I’ve never really understood the phrase “Good for your age.” Usually it is meant as a compliment. You look good for your age, you move well for your age, or you’re strong for your age. But why does the compliment need an asterisk attached, as though the number on your birth certificate automatically moves you into a separate grading category where the expectations are quietly lowered and everybody agrees not to ask too much?

I suppose there are good reasons those expectations exist because most people are sedentary. They don’t train, they don’t eat particularly well, they drink too much, spend most of their day sitting on their asses, and by the time they reach forty, fifty, sixty and beyond, a lot of them look like shit. Somewhere along the way that average has quietly become the standard, and we have started treating the consequences of inactivity as though they are simply what aging is supposed to look like. Then, once somebody exceeds that picture even slightly, we congratulate them for somehow doing better than expected within the category we already assigned them.

Of course, age matters. Bodies change, recovery changes, joints accumulate mileage, injuries happen, and an older person does not recover like a twenty-five-year-old. I am not pretending otherwise, and I am certainly not suggesting everybody should spend the second half of their life trying to outperform people half their age. What I don’t understand is why the standard should collapse simply because the number changed. Why should the goal become “not too bad considering”? Nobody hands you a document at fifty telling you exactly how strong you are now allowed to be. Nobody pulls you aside later in life and explains that ambition has become slightly inappropriate. There is no official ceiling. There is just an expectation that gets repeated often enough that people begin to mistake it for biology.

---

The problem is that it becomes self-fulfilling very quickly. Somebody assumes getting older means becoming weak, stiff, and increasingly incapable. They stop asking much from themselves physically because they think that is what normal people their age are supposed to do.

My dad’s a great example of this. He is a freak for seventy-six years old, but that stubborn old donkey will not listen to a goddamn thing I tell him. Every so often I will push him on something and get, ‘Well, you know, I’m seventy-five now,’ or more recently, ‘I’m seventy-six now,’ as though that settles the matter. Meanwhile, he is capable of so much more than what he is currently doing, which is precisely the point. The number becomes an explanation before it has actually been tested.

Predictably, people then become weaker, stiffer and less capable, which gets presented as proof that their pre-conceived notion was correct in the first place. It sure is an efficient little system: decide that decline is inevitable, stop doing the things that resist it, watch the decline happen, and then congratulate yourself for having predicted it correctly.

It does not help that some people get exactly the same message from places they are supposed to trust. Somebody’s knees start hurting and some stupid-ass GP, who clearly does not train and does not exactly look like the picture of health themselves, tells them to stop squatting. Their back gets sore and they are told to avoid deadlifts because, well, you’re fifty now. Sometimes there is obviously a legitimate medical reason to modify what somebody is doing, and I am not suggesting there isn’t, but there is a huge difference between adapting training around an actual problem and treating age itself as the diagnosis. These people are telling them to stop doing the very things that will help them remain strong and capable, then five years later everybody acts surprised that they are weaker and less capable. Well done, dickheads. You’ve helped handcuff the person standing in front of you, and you contributed to the exact decline you were supposedly trying to protect them from, when their best interests should have been front and center the entire time.

One of the things I enjoy most about pushing back against the whole “good for your age” idea is the tool we get to use to do it. For a lot of people, nothing screams “not for someone your age” more loudly than a barbell and a pile of iron plates. It is getting better, but strength training still carries this image of big, strong, burly young dudes grunting over heavy weights while everybody else gets handed elastic bands, a pink kettlebell and something appropriately gentle to do in the corner.

That is probably why shit like reformer Pilates, EMS, vibration plates and all the other increasingly elaborate ways of avoiding actually loading the body still have people lining up for them. They look safe, technical and suitably age-appropriate, which is apparently more comforting than putting something heavy in your hands and asking your body to adapt to it. But if you want stronger muscles, stronger bones and a body that can tolerate more, eventually you have to give it a reason to change into that body.

We do not water the work down just because somebody has been alive longer. If an older lifter comes in to train, we put a bar on his back the same way we put one on a twenty-five-year-old’s back. They deadlift from the floor using the same movement pattern as the guy pulling 250 kilos beside them. The weights are different because the people are different, but the basic demand is the same: produce force, move the weight, add a little more, keep doing it, and get stronger over time.

That is what I like about the barbell. It does not look therapeutic, age-adjusted or especially gentle. It just gives you something concrete to do and a very clear way to know whether you are getting stronger. For somebody who walked in thinking their job was simply to maintain, that can be a pretty powerful contradiction to the story they had already been telling themselves. They are not being managed into decline – they are training.

What I enjoy watching is the moment that their “maintenance” assumption starts to fall apart. People come in all the time with a very clear idea of what they think they should be capable of at their age. Sometimes they say it directly. They just want to stay mobile and maintain what they have while not expecting much. Then you teach them how to squat, press and deadlift, ask them to do a little more than they did last time and, rather inconveniently for their theory, they start getting better. Six months later the person who was hoping not to decline is stronger than they were six months ago. A year later they may be stronger than they were ten years ago. In some cases they are stronger than they have ever been, mostly because nobody had ever asked them to train seriously before.

We have one lovely woman in here who started training with us at that stage of life, and came in with a very normal idea of what her age was supposed to look and feel like. Over time she got stronger, leaner, and visibly more muscular than she had been in years, until eventually she was proudly walking around the gym asking everyone to check out how nice her ass looked and trying to convince a few members to touch it and verify for themselves. I am not necessarily recommending that particular method of progress assessment as part of the standard coaching model, but her concerns about quietly maintaining what she had seemed to disappear somewhere along the way. More importantly, she had gone from thinking in terms of what somebody her age was supposed to preserve to realizing that she could still become better than she had been before.

That shift in thinking matters more to me than the number on the bar. There is something incredibly satisfying about watching somebody realize that the version of themselves they had accepted as inevitable was not inevitable at all. I have seen people in their fifties become stronger than they were in their thirties. I have seen people in their seventies do things they had never done at any previous point in their lives, not because we found some miracle anti-aging protocol hidden in the back of a supplement cupboard, but because they finally trained consistently enough to discover what they were capable of.

Sometimes the interesting thing is not that someone is strong for their age. It is that this happens to be the strongest they have ever been.

I also think “good for your age” can become a convenient way of avoiding the question of whether more is possible. If somebody is weak at thirty-five, most people assume there is something they could do about it. If the same person is weak thirty years later, suddenly weakness itself starts getting treated as an age category. Maybe that person will never be as strong as they would have been had they trained consistently for the previous thirty years, but that is very different from saying they cannot become meaningfully stronger now. Can they carry more, get up more easily, tolerate more work, trust their body more, and be less fragile than they were six months ago? If the answer is yes, and it always is, then I am not especially interested in where they fall on whatever curve somebody decided was normal for their decade.

You do not have to be exceptional, but why not try to be? You do not have to compete with anyone, and you certainly do not need to become some freakish outlier who gets profiled at eighty because you can still deadlift a small car. What I object to is the ceiling being installed before you have tested it, the idea that there is some socially acceptable amount of strength, movement, or capability appropriate to your age, and that wanting more is unrealistic. Age is real, and decline – eventually – is real too. But there is a huge difference between acknowledging those facts and volunteering for them early.

I would much rather see somebody find out what their actual ceiling is later in life than settle for the one they inherited from people who never bothered to test theirs. Maybe you are good for your age and that is perfectly fine. I just do not see why that should be where the conversation ends.

---

Discuss in Forums