Calculating Training Age... Not that Simple

[erixsparhawk]

Hypothetical:
What would you say the training age is of the person with the follow graph of strength vs time?
This person has trained consistently for 15 years. They train for 10 months then take a 2 month break from weights but remain active. Nutrition is dialed in. They lift for fun and never followed a plan so lets say programming is sub optimal to say the least.
Go!

[Brian Waligura]

The reflexive answer would be about 7 years. But maybe the 8ish years after the peak, in aggregate, can be thought of as a couple years of training age, since training took place to the extent that strength was retained to a degree. So maybe 10 years?

But I guess I would ask: why is it useful to know somebody's -- or one's own -- "training age"? What would you do with that number?

I would also like to know: if this person trained consistently, why has their strength gone down to such a degree (assuming the graph is roughly to-scale)? Are they very old? Some other kind of debilitation (not sure if that's a word)? I understand programing is sub-optimal, but would think strength would maintain much closer to the peak, if the majority of what they do is lifting weights. Did they lift for fun the entire 15 years, or was the first 7 years different than the last 8?

[erixsparhawk]

What to do with training age? Good Question. I suppose a larger number would indicate the need for more volume and structure to see results. Probably not very useful beyond general categories of novice, intermediate, and advanced.
Graph Scale: completely arbitrary, it wouldn't have looked so drastically up and down if I halved the up down distance and doubled the left right distances.
This whole question came about while I was sitting around waiting for computer servers to come back online the other day. I was thinking about how much strength I lost in the first 2 months of COVID. I was getting plenty of exercise but couldn't lift at all. Seemed like it took the better part of a year to get back where I was when I came back to lifting.
In regards to the age of the hypothetical person, I was definitely going for over the hill. I was thinking about how there comes a time when there just won't be any more PRs. Don't know how realistic that part was, but it made it interesting from the "training age" perspective.
My thoughts were that the persons overall strength after 15 years was close to the 1 year point. Does that mean that he has a training age equivalent of 1 year or "novice"?
No, but I was thinking that the training age could be argued at something closer to 3-4 years or "intermediate" given the sub optimal programming.

[DorianStarbuck]

What to do with training age? Good Question. I suppose a larger number would indicate the need for more volume and structure to see results. Probably not very useful beyond general categories of novice, intermediate, and advanced.
Graph Scale: completely arbitrary, it wouldn't have looked so drastically up and down if I halved the up down distance and doubled the left right distances.
This whole question came about while I was sitting around waiting for computer servers to come back online the other day. I was thinking about how much strength I lost in the first 2 months of COVID. I was getting plenty of exercise but couldn't lift at all. Seemed like it took the better part of a year to get back where I was when I came back to lifting.
In regards to the age of the hypothetical person, I was definitely going for over the hill. I was thinking about how there comes a time when there just won't be any more PRs. Don't know how realistic that part was, but it made it interesting from the "training age" perspective.
My thoughts were that the persons overall strength after 15 years was close to the 1 year point. Does that mean that he has a training age equivalent of 1 year or "novice"?
No, but I was thinking that the training age could be argued at something closer to 3-4 years or "intermediate" given the sub optimal programming.

It would be a good idea for you to spend some time browsing these forums to familiarize yourself with the BBM approach to these types of things. You're creating narratives here that don't mesh at all with the approaches recommended here.

[Brian Waligura]

the persons overall strength after 15 years was close to the 1 year point.

I failed to realize the strength at the 15-year point was all the way down to the 1-year point. I still kinda think those first 7 years had to count fully, you know? But I see your point, maybe they don't count fully, only partially. But I would also think the last 8 years had to count for something too, since strength was at least maintained to a degree throughout those 8 years (although not to a very high degree).

I was thinking about how much strength I lost in the first 2 months of COVID. I was getting plenty of exercise but couldn't lift at all. Seemed like it took the better part of a year to get back where I was when I came back to lifting.

Yep, strength is much more fleeting than certain people would have us believe. Especially strength in a given exercise: "exercise-specific strength" I guess it would be called? Stop overhead pressing for several months, and then go back and, in that first workout back, try to get anywhere close to what you were doing previously (assuming you were pushing it hard previously). Good luck and may god have mercy on your soul.

This phenomenon makes me ask deeper questions about lifting weights. Like who cares about chasing big squat, DL, bench, and OHP numbers, when, once you stop doing those lifts, the numbers eventually fall off a cliff. Your numbers in the other stuff you're doing will go up, of course. But what does it all mean? Some would counter with 'well, don't ever stop doing them'. At some point, the vast vast majority of people get driven into the ground doing those big lifts all the time to the extent they need to to continue making even a miniscule amount of progress. I don't know where I'm going with this (it's pretty early in the day still), but I think it's best in the long run to not get caught up in 'how much you bench' or whatever, because that number is impermanent.