Strength standards

[Brewster Righter]

Kilgore's age adjusted strength standards peak at age 60. This leaves a yawning gap for some of us, ahem, more mature types. Are there any similar figures for 'over 70' and 'over 75'. Just curious. Is it possible or useful to extrapolate kilgores figures by following the progressions down?

[Brewster Righter]

Partially answering my own question, it looks as if the reduction in weight standards from "over age 40" to "over age 50" is 12%, and from "over age 50" to "over age 60" is 25%. I wonder what the methodology is-theoretical, empirical or what?
My interest is personal and practical; I am "over age 70", and like to screw around with the numbers.
Clearly, this not a step-wise progression, and is probably some sort of curve, but that looks steep to me. anyway, if any of you have any ideas about these calculations, there are are plenty of little old guys out there who are interested.

[Mark E. Hurling]

I've read elsewhere that we lose strength and muscle mass at the rate of about 10% per decade after 40. But that's based on the relatively inactive. On the other hand the 1RM's you see from Kilgore in the Elite column are roughly that.

[Adam Skillin]

Kilgore's age adjusted strength standards peak at age 60. This leaves a yawning gap for some of us, ahem, more mature types. Are there any similar figures for 'over 70' and 'over 75'. Just curious. Is it possible or useful to extrapolate kilgores figures by following the progressions down?

You're still squatting to depth with iron plates on the ends of a 45 pound 7-foot long bar across your back at 70 or 75? Elite. The end.

[Oldster]

You're still squatting to depth with iron plates on the ends of a 45 pound 7-foot long bar across your back at 70 or 75? Elite. The end.

Ha! I like that answer in the form of a question followed by an answer :0)

There is your answer, Brewster! And I couldn't agree more.

[Kyle Schuant]

Around 10% of the general population have some sort of sports club or gym membership, or a genuine setup in the garage - I mean a chinup bar and weights and shit, not just the Ab Blaster Pro 69er.

Around 10% of them achieve anything at all.

Around 10% of them achieve something like 60/40/80 for women in SQ/BP/DL, and 100/60/140 for men, plus some chinups.

So regardless of age, if you can deadlift a plate or two a side and do a chinup, you are in the top 1% of the gym population, which means the top 1 in 1,000 of the general population. Anything after that is just gravy.

In other words, Mahogany was right.

[Brewster Righter]

Thanks for the responses. I have finally figured out how to navigate this space. i am currently nursing a "back" issue into recovery, and have noticed some things which may be age related:
i fairly recently added Squats and bench to the DL training for a meet. The schedule has been Tuesday Sq and BP, Friday Dls and chins.
the other week days i do a variety of kettlebell stuff, slingshots, 2 hand swings, presses and cleans. Typically I take the weekend off.
My Starting Strength coach thinks that the volume/intensity has caught up with me, so we are cutting back to 4 days a week and will see what happens.
As a matter of interest in the meets in which I have competed only one other guy appeared in our age group. Still, it is fun to participate, and as Woody Allen said,"90% of success is showing up."

[Packard]

The Kilgore numbers seem a bit wacky to me.

It lists 198 pound body weight "elite" at 220 pounds for a single rep on the bench at age 60.

I am 64. I was laid off for the last 14 years and I've been training now for 26 weeks. I feel like I'm in lousy shape. But I'm benching 265 for sets of 5 reps.

I know that I am not in "elite" condition. I think I am about 8 to 12 months away from that. But the numbers seem way too low. (And does life end at 60?)

[Kyle Schuant]

Packard, I would be interested in your other numbers.

Any time we set strength or other kinds of fitness standards, there'll be several numbers involved. It's common to find a person does very well on one or two of them, and crappy on the rest.

[Packard]

Packard, I would be interested in your other numbers.

Any time we set strength or other kinds of fitness standards, there'll be several numbers involved. It's common to find a person does very well on one or two of them, and crappy on the rest.

There might be something to that. I have arthritic knees and I never attempted to do squats. I did do some dead lifts for a while. They were a modified semi-stiff legged variety as that did not bother my knees so much. I did not note my body weight in my log book. My starting body weight was 220 pounds; I'm now 200 pounds (going to 180). So I was somewhere around 210 at week 16. Kilgore's chart lists 325 to 335 for a single rep for "elite". But "advanced" was just 275 pounds. How can someone reach "advanced" (and approaching elite as no doubt that I could do 300 pounds for a single rep since I was doing 5 reps for 275), in just 4 months after being idle for 14 years?

My workout back then was:

225 x 10
245 x 10
265 x 10
275 x 5
225 x 10

I abandoned this exercise as my knees were still hurting. I switched to seated rows (cable) and Hammer row machine see: http://www.leehayward.com/dvdpics/1l.../hammerrow.jpg

At week 28 I am doing 10 reps with 450 on the hammer machine and 5 reps with 500. So I wouldn't want anyone to think that all I do is bench press. I do what I am able to do.

I'm going to do some dead lifts again and see if I can get to "elite" before my knees give out again.

But the question is "where is the science?".

Kilgore shows a list, but I've not been able to find any description of the methodology.