Does anyone know how the McCulloch masters' formula was derived? I was looking at Wilks and the McCulloch formula, and they make my puny lifts look....... respectable? I think I understand Wilks, but how did McCulloch arrive at his numbers?
Printable View
Does anyone know how the McCulloch masters' formula was derived? I was looking at Wilks and the McCulloch formula, and they make my puny lifts look....... respectable? I think I understand Wilks, but how did McCulloch arrive at his numbers?
As I have said repeatedly, I dunno. I can't math worth shit. But a suggestion might be in order.
Consult Kilgore's age adjusted charts. Killustrated Weightlifting Freebies
Also, take a look at any given powerlifting federation's raw records charts or any given meet where someone your age with enough balls showed up to get on platform. This will give you a fair benchmark to shoot for or compare yourself to.
Full disclosure, I compete only in the USPA. Give them a look.
USPA Powerlifting - Competition Results
USPA Drug Tested - National Records
USPA Drug Tested - National Records
Also, thank you for asking this question. Looking this information up to provide you with revealed I scored a drug tested national record back in July.
You illustrate my question beautifully. None of the USPA categories I fit in have anything but place-holder weights, not actual records, and my gym lifts would establish new records for total in six categories (Raw, Classic, 67.5, 75, and 82.5 - If I wanted to cut all the way to 67.5; I'd still be at 18%BF) , yet I know I'm not particularly strong compared to my few contemporaries who still train halfway seriously. Right now, my "age-adjusted" Wilks number is in the low 300s, which is sort of OK, and just where it should be for a guy with no gifts other than perseverance who has been lifting for a little while.
Similarly, while Kilgore's chart only goes into the 60s (I'm 70), I'm rated "Advanced" on most of the lifts, almost "Elite" on DL, so maybe around 90th percentile overall - for guys my size in their 60s. OK progress so far, but certainly not a national record holder.
With the McCulloch number, I can take my 280 lb pull at 165 BW, multiply it by about 1.65, and come up with an "equivalent" number around 460 for a 30-year old, which is "OK" for a 165 pounder at that age, but about 140 lbs short of being really strong. If the McCulloch number is well founded, it could offer a pretty good basis for comparing and competing with the 20-year-olds I train with. For example, a 70 year old, 165 lb geezer can say to a 22-year old 190 pound young man, OK - you've got to lift Y to match my X, and have it be based on some decent data. They seem to be pretty widely accepted lately, so that's why I am asking how McCulloch was derived.
There's a site called https://strengthlevel.com/ , that has taken about 2.5 million self-reported entries from their members and purports to have established a database with which one may determine their percentile ranking on a given lift for their age and weight. Its data seems to be in the same ballpark with Kilgore and Wilks, although I haven't run a close comparison. I've run across one or two other sites that offer similar analyses. They're not nearly as easy to use for comparison as Wilks / McCulloch, though.
sorry - looking at this im thinking the bottom two are just results from meets not national records?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark E. Hurling
The bottom two somehow both became the drug tested records. My error.
As for the result of a meet? You are correct. The meet in question was the Drug Tested Raw Nationals in Atlanta, GA in July of this year. But note carefully what it says on the title of the link when you open it Drug Tested National Record. In point of fact, all records are the result of a meet somewhere. That's how they get set.
I was frankly surprised to find that the USPA had set up a new category in their records for this so quickly. There is normally a lag of several more months for something new like this. So far though, they have not set criteria for Drug Tested World qualifications or records as of yet. Thus far, they lowered the qualifying totals for meets from Class I for untested Nationals to Class II for Drug Tested Nationals.
If you elect to compete in Drug Tested meets you will not be granted a TRT waiver for "therapeutic" reasons. If test dirty in a drug tested meet, you are banned from all USPA competitions. I am not certain for how long.
Correction / update: Kilgore has new pages up that cover the 70s. Kilgore Strength Standards - Back Squat (FWIW, he would rate me well into "Advanced", hovering on "elite", which I think is a bit optimistic.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark E. Hurling
USPA has an upgraded chart of classification standards that includes Raw, Classic, plus single and multi-ply numbers for ages through the 70s. At 165#, I've got about 80 lbs to go on my total to make Masters. I think I'll just use these numbers for goal setting, but the McCulloch formula is still really handy for competition / comparison among differing weight classes and ages. For example, I train with a twenty-year old who competes at 148, and just deadlifted 505 lb at a meet. My 280 lb deadlift at age 70 would score as @460 with the age adjustment factor, so he has me beat statistically, but my squat and DL beat him. We can use a little friendly rivalry to improve our training.
Note: the USPA link will download an XLS file that you must open - at least it does on my system.
I find the Kilgore charts to have incredibly low numbers for women for squat and deadlift particularly, and with bench press only somewhat better. I am elite or nearly by the Kilgore charts for squat and deadlift, even without taking my age into account (46). Compared the CPU - Canadian powerlifting federation where I am Class 1 at best, and nowhere near masters or elite. USPA and USAPL numbers are similar to the CPU, if I recall correctly from previous searches.
These charts are as good as the data they were based upon. And it looks like Kilgore's data did not include a lot of women's results. It possibly may have holes in the older men's results too. Use the standards from a reputable powerlifting federation for a realistic idea of where you rank against other powerlifters in your categories.
I think you're probably right. After looking at all the options, I think the USPA classification standards and the age-adjusted Wilks score are pretty equivalent and well accepted. The total for a USPA Master classification is only about 20 lbs less than a Wilks 400, so I think I'll make those my goals. If I can make a Wilks 400, then I'll look around again. There's just no direct competition at my size and age, so you really only have a standard to compete against. I'll probably go to a meet here and there just to meet people and see how I do under judging but it would be rare to run into any direct competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viola
You're right about that. The number of lifters just over 50 you can count on one hand. Even fewer over 60. 1-3 at most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddler
