USAWA

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 1^st 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 1^st or thereafter. So what happened to her on May 1^st of the next year that makes her 1% weaker than what she was on April 30^th? 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 1^st and competing on that very day against a lifter who’s born May 7^th 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 2^nd, or December 14^th? 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.