Tag Archives: Age Adjustment

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.

IAWA Age Adjustment Changed

by Al Myers

The long standing debate on whether the age adjustment should be changed was resolved this month at the World Council Meeting held in conjunction with the IAWA World Championships. This discussion started last year at the World Meeting, which was held in England, by Wilf Chapman of Australia. Wilf felt that the older lifters were not being compensated adequately by the age adjustment. After discussion, the membership felt that this needed to be looked into further before any changes would be made.

Steve Gardner and Graham Saxton of England, and myself of the United States, conducted separate studies on the age adjustment. Both of our studies supported that the age correction formula that has been used is very inadequate for lifters over the age of 65. These studies were presented to the membership at the Meeting this year, and finally, this issue has been resolved! The USAWA and the IAWA(UK) have always used different age correction formulas, but the IAWA has previously used the USAWA formula, which gives 1 percent per year starting at the age of 40. The IAWA(UK) gives 1 percent per year starting at age 36 and then 2 percent per year starting at age 66.

What was agreed upon by the membership was a compromise of these two correction systems. Now for IAWA competitions, a lifter receives 1 percent per year starting at the age of 40, and at the age of 66 receives 2 percent.

Now my opinion..

I truly believe that for our organization to grow we must always tilt the formula to allow a strong young lifter to beat a strong older lifter. Best lifters should be decided by the weight lifted and not by a formula. However, the previous system didn’t even allow the older lifter (over the age of 65) to even be in consideration. Contrary to what those on the “other side” of this argument (not wanting to see any changes) might say – this small change will not let older lifters easily beat young lifters!! Just look at the studies and the numbers and you will see what I am saying. Giving a 70 year old lifter 36 percent adjustment is still not much compared to what they really should be getting if we want complete equality (the studies showed that 90 percent correction is needed for a 70 year old). By the way, these studies were done using data from the USAWA and IAWA Record Lists which provided over 20 years of data collection!! I base my opinion on numbers and statistics and not “gut feelings”.

I was also glad to see the age correction adjustment still starting at the age of 40. This seems logical to me – as it is the time a lifter enters the Masters division and becomes eligible for Masters age group records. Now I hope that the USAWA and the IAWA(UK) will come together on this and both adopt the IAWA system for age correction. Unification on this would be a good thing for the IAWA.

Is The IAWA Age Adjustment Fair??

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.

Discussion of the Age Adjustment

by Al Myers

At the recent USAWA National Meeting, a topic was brought up that created a lot of discussion. It was not brought up by anyone as a motion, only as a point of discussion. No official action was taken and no vote was taken by the membership. It involved the IAWA study into the age allowance, or as what the USAWA refers to – the age adjustment. Last year at the IAWA Meeting, this topic was brought up and a committee was formed to investigate it. The committee has done a study of three lifts and the decrease in performance of these three lifts with age. The summary of this can be viewed here – Study of Age Percentage Allowance. As of now, IAWA uses the same age adjustment percentages as the USAWA which is one percent per year starting at 40 years of age.

IAWA(UK) uses a somewhat different age correction where a lifter gains one percent per year starting at 36 years of age, until the age of 66 years where it increase to 2 percent. This 2 percent is only for the years of age over 66, not all the years. So you can see, the IAWA(UK) system favors older lifters slightly more than the USAWA system.

The big question is – What is fair? The majority amongst those present at the USAWA Meeting involved in the discussion felt that the current system is fine as it is – but that only applies to the USAWA. What is decided at the IAWA Meeting may be completely different as lifters from other countries will be involved in the discussion, and the vote on it if there is one.

Bill Clark made these comments in the last Strength Journal stating his viewpoint on this, “As a 77 year old, I get 38 percent and can come close to winning if I have a good day. I don’t expect to beat anyone simply by raising the percentage. For all purposes, we weren’t meant to beat up on a strong 30 year old by a formula. I’m very happy with my 38 percent and often feel guilty taking it. There’s no way I deserve 54 percent at age 77. Next thing, I’ll be taking steroids to enhance my 54 percent. Come on, get serious.”

If anyone wants their viewpoints on this stated, please send them to me and I will make them known. I will also try to obtain the graphs of this study so you can evaluate them yourself.