Aging and Strong (Part I)

AGING AND STRONG

Part I:  On Fairness and Common Sense

By Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

All-round weightlifting uses an age adjustment formula in an effort to essentially equate the strength performance of competitors regardless of chronological age. Upon applying this formula, competitors are ranked to determine overall competition placings regardless of age or division entered (a body weight formula is used, too). For adults, once you turn 40 you receive an additional 1% per year up until you’re 60, at which point you receive 2% for each additional year of life. A few years back one lifter stated on the USAWA forum, loosely quoted, “I won’t win anything until I’m over 40.” Another lifter told me recently how “embarrassing” it is to be out-totaled, yet be considered the winner due to being older.

Now, you might wonder how much of a difference age adjustments can actually make. You’d have to take the body weight adjustment out of the equation by looking at two lifters in the same weight class, one being less than 40, the other over 40. In doing so, at the 2019 All-Round Weightlifting World Championships one lifter was out-totaled by over 300 pounds, yet placed higher. As this example illustrates, in all-round weightlifting—a strength sport—a lifter’s strength can be less meaningful than his/her age.

 

Contemplation

There are several ways to evaluate the age adjustment. With the above example in mind, perhaps the most basic is to ask whether it makes sense and is fair. However, these two very basic questions will invariably lead in to the realm of science. Allow me to illustrate.

On the question of being sensible, let’s approach it this way; take a lifter who’s born May 1st and is 39 years old. She receives no age adjustments. However, next year, when she turns 40 she’ll receive +1% in any meet that takes place on May 1st or thereafter. So what happened to her on May 1st of the next year that makes her 1% weaker than what she was on April 30th? Most anybody you’d ask would likely tell you this is silly because aging effects are gradual and occur over many years, decades even. Clearly this approach lacks common sense. So what are the effects of aging on a human’s muscles? You can only answer that via scientific investigation.

Regarding fairness, take that same lifter who’s born May 1st and competing on that very day against a lifter who’s born May 7th of the same year. The former lifter will receive a 1% adjustment while the latter won’t. How could that be considered fair? One week older makes a 1% difference in performance? What if the second lifter was born on June 2nd, or December 14th? Would that increased difference in age now all of a sudden make a more noticeable difference in strength performance? And if the difference is actually 12 months or more, is the difference really 1% for every year? In an effort to be fair to all competitors, wouldn’t we need to know for certain that the aging effect starts with 40 and not 38 or 44 or 63? If we don’t know that, how can this be fair? Science can help us figure it out.

 

Why Science?

At this point it might be worthwhile to explain why I always turn to science in an effort to derive at answers regarding weight training. The most fundamental reason is that if your training isn’t based on science you’re wasting your time on one end of the spectrum and on the other, increasing injury risk exponentially leading to decreased performance and a shortened lifting career.

Aaron Coutts, PhD, distinguished professor in sport and exercise science from the University of Technology in Sidney, Australia, and the Associate Editor for the International Journal of Sport Physiology and Performance offers more detail.(2) In writing about the importance of turning to sports science he listed the following reasons: improved training and performance, reduced training errors such as injuries and inappropriate training approaches, being able to balance benefits and risks in decision making, and being able to challenge belief-based views with evidence.

These are certainly compelling reasons for turning to science. But all-round weightlifting already relies on science, so why not regarding chronological age, too? Our sport employs science-based doping control methods and certified labs to analyze urine samples. This, to ascertain if lifters are using drugs to enhance their performance and thus achieving an unfair advantage. So why not also use science when making a determination about how chronological age may impact strength performance and competition placing? Isn’t the singular concept of fairness reason enough?

 

A First Step in to Science

What evidence is there that due to aging a 40-year old is weaker than a 39-year old, or a 33-year old, or a 27-year old? What evidence is there that a 60-year old is 2% weaker than a 57-year old? Why not use 0.8% and 2.36%, or 3% and 4%? If you’re thinking that I’m being silly and perhaps even nitpicking, consider that precision is the name of the game in strength sport. If you did a 315-pound one-armed deadlift in the 198-pound class and so did another lifter in the same weight class, you’d win if you weighed in at 195.5 compared to the other guy’s 196. If that half-pound difference bears consideration, wouldn’t logic dictate that we would have to know with as much certainty as possible what the aging effects upon strength are?

Here’s what we know about healthy but otherwise sedentary people:(1, 3-6)

  • A woman’s loss of muscle mass is greater than a man’s, particularly once she passes 60;
  • Decreases in strength are only slight by 50;
  • At 60 decreases in strength are more pronounced in both genders;
  • For women muscle contraction speed starts to decrease by 40, speed of muscle relaxation by 50;
  • Magnitude of strength loss is inconsistent among men and women;
  • Degree of strength loss is different between muscle groups and individual muscles;
  • Women show a slower decline in biceps and triceps strength than men;
  • Factors associated with strength loss impact upper body muscles differently than lower body muscles;
  • Strength loss appears to be most dramatic at about 80 for both genders;
  • Strength declines can fairly suddenly reach 30% beginning at about 80;
  • Strength losses are not linear and plateaus are observed;
  • 87 to 96-year old men and women showed a high capacity for strength and muscle gain following a science-based high-intensity resistance training protocol.

So this is what’s generally seen in a healthy but non-athletic population. What should jump out at you is the high degree of variability in strength loss and the higher age at which it occurs to a meaningful extent. Also, this is information I picked out and can be potentially misleading due to personal bias, the different research methodologies used in the studies, etc. Therefore, in Part II I’ll present research to show what the proverbial bottom line is. Then we’ll move on to people like you—the ageless barbell benders.

 

References

  1. Carmeli, E., et al. The biochemistry of aging muscle. Experimental Gerontology 37:477-489, 2002.
  2. Coutts, A. Challenges in developing evidence-based practice in high-performance sport. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 12:717, 2017.
  3. Danneskoild-Samsoe, B., et al. Muscle strength and functional capacity in 77-81 year old men and women. European Journal of Applied Physiology 52:123-135, 1984.
  4. Hughes, V., et al. Longitudinal muscle strength changes in older adults: Influence of muscle mass, physical activity, and health. Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences, Medical Sciences 56:B209-B217, 2001.
  5. Landers, K., et al. The interrelationship among muscle mass, strength, and the ability to perform physical tasks of daily living in younger and older women. Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences, Medical Sciences 56:B443-B448, 2001.
  6. Paasuke, M., et al. Age-related differences in twitch contractile properties of plantarflexor muscles in women. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 170:51-57, 2000.

Learning A New Skill

By Christopher Lestan

I thought I might make a post recently because I haven’t been active in a while.

During this time of social distancing I been learning about myself a lot since there is plenty of time to just think now. One of the important things I learned from my father is to keep headstrong and focused during times like these. In other words he says “Keep busy”. Now after school ended early for me around March I was lost in limbo for a few weeks. No more jobs are available. No ability to train with friends. Not being able to have a couple of beers with the boys at our favorite local bar where the beers are 2$ a pour!

This was a strange time indeed. Fortunately, my family is always there to help. My dad who recently became an electrician and worked for the city of Boston was off of work until mid-May. He realized that I was very lost in what to do. In a conversation he and I reached an agreement of him teaching me how to landscape and plant trees since he worked at our family’s nursery when he was young. He also added that he would help me redo our Aunt’s Yard, for she recently moved into a new house and the yard needed some fixing.

For the past month and a half I can confidently say my Aunt’s yard has new grass seed, mulch, trimmed bushes, and new plants. I also planted a couple Hemlock trees in our back yard. I was soon fixing both grandparents’ houses and even took a tree stump out of the ground and put in a new willow tree for one of them. Soon I was in charge of taking care of 3 lawns.

Now you may be asking what was the point of me telling this story… Well, I think it’s important for people to learn new things especially when times are strange and even in their free time. I never thought I would be redoing whole lawns and even spreading mulch and soil to make lawns look nicer, or even plant trees. It’s a rewarding experience.

When you do something rewarding you build confidence that can be utilized for other things. SUCH AS LIFTING!!! My lifts are finally coming back to normal after my injury in December and have learned to gain confidence when there are no spotters. Now with the nice weather I can build an outdoor platform and compete in the 3rd Postal!!

I can’t wait for things to slowly come back to normal and to see my friend group.

2nd Quarter Postal

By Denny Habecker

MEET RESULTS:

2ND QUARTER POSTAL MEET

SmithPP

Abe Smith putting up a big clean and push press of 257 pounds.

We had a great turnout for the Postal again this quarter.  Abe Smith was the top male this quarter and Elizabeth Skwarecki  led the women. Clarks Gym and K.C Strongman each had 6 lifters participate followed by Dino Gym and Habecker’s Gym with 4 each. Thanks to everyone who participated .

MEET RESULTS

2nd Quarter Postal
April 1 thru June 30, 2020

The Lifts: Curl- Cheat, Reverse Grip, Snatch- Dumbbell, One Arm, Clean and Push Press

MENS DIVISION

Abe Smith            – 38   – 184 Lbs.    –  190  – 131 -L   – 257    – 578     –  541.99

John Strangeway  – 42  – 206.4 Lbs.  –  205  – 120- L    – 215    – 540      – 488.39

Eric Todd             – 45   – 253 Lbs.     – 200  – 105 -R    – 210    – 515     –  430.71

Tony Hose           – 51   – 227 Lbs.     – 165  –  85  -R    – 180    – 430      – 401.84

David DeForest   – 60   – 195 Lbs.      – 135  –  85 – R    – 145    – 365      – 400.84

Al Myers            – 53   –  225 Lbs.      – 155   -100 – R    – 135   – 390      – 372.70

Barry Bryan       – 62   – 186.6 Lbs.    – 100  – 74.4- R    – 150    – 324.4   – 371.04

Barry Pensyl      – 72  –  148 Lbs.       – 100  –   54 – L     – 90     – 244      – 364.52

Chad Ullom       – 48  –  220 Lbs.       – 155   – 100 -R     – 135   – 390       -360.69

Chris Todd        – 40  –  273 Lbs.       – 180  –   95 – R     – 190   – 465       – 356.74

Denny Habecker -77 –  183.8 Lbs.     – 105  –  35  – R     –  99    – 239       – 336.27

Aidan Habecker – 16  –  214 Lbs.    – 121.25 –  70 – R     –  99     – 290     –  275.14

LaVerne Myers   – 76  – 224 Lbs.      –  95     –  45 – L     –   75     – 215     –  267.28

Leroy Todd        – 9    – 70  Lbs.      –  30      – 15 – R      – 35     –  80       – 232.05

Dean Ross        – 77  – 215 Lbs.      –  75      – 40 – L      – 65     – 180       – 231.87

Lance Foster     – 54 – 349 Lbs.       – 100     – 55 – R      – 125   – 280       – 217.99

Bill Clark          – 87  -208 Lbs.       –  22      – 10 – R      – 22     – 54         –  82.17

WOMEN’S DIVISION

Elizabeth Skwarecki – 39 – 146.8 Lbs. – 108  – 66- R  –    118     -292        – 316.06

Sylvia Stockall        – 62  – 140 Lbs.   – 77    – 50 – R –    100    – 227        – 311.65

R.J. Jackson           – 58  – 106 Lbs.   – 80    – 50  -R  –    85     – 215        – 298.82

Lynda Burns          – 45  – 175 Lbs.   – 70     – 45- L    –   95     – 210        – 215.09

Phoebe Todd         – 9    – 94 Lbs.     – 37.5  – 18- R    –    40     – 95.5       – 197.39

Janet Thompson   – 62   – 180 Lbs.   – 60     – 20- R     – 55      – 135        – 157.73

Kylie Smith          – 13   – 146 Lbs.   – 47     – 20- R     – 47      – 114        – 154.55

Crystal Diggs       – 34   – 164 Lbs.   – 50     – 30- R     – 55       -135        – 135.79

Officials:

Abe Smith             – Bill Clark & Dave DeForest
Tony Hose            –  Bill Clark & Dave DeForest
Leroy Todd           – Eric Todd & Chris Todd
Phoebe Todd        – Eric Todd & Chris Todd
Kylie Smith          – Bill Clark & Dave DeForest
John Strangeway – Lance Foster
Eric Todd            –  Chris Todd
Dave DeForest    – Bill Clark
Al Myers            – Chad Ullom
Chad Ullom        – Al Myers
Chris Todd         – Eric Todd
LaVerne Myers   – Al Myers
Aidan Habecker  – Denny Habecker
Dean Ross         – Al Myers
Lance Foster      – John Strangeway
Janet Thompson – Bill Clark
Crystal Diggs     – R.J. Jackson

Lifters with Non-Certified Officials:

Barry Bryan
Barry Pensyl
Denny Habecker
Bill Clark
Elizabeth Skwarecki
Sylvia Stockall
R.J. Jackson
Lynda Burns

Dick Durante

By Denny Habecker

I just got the news yesterday of the passing of Dick Durante on June 4, at age 87. I know many of you may not have known Dick, because he didn’t lift in a great number of our meets. Dick lifted in a couple of our Nationals and at least one IAWA Worlds in addition to a few smaller meets. I knew Dick from my days as an Olympic lifer. He and John Vernacchio lifted for the legendary Holy Savior Club in Norristown, Pa. Dick was a competitor in my first competition in 1962. He was a veteran lifter at that time, pressing 270, snatching 220, and clean & Jerking 305 in the 198 lb. class in that meet.  Five years later he was pressing 320 in the HVY weight class. I didn’t really know Dick that well until in the 1980’s as a master lifter, I started lifting for John Vernacchio’s Valley Forge Club.We got to be good friends through our mutual friend John. Dick was  well liked, had a great sense of humor, and a man of many talents. He was a police officer, a restaurant owner, Navy veteran, electrician, & air conditioner tech. Dick and his wife Mary Ann invited us to their beach home on Long Beach Island, New Jersey many times, and showed us great hospitality and friendship . I also remember the great time I had  traveling to the Old Time Barbell and Strongman Banquet with Dick and John and a couple of their Holy Savior team mates . Rest in Peace Dick.

 

The Guessing Game – Box Squats Part IV

 

By Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

THE GUESSING GAME – BOX SQUATS

Part IV: Train Smart

The purpose for writing this series of articles was to illustrate why what appears to be very sensible training advice, doesn’t actually deliver. As with all things in life, you should also view training advice critically. The first question to ask about any training recommendation is by what physiological mechanism it’s supposed to work. The box squat’s proposed mechanism seems sensible—on the surface. With but a modicum of understanding about a muscle’s contraction mechanisms, you’d have to raise your eyebrows just enough to want to dig deeper before spending valuable time and effort on an exercise with dubious claims. Those raised eyebrows would then have your finger scrolling through research on your smartphone and you’d quickly learn that based on knowledge dating back to the 1930’s, it’s unlikely that the box squat will increase your squat ability. To summarize, research specific to that movement reveals the following:

  • The way in which your muscles work to perform a squat are enhanced the least by the box squat;
  • Muscle activity in the regular squat is far greater than in the box squat;
  • The forces generated in the box squat are weaker than those generated in the standard squat;
  • Speed of movement in the box squat is inferior to that of the squat;
  • Joint moments of the lower back, hips, and knees are significantly greater in the squat than the box squat;
  • The joint angles of the hip, knee, and ankle are significantly different between the two exercises and finally;
  • The above indicates that the box squat lacks the required specificity to be able to enhance your abilities to squat more weight.

Warmups and a Work Set

Please note that there’s no specific reason for why I chose to investigate the box squat. I could’ve chosen from any number of training recommendations to illustrate why their proposed benefits are fictional. I simply wanted to create a perspective and illustrate an approach that you can use to evaluate whatever training advice you run across. At the end of the day, recognize that you’re a strength athlete who spends tons of time in the gym in an effort to become the strongest person you can be. That’s not easy. You’re also an all-round weightlifter who’s challenged with learning, perfecting, and becoming as strong as possible in different lifts for each meet you enter. That’s not easy. Considering how you’ve self-selected into an area of physical accomplishment that challenges you every time you step into the gym, I would argue that you trying to determine just the minimum—what’s fact and what’s wishful thinking regarding training—is much easier and will take you no longer than what it’ll take to go through your warmups and then your first work set.

There’s no way Paul Anderson could’ve had a quick look at the American Journal of Physiology to see what he could do to increase his already fantastic squat even more. In fact, most athletes back then probably didn’t even know there was research being conducted on human muscle in an effort to understand not only how it works, but how you can get it to become stronger. But today, you literally hold that information in the palm of your hand. The most difficult part for you is to sift through the nonsense and uncover information that’s based on measurable and evidence-based facts instead. To be honest, you have to take responsibility for what training advice you follow. If you find yourself getting injured and not able to make long-term gains anymore, even though you’re healthy, don’t simply write it off as being older than what you used to be, or some other equally silly and unfounded notion. Take responsibility for your training decisions, review them based on exercise science the best you can, and allow yourself to once again experience the thrill of breaking PR’s. Isn’t attaining maximal strength in your red matter worth some effort in your grey matter?

And so, what about the main problem at the core of all of this—increasing your squat overall and more specifically blasting out of the hole? You guessed it, that has been researched and you could experience huge gains if you applied that information. No need for you to stumble through the dark with silly advice put forth by any number of self-proclaimed training gurus. Put that grey matter to work and enjoy the process of learning, putting it to work in the gym, and breaking PR’s.

1 … 91 92 93 94 95 … 483