You don't understand a simple comparison. You are the scientific illiterate here.
Weren't you the one who thought crosstraining means treadmill running?
Can you explain the science that says how an 80 year old can have the heart of a 25 year old, when a 25 year old heart will likely last for another half century?
The implication is that his heart performs like a typical 25 year old's, not like his did at 25. Reserve capacity is a great thing to have.
The typical 25 year old can expect to live for another half century.
The only thing that's been said is that a typical 25 year old heart performs similarly to Clayton's at 80. He had one of the strongest hearts in the world at 25, so he's lost a lot of capacity over the years.
Armstrong, I get what you're saying and I agree with you. Always good to be healthy but this guy is not going to live to be 150 just because of some cardiovascular markers of health. I'm sure he has good blood pressure, stroke volume, resting heart rate, ejection fraction. Doesn't mean it's going to chug along another 60 years like that of a 25 year old.
You're on the right track. His heart is quite possibly extremely efficient for a person his age and in some performance parameters it may be equivalent to that of a much younger person. However, posters here have taken a point too literally, that he "has the heart of a 25 year old". He doesn't. His has endured for 80 years. He may possibly get another 10 or even 20 years out of it (without there being another cause of mortality). But that's about it.
I looked all over for a “Continue Reading” button but couldn’t find one - this may be the shortest and least informational “story” I’ve ever read. Maybe I missed something?
Because the only cause of death are heart conditions, right?
You are so envious of those who age better than you.
So he has a heart of a 25 year old but his other organs are those of an 80 year old. Care to explain how his heart tissue has not aged in over 50 years while his other organs have?
And the feet of a 100 year old.
Back in 1974 I was sitting in a lounuge and chatting with Derek. He was getting ready for the comm games.
He'd come back from an easy run and had pulled a muscle.
He was bewildered.
Derek is a great guy. Good to see he is still ticking
"His has endured for 80 years. He may possibly get another 10 or even 20 years out of it (without there being another cause of mortality). But that's about it".
Australia has a high life expectancy to begin with about 84 or so.
However for a male to live to 100, from age 80 is only 2% 1 in 50.
Very difficult, but certainly he has put himself in a good position to do so, but I'd bet on closer to 90 than 100. Good luck to him.
Armstrong, I get what you're saying and I agree with you. Always good to be healthy but this guy is not going to live to be 150 just because of some cardiovascular markers of health. I'm sure he has good blood pressure, stroke volume, resting heart rate, ejection fraction. Doesn't mean it's going to chug along another 60 years like that of a 25 year old.
You're on the right track. His heart is quite possibly extremely efficient for a person his age and in some performance parameters it may be equivalent to that of a much younger person. However, posters here have taken a point too literally, that he "has the heart of a 25 year old". He doesn't. His has endured for 80 years. He may possibly get another 10 or even 20 years out of it (without there being another cause of mortality). But that's about it.
Nuance is hard for those on spectrum to figure out. You’ll get it someday skippy.
I remember reading about him in Sports Illustrated back in the day, when I was still new to running. He was a beast, in the best sense. Glad he is still alive and healthy, although the article suggests he has shifted to biking.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.