[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

[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

[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

[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

[dwagman]

NICE TRY, Al!

-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, as you might recall from your engineering studies, in order to generate momentum, you must be able to generate force.

Since I’m not able to generate force in the MF DL, I won’t be able to generate momentum, and thus all I have left is emotion in an effort to get some light under the miniscule number of plates on the barbell.

I shall summon all emotions available to me (it might be helpful if you called me a sissy bodybuilder), while expelling an dinosaurian scream and “signing” you my feelings about the degree of embarrassment you’re causing me in the public realm.

-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, well, but on the other hand you can be rest assured that I’ll be giving Al the good ole double flip off…THREE TIMES IN A ROW.

Oh, oh, I know…since it seems to be OK to drop the bar now in a deadlift…or at least the meaning of “controlling the bar” is now open to interpretation by the judge…I’ll drop my MF DL’s WHILE FULLY EXTENDING my MF for a double insult.

Yup…yup…that just what I’m gonna do…

-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 January 15, 2014, 11:07[/b]
I’m not making it. I lost my “team”….and now I find out I have a work meeting at 1:00pm on Sunday…..

But the plus side is I’m talking to my guys about coming to the grip meet!!!!!

You know, Thom, that’s a real convenient excuse for ducking me. I just got a new Henry Big Boy in .45 LC and I was looking oh so forward to beating your Marine self into the ground with it. But alas, just as predicted, you’d come up with an excuse. At this point I’m wondering if I may have misunderstood you, that you said you’re an ex Mariner, not an ex Marine…or did I mention that already? LOL

GO ARMY! HUAAAAAAAAAAAAAH…….

-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, you’re hitting at the absolute heart of the matter. That proverbial bottom line. You see, I’ve had decades of experience counseling athletes and coaches at all levels of sport and one of the most challenging aspects is to get them to do what’s not only scientifically grounded but also the best thing—the ONLY thing—they have to do to improve their performance while maximally reducing the injury risk. But because so many are ignorant to the advancements in exercise science, and because more often than not research proves the most common ideas about training and competition to be absolutely false (the American College of Sports Medicine has published that most sports are performed with 30-year old knowledge—scary…but compare that to some lifters who hold on to training methods from the 80’s or 50’s or even the 19th century, or on the opposite end of the spectrum the latest and greatest in pure conjecture—REAL scary), they often have a hard time changing their ways. And THAT ends up being their limiting factor. But I also have to say that when it comes to top performers in whatever sport I’m counseling the person for, sometimes they only see that they’re performing rather well IN REGARD TO OTHER ATHLETES—and therefore are afraid to, or don’t really see the point, for changing their approach. The TRUE peak performer’s attitude must, however, reject rankings and records—and unfounded myths and conjecture—and MUST be aimed at optimizing personal performance.

Al, I’d say that you’re already on the right track because you’re able to admit that you haven’t always taken care of yourself in the weight room. So make some science-based changes and reap the benefits of enhanced performance and reduced injury risk…and then you’ll be able to realize that you’re actually not at the halfway mark yet…and that your 319 Bent over Row at the Gold Cup could be replaced at this year’s Gold Cup with 352+…YEAH!

-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]

Well, Al, I’d argue that YOU are actually older than me. Why? Because you’ve had an injury (or injuries) that required surgery. Not me. HA! You sure you wanted a response from me on that one?

You know, Al, I bet that Vince could’ve DL’d a lot more had he used better technique. I suspect that he did the HT version of the DL because when he got started pulling, he didn’t know any better and because for some reason it just felt comfortable to him. In addition, he had gorilla arms, in which case his range of motion was shorter than what you and I would have, and that means less stress on the back but also more weight lifted. So, yeah, he pulled more than everybody else, but it was likely due to his long arms more so than the HT aspect. In addition, with a conventional style he probably could’ve pulled over 850 within a month or so.

So, proper biomechanics are proper biomechanics regardless of slight differences in anthropometrics we tend to see from person to person. And there’s no doubt in my mind that Vince could’ve pulled a lot more than he did if he had had access to exercise science the way we do today. Back then, this field was in its infancy and there was literally NO research on DL biomechanics. Today it’s quite different and there’s no reason why anybody should do a HT DL…unless, of course, it’s a contested lift in all-round. But armed with the scientific knowledge we have available today, the lifter can then make modifications aimed at ameliorating the known of this lift. And I do have to say, whenever I watch you do a HT DL, it’s rather obvious that you’ve practiced this lift a lot. If you HAVE to do it, THAT’S the way to do it.

-d

PS Al, I just did a search on Vince and there are several pictures of him deadlifting conventional style. In one early picture he seems to be pulling 765 plus change. So he wasn’t an exclusively HT DL’er.

—
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, looks like this is taking a bit of a more serious turn. Probably the greatest heels together puller was Vince Anello with 800 @ 181. How’s that for a “little guy?” 🙂 What’s YOUR best heels together DL, Al…huh? huh?

But seriously, a person would make a very, very serious leap in logic to think that because athlete so-and-so “does this” with success and without experiencing injury, it can be generalized to others or oneself…especially if the approach lacks scientific support.

As to the injury aspect, allow me to digress slightly, I see that the vast majority of lifters end up with career ending injuries, or at least limp around or are unable to use all their joints through the full range of motion in older age. Most older lifters attribute this to older age, but higher chronological age doesn’t cause injury. Poor lifting mechanics for decades does, however, and that’s more than likely the reason for what we see. So just because you can execute a SL DL without sustaining immediate injury, that doesn’t mean you should do it because it’ll catch up with you without fail.

Now I’m not sure that I’d completely agree with your suggestion that I approve of the heels together dl. I think that the poor mechanics is precisely what I feel in my back and that’s likely what ET is feeling, too. And that’s the primary reason why I didn’t max out on the lift (I was just trying to be funny with my beer on the brain comment). I deadlifted over 700 pounds on several occasions in competition at 181 and ranked number one in that lift in the early 90’s. I have nothing to prove and won’t jeopardize my health for a silly record. With that said, I think that I’m minimizing the stresses on my lower back by keeping my hips low, weight on my heels, and by keeping a flat back throughout the lift. By not compromising this form by 1 mm, by not wearing a belt, and by not maxing out, I think that I can execute this lift with minimized injury risk.

Your thoughts?

-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 dinoman on December 30, 2013, 12:21[/b]
Dan –

By far the best accessory exercise to help your heels together deadlift is the stiff legged deadlift. Lots of carry over. Al

Dear Al,

Since we already established&#8212unequivocally&#8212that the stiff-legged dl is about the worst exercise a person can do for his back, and since I mentioned how the heels together dl doesn’t feel right on my back, your suggestion must be aimed at providing me with an injury that would prohibit me from attending the February festivities and thus provide THOM with an option to save face…since he’s going DOWN.

Sincerely,

Dr. Healthy Back AKA The Marine Grinder

—
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…I get that Lance. And my point was that you shouldn’t expect any more than that from T-nation. And although there was no mention of USAWA in the article, it does appear in the video. To me that brings disrepute on the organization because the lift was so objectionable. Maybe it’s just me…

-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 ET, I thought you were over your back issues. That sucks. But I have to admit, the heels together dl doesn’t feel quite right on my back either. I think I’ll keep it up until Al’s RB and make it an official record, though. Maybe without beer on the brain I’ll pull a bit more. We’ll see…

Chad, Al, seems to me that you guys had a lot more fun than me. Does USAWA give recognition to the lifters who take the longest for 9 attempts? LOL

And Thom…I’m locked and loaded…YOU’RE GOING DOWN!! Oh, wait, that’s right, I can hear it now…your dog chewed your tire, you didn’t have a spare, and thus you couldn’t make it to Dino’s…hic…hic…hic.

-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 think you guys are missing the point. This isn’t about some of the crap on the internet, even though there is a lot of credible science-based information as well, nor about silly attempts to up me by one. This ought to be about a CLEARLY faulty lift receiving record status within USAWA.

How can something so flagrantly wrong not receive attention? Moreover, who in their right mind would publish proof of an illegal lift on the internet for the world to see while claiming it to be a record?

-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