Pros/Downsides at age 60+ if training from younger age the way a 60+yoa can train?

[Fleischman]

Dear Rip,
I have really learnt a lot with your Dec 2019 Starting Strength Radio episode, What Happens When a Lifter Gets Old | Starting Strength Radio #35. Thank you for what you shared in it about how you approach lifting now compared to how you used to.

What do you think would have been the downsides and/or benefits in your 60s and beyond from having started your current volume/weight amounts/training frequency say 10/20/30 years ago (instead of having started the lower volume/lower weight/lower frequency in your 60s)?

Thank you.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I don't understand the question.

[Fleischman]

I don't understand the question.

Paraphrasing in different ways:

Minimum Effective Dose: MED

Competition-related reasons aside, for what reason/s wouldn't it have been a good idea for you to have trained all along only with your current MED?

For what reason shouldn't a Non-competitive lifter train for most of her entire lifting history with only the MED (and, instead should do MED only during her old age)?

For what reason should a non competitive younger lifter ever consider training more than the MED?

You say your training now is only the MED: for what reason shouldn't your younger self have switched to just the MED 10 or 20 or 30 years earlier?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Paraphrasing in different ways:

Minimum Effective Dose: MED

Competition-related reasons aside, for what reason/s wouldn't it have been a good idea for you to have trained all along only with your current MED?

For what reason shouldn't a Non-competitive lifter train for most of her entire lifting history with only the MED (and, instead should do MED only during her old age)?

Because it's a waste of time. If you can make progress faster without overtraining or getting hurt, why would you not do so? This is explained in the gray book.

For what reason should a non competitive younger lifter ever consider training more than the MED?

Because they can, without hurting themselves. Time is money.

You say your training now is only the MED: for what reason shouldn't your younger self have switched to just the MED 10 or 20 or 30 years earlier?

This cannot be a serious question.

[Fleischman]

Because it's a waste of time. If you can make progress faster without overtraining or getting hurt, why would you not do so? This is explained in the gray book.

Because they can, without hurting themselves. Time is money.

This cannot be a serious question.

It is indeed a very serious question.

If staving off death is all along one's only training goal, what is the benefit of doing throughout one's training history more than what allows staving off death? In that talk you say "it does not take much training to stave off death" and that at 63 you deadlift 450-500, you squat in the lower 300s for triples and bench 225x3x3. Wouldn't having stayed around these numbers from the time you reached them years ago through the present time have been enough to stave off death?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Sorry, but an athlete's mind does not work this way, and I am -- even at this late stage -- an athlete.

[Fleischman]

Sorry, but an athlete's mind does not work this way, and I am -- even at this late stage -- an athlete.

Understood. I appreciate that you answered my question.

[Panda]

Sorry, but an athlete's mind does not work this way, and I am -- even at this late stage -- an athlete.

PLEASE Rip, please make the T-shirt. "I am an Athelete". I have a one pack and would wear it proudly !

[francesco.decaro]

It is indeed a very serious question.

If staving off death is all along one's only training goal, what is the benefit of doing throughout one's training history more than what allows staving off death? In that talk you say "it does not take much training to stave off death" and that at 63 you deadlift 450-500, you squat in the lower 300s for triples and bench 225x3x3. Wouldn't having stayed around these numbers from the time you reached them years ago through the present time have been enough to stave off death?

Are you looking for some kind of excuse to not train as hard as you should? Because that's where most of these questions come from.

[Jason Donaldson]

45-Incline Press as the Only Pressing Exercise? Minimalism reasons.

MED is not solely a matter of minimal dose - it's minimum effective dose. What's the effect you're trying for?

The calculus changes as a lifter ages, but the goal may not. I would say that to maximize the first derivative of strength is a good working definition for an athlete.

As one ages, the maximum of this function slows, flattens, and even descends.

For a young lifter, this means "gain strength as quickly as possible", i.e. train as much as necessary to produce increased weight on the bar, and no more.
As the lifter ages, it transitions to "lose strength as slowly as possible", with similar parameters. (Rip's "staving off death"...)

The ability to gain strength changes. The ability to recover changes. The degree to which the lifter cares (i.e. goals). This is a unifying theme across lifter age, novice/intermediate/advanced distinctions, situation in life (just had a baby, age of house arrest, et al.). The calculus changes based on the variables. ALL of them.

So, Fleischman, to guide you through your question - given that the inputs are different between a young, novice lifter and an older, intermediate/advanced lifter, should the latter's training look like the former's? The first two in the list above are different, so what would make the training look the same?