I believe there have been scientific studies that have looked at muscle hypertrophy following periods of atrophy? Am I right here?)

Yes, Al, indeed they have. As a matter of fact, a lot of the research supplement companies cite as being proof that their product will enhance muscle strength and size is based on such research. Typically, the subjects had undergone some type of surgery and scientists wanted to know whether this or that supplement might decrease the amount of atrophy they might otherwise experience. And often times the supplement would indeed decrease the amount of atrophy to a significant extent. And then the supplement manufacturer(s) jump on that and sell their product as one that “will build muscle, strength, and size.” Of course they don’t tell you that the subjects were sedentary post-menopausal obese women, that the supplement was infused intravenously, that the subjects were given HUGE dosages that would equate to taking 10 times that contained in the supplement’s pill or powder, etc., etc., etc.

Yeah, the supplement industry is an utter and complete joke from that perspective, which doesn’t even scratch the surface regarding all of the supplements that are on the market selling something other than what’s on the label. Talking about flushing something down the toilet…

Sorry about the rant, but the Colorado Experiment is an equal joke, only that the “research” they conducted held so many methodological flaws that you couldn’t draw any valid or reliable conclusions from it even if you tried…but of course they did. I actually started reading it when I was at Weider and threw it away without completing the read because it was such a joke. And even if they DID use sound research methods to observe, quantify, and analyze Casey’s training, and what they found in Casey to be true, that still doesn’t mean a damn thing to the rest of the weight lifting population. Just because some person survives a plane crash doesn’t mean you need not worry about dying when your plane goes down. Tsssss…..

-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]

Indeed, Timo, very nice technique indeed.

Considering that your technique is so good, now your ability to maximize your gains, reach your potential, and lift the most weight possible depends on proper training program design and manipulation of training variables. Depending on several variables, a scientific approach to your training can make anywhere between a 10%-30% difference in how much weight you can lift over other approaches. Something to think about.

Best in your training,

-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]

Yes Jim, I did watch your video. Otherwise I couldn’t have made that observation.

-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]

Yeah, you’re absolutely right Al, biology and anatomy make this a rather complicated matter.

Based on Timo giving us his arm length, and since we’re only talking about a class 1 lever in this exercise, I thought it might be fun to calculate the actual amount of force he’d have to generate in this movement to lift something like 40 kg. But as I dusted off and accessed some files hidden deep in my brain, I started to remember that to do this properly, I’d have to consider more than just the basics of engineering calculations and also consider such things as motive forces, vector resolutions for each of the involved muscles, angles of muscle attachment, resultant force, etc. Sheesh…

Although I thoroughly enjoyed biomech in grad school, I just don’t feel like doing all of this math. And if you reduce it to the simplest aspects of a class 1 lever system, then you’d still be way off the reality of how much force it would take to lift 40 kg.

Well, thanks a lot Al. Now my head hurts. I’m gonna go and grab a beer. And regardless of how many newtons it takes to lift it to my mouth (which are considerably more than the weight of the beer due to biomechanics and anatomy)…I CAN DO IT!

-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]

Al, while I agree that leverages are important, they are not more important than muscular strength. Look at it this way, a person’s leverages can’t be changed but strength and power can be. Also, it’s the amount of force or torque a muscle can generate that accounts for movement, not leverages and many a lifter has overcome leverage “disabilities” with pure, unadulterated strength. Kaz’s dl and Lamar’s bp come immediately to mind, but there are others…

When it comes to lifting weights we’re talking about a biological system where biomechanics and physiology interact in complex ways. Of note, not all joint movements are influenced equally by those muscles producing force as mechanical differences can result in differing biological effects. Differences also occur due to pennation angles of the involved muscles, what muscles are actually involved in the movement, different sequences of contraction, and also those muscles that are assisting and even opposing in the movement. Also to consider is that the muscles primarily involved in an exercise are never involved throughout the range of motion to the same extent (a perfect example of how mechanics, or rather physics, influences biology, and subsequently biological adaptations…e.g., strength).

As it relates to Jim, shoulder flexibility beyond that necessary for the range of motion wouldn’t be of help for the reasons I outlined before. I would argue, however, that his shoulders are pretty tight and that prohibited him from getting into a straight-arm starting position. And what probably was the most critical aspect to the amount of weight he was able to lift was that he didn’t have his arms straight or locked during execution of the lift. This reduced the moments and can make a huge difference in the amount of weight lifted.

The complex interplay of biomechanics and physiology also become apparent when considering how the back muscles are involved in this movement. Before initiating the lift, Jim’s (and every body else’s) ability to rotate his shoulders inward would come mainly from depression and retraction of the shoulder blades, accomplished mainly by contractions of the lower traps and rhomboids. When the lift is initiated, the lats in conjunction with the pecs and coracobrachialis produce movement while the shoulder muscles only act as stabilizers.

-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]

[b]Quote from JWCIII on August 29, 2013, 17:41[/b]
HHAHAHAHAH….will do! At least you didn’t call it a “gun”.

THIS is my weapon,
THIS is my gun.
THIS one’s for killin’,
THIS one’s for fun.

Oh, and my gun’s bigger than your gun. 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

[dwagman]

Hey Thom, I totally agree with you. There are some exercises some people just like to do. They just feel good for some reason and the person simply has fun doing them. So unless that exercise is counterproductive to ones goals, or injurious, why not do it?

But you’re also quite correct in that at the end of the day, only science will be able to answer what actual practical or performance utility an exercise may hold.

—–

Gee – don’t you think that would have got changed in the IAWA(UK) rulebook by now???????

Al, you’re the IAWA Prez…make it happen. 🙂

—–

Jim, you also need to consider your unique levers and what role they play in executing this, or any exercise. While too much flexibility reduces everybody’s strength potential, this might not manifest itself in all people equally due to several issues, one of which being anthropometrics, or the type of exercise, etc. That’s the prime reason why it’s silly to do what Larry Scott did, or Cyr, and expect to reach ones potential. Only a scientific and controlled study can show if Scott, Cyr, et al. were on the right track or not…and what will propel everybody’s performance to the next level. Since back then there was no such thing as exercise science, and since those guys just made guesses based on their unique genetic predispositions, it comes as no surprise that all of this “wisdom” we read about in Strength & Health, Iron Man, etc., and, sadly, even most publications today, is essentially nonsense.

The point is, Jim, with less shoulder flexibility you’d do even better in this exercise. But that might limit your performance in other exercises. So as always, it comes down to matters of peak performance and making choices.

-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

[Author]

Posts