My boss has repeatedly made the claim that after the age of 30 (and sometimes he says 40) that men cannot add muscle mass. Is there any truth to that?
Your boss is an idiot (but you probably already knew that). I’m 62, and when I get off my ass and work out, I still see results. But it does take longer to get the same results than it used to.
Tell that to Barry Bonds. 
Testosterone levels drop with age, but never to the point that you can’t add muscle. It’s certainly not going to get easier, though.
Remind your boss about Jack LaLanne.
I added a good deal of upper-body muscle mass at 50, without any drugs or special nutritional supplements.
I’m 30 and lifting. Ask me again in five years.
If it was true there wouldn’t be any point to the physiotherapy exercises that are prescribed to people of any age when they are recovering from injury or illness. Physiotherapists have degrees in the subject so they probably know more than your boss does.
Actually, recent studies have shown that strength training (and adding muscle) can improve health and coordination even in the very elderly. A 75 year old is probably not gonnabe able to bulk up to a Mr. Olympia level but he can get some real improvements.
I suppose it’s hard to get really bulky* before* puberty, right?
This kid seems to have pulled it off.
Good definition, but not much bulk at all.
Thanks to dad who injected him with steroids.
Oops! “…allegedly injected him…”
:rolleyes:
Plenty of over-30 and even -40 pro wrestlers add significant muscle mass (admittedly often using chemical aid) while recovering from injuries.
Frank Woodruff Buckles (born February 1, 1901) is, at age 107, the last known surviving American-born veteran of the First World War
*“When asked on how he could live so long, he replied “Hope”. On a daily basis he lifts 2-pound weights and does stretches in the morning. According to his caretaker, he does around 50 sit-ups in the morning before beginning his day.”
*
But of course, This can’t do any good 
Two pound weights? Not to denigrate anything that one does at 107, but was that a typo?
When you’re 107, let’s see how much you’re lifting. Sounds reasonable to me, some resistance without much chance for injury.
I have little doubt that I’ll be pushing up very heavy daisies.
Just to add another data point, my dad, who turns 50 in a few weeks, has been getting steadily stronger over the past several months.
He’s probably confusing peak time for development with no chance of development after that point. If you look up the keywords: elderly strength training, you’ll probably find several different studies on the subject. All of them have shown functional and overall health improvements from weight training. There are even people who got into fitness late in life, like in their 60s and 70s, who go on to start competing in senior-class bodybuilding and other athletic pursuits.
Hell, this guy is 85. Sure, I have the potential to pass him, no matter what kind of genetics I’ve got relative to his, since I’ve got more time, but he already made the investment of time and effort and kept it up, which is why still he’s in such incredible shape. It’ll take me several years of serious work to even match his fitness level.
As far as I know, studies have focused on people who were relatively sedentary before training. I’d be willing to bet very good money that people who never stop being active are in much, much better shape than those who let things go for 20 years. I’m only in my early 30s, and I only let things slide for a few years, but it took a long time to get back to what I would consider to be a decent level of fitness. I can only imagine how bad it would be if it had been 10 years of inactivity instead of three or so.