How many push ups at age 50 are usual?

If your doing 10 of them with perfect form, it’s well above baseline!

No pull ups. With solid training behind you that should be the goal.

He said that 10 is baseline fitness and it just isn't. It's advanced.

On another note more than any other exercise it depends on your size and weight etc. A small 60kg person will find pull ups easier than a tall 90kg person with long limbs.

He said that 10 is baseline fitness and it just isn't. It's advanced.

That's not what he said. I literally highlight in my post that he said "to aim for". I'm not sure what's confusing about to aim for.

'Typical' will depend on what you do, it isn't a general measure of the population. Its simply another word for average and someones 'average' will depend on the group they hang around with.

I agree it's another way referring to average. But that's precisely why the individual ability doesn't matter. The typical in this contest is the average overall. If a sub group are weaker/stronger than average. Then they are weaker/stronger that the typical guy.

For reference - my 5k PB is 19:08 and I'm one of the slowest in my group. The average ('typical') 5k time in my group is 17 mins.

Sure, that only applies if the discussion was your group or similar. Which wasn't the case here;
OP asked was is usual. So with that in mind, I'd say that a 19min 5km is faster than typical.

Equally - we wouldn't do any upper body at all so even the general populace teenager who sits on his phone the time in the gym could bench press or do more push ups then any of us.

Probably. But that makes that group below averages/typical in terms of bench press strength. The point about push/pull ups was in the context of guys generally.

I think there's a conflation of strength/cardio and fitness. The reality is for the vast majority of people a balance of good cardio ability and strength is where we should be aiming.

Also, I can't believe someone thinks 10 pullups is even a reasonable target for a 50 year old. Getting them to the point of 1 unassisted pullup would be hard enough.

I suppose it depends on what your defining fitness as. Whenever I use it refers to how cardiovascularly fit I am - for example I'm returning running back from injury so I would say my fitness isn't in the best place. My group of friends would all be the same. Interestingly the few lifters that I do know also use fitness the same way. I'll hear "I'm in great shape/I'm very fit" after lifting their heaviest bench press. It seems to me that 'fitness' is used as a benchmark of how fit/good an individual is at their chosen sport whatever that may be - not a general standard of all round athletic ability of a given populace.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or what but either way he explicitly says 10 pull ups is base level fitness. The "aim for" bit is secondary to this and is merely saying that a person needs to work up to this. It doesn't change the fact that he believes 10 pull ups is base level fitness. He doesn't believe that 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 , 4, 3, 2, or 1 are base level fitness. It's pretty simple stuff. Hope that clears it up for you.

I agreed that in the context an athlete in a given sport, then "fitness" would refer to their current ability to perform in that sport. ie a Footballers match fitness, or a runner peaking for a race etc. Their S&C is simply to improve their performance.

But not everyone is an athlete in training for a specific sport. The majority of people in the gym are probably training for general health and fitness. In that context, if they say they are fit (or not that fit) they are almost certainly talking about all round athletic ability.
FWIW I'd imagine that athlete are capable of distinguishing their sport specific fitness, and their general fitness - for most sports their likely isn't a difference.

Would disagree with that last bit of your post but not really looking for a debate. Can see we would never agree so lets just agree to disagree.

By all means disagree. But it's a discussion forum, the point is is disagree, say why, healthly discussion etc.
For clarity, are you disagreeing with the fall short of the typical, or the generally not optimal part?

Out of curiosity can I ask you what is your idea of 'optinal health/fitness'? Is it being able to run 5k or ride X in a certain time? A required amount of push ups/pull ups etc? Being able to bench press or squat a certain weight?

All of the above. Plus others like mobility.
The ability to do the physical things we have to do. The health benefits. Longevity. All come down to a combination of those things.

Elite sports, at the extremes, is not about optimal for health and fitness, it's about performance. There no doubt that somebody chasing a world record level performance in pure strength, or pure endurance is making sacrifices elsewhere.

I'm not a fan of averages/usual amount. A professional distance runner (Marathon in this example) will never do upperbody and could be well under 60kg so no point in comparing them to the average when they were never really in the conversation. Equally professional strongmen probably couldn't run a mile so no point in comparing them to the average 5k time.

General average/Typical are not relevant to professionals at the extremes. But I don't think anyone suggested professionals should be assessed like that. They would be assess by metrics for their sport/position (which averages of a sort)
Comparing to general typical is usually in relation to the general population. People competing in distance running, or strength sports, etc casually are probably more closely aligned to general population than professionals.

but either way he explicitly says 10 pull ups is base level fitness.

Except that's not explicitly what he said. You've removed "to aim for".

The fact your are intentionally edit the quote peaks volumes.
There's little point in continue the discussion if you have to make up lies to back your point.

No problem, there's a lack of constructive discussion here lately. So always happy to engage in good faith discussion.

My understanding/definition of optimal is to be perfect - I.e the perfect way to train for a given sport which does exist. For example for professional marathon runners there is generally a formula to follow, same for professional weight lifters and so on.

Sure, but we topic was optimal for general heath and fitness - not optimal for a particular sport. As I already pointed out, elite sports are concern with performance not health. 99% of people are no elite athletes.

For training to be 'optimal' there has to be an specified end goal which you have said is to be good at everything (strenght, cardio, flexibility etc). The issue is there is no such thing as the 'perfect athete' when it comes to being good at everything.

On what basis is there no such this as being reasonably good at all of those? There are plenty of athletes that are well rounded and have good strength and cardio. Nobody will be a record holder at both, but nobody said that is needed for health.

As regards to 'fall short of the typical', the 'typical' is just far too broad. Within averages of population there will be subgroups that are in a completely different world. Its essentially my argurment from my previous post:

Averages when it comes to sub groups are fine - lets say average bench press of 50 year old males with regards to time spent training.

The fact they are in an different worlds doesn't change the fact they are below/above average. For example, Jockeys are shorter than average. Basketball pros taller than average. The fact they are their own subgroups doesn't negate their height compared to average.

A distance runner has an obvious reason for low upper body strength. But he is still below average. Ditto strongman and cardio. Although they have justifications for their respective lower strength/cardio abilities. They are still prone to the negative health impacts of either.

Even assuming you want to compare moderately trained athletes in a given sport to the average, how good can they become before its no longer useful to compare them to the average? For reference the best group/team in my athletics club the slowest 5k time is high 15 minutes with the fastest being low 14 (one of them running low 14 in his 40s!).

Is that group closer to professional athletes (13 minute 5k) or can they still be compared to the average? How long is a piece of string?

If we are talking health, then everyone can be compared to averages or other health markers, including the professionals
A professional has a clear reason to explain why they lack X or Y. But a reason wouldn't prevent associated risks from applying. Why would they not apply?

With regards to longevity, general health - yes a professional distance runner may struggle with weak shoulders/bones in his older years (70+ lets say), he is still extremely healthy I'd argue. Equally a weight lifter who maintains mass very well could have very few bone issues going into old age - assuming he was natural then he would still be a healthy individual.

In terms of cardio health, the pro runner may be very healthy. But there are health risk associated with low strength (increased mortality and increased strength-related mobility issues). If the former elite runner has low strength as he ages, those related negative health impacts apply.
Similarly, a heavyweight strength athlete will be unlikely to suffer strength-related mobility issues. But will align to risk with cardio health, increased mass, etc

That is precisely what is meant by not optimal. Being elite in a sport, and still in one or another increase risk category. On the other hand, more rounded training, covering all aspects could mean that someone sidesteps all avoidable fitness based risks.

Elite athlete are doing what they do, despite the impacts it may have on their general health later in life - especially when you consider sports with head injuries.

I think you accidently quoted yourself by mistake. I fully understand all your points and agree with them - its more the terminology/statistics that I disagree with.

In my mind optimal=perfect hence in order to be in optimal general health & fitness, I would need to know what the ideal all round fitness is. The concept of good all round health I can understand, optimal/perfect I cannot.

General blanker statistics can lie hence my distrust of general populace averages. I'll trust the average of a particular subset within a age bracket, weight etc but a blanket number has far too many different subsets of groups.

Either way, we both agree that age itself is no indicator of how many push ups an individial can do.

In my mind optimal=perfect hence in order to be in optimal general health & fitness, I would need to know what the ideal all round fitness is. The concept of good all round health I can understand, optimal/perfect I cannot.

Optimal/perfect have similarities. But the difference would be that perfect is absolute, optimal is relative.
I don't think it would be possible to say "the perfect workout is X,Y,Z". But it's quite easy to say "A is more optimal than B" in regard to general health and fitness.
In this case, doing a combination of cardio and strength training is more optimal that focusing on endurance, or hypertrophy. I don't think there should be anything controversial about that.

General blanker statistics can lie hence my distrust of general populace averages. I'll trust the average of a particular subset within a age bracket, weight etc but a blanket number has far too many different subsets of groups.

For something that declines with age, you would compare to age group. That's completely reasonable, age in unavoidable.
But say comparing fitness to the subgroup of "no training" or "smokers" is probably not reasonable. Given those are the problematic traits affecting health.

…to aim for. @billyhead literally confirmed he was meant it was a goal. This shouldn’t be confusing.

Keep trying, you’ll get there.