Article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/sports/ed-whitlock-marathon-running.html
If you are blocked by the NY Times paywall, you can read it on the Irish times website here:
Article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/sports/ed-whitlock-marathon-running.html
If you are blocked by the NY Times paywall, you can read it on the Irish times website here:
The first race I ever entered was about six weeks after I started running. It was a local 5k, with about 180 entrants. Ed was one of them. This was in August, 2000.. I believe (from memory) he was in the 65-69 age group, and probably was 69. He ran a 17:30 that day. A few months later, we were in Hamilton's Boxing Day 10 Miler (one of the oldest races in North America), and he ran equally as well.
I talked to him after both races and many times since then. He still raced a fair amount in the early 2000s, so I was lucky enough to get to know him a little. Always a soft-spoken gentleman, and always willing to offer advice. It took me a year or two after our first meeting to truly understand what an amazing runner he was, and still is.
Nice to see this article.
Wait, I thought LRC had a one thread per topic rule.
To run a 2:54 marathon is quite impressive.
To run a 2:54 marathon at age 40 is even more impressive.
To run a 2:54 marathon at 50 is crazy good.
To run a 2:54 marathon at 60 is ungodly.
To run a 2:54 marathon at 70 is something I just don't believe.
To run a 2:54 marathon at 73 or 74 is one of the best athletic achievements of all time.
SAlly V wrote:
To run a 2:54 marathon at 50 is crazy good.
I'll have to disagree with this - Ed is truly incredible to run a 2:54 in his 70s (absolutely agree with you there), but I am almost 49 and could run a 2:54 tomorrow morning. And I am nothing special - definitely not "crazy good."
Stop posting as your twin bro wrote:
Wait, I thought LRC had a one thread per topic rule.
Sorry about that. I didn't see the other thread. Scary that my identical twin and I like the same stories. It had fallen to page #2.
I've now combined the two threads into 1.
Anyone know if Ed drinks?
Hopefully Ed himself can shed more light on this, but I seriously doubt the estimate of 20 miles/day for the three hours of running. For my first marathon, I ran the same time (2:54), and trained mostly around that pace (probably a bit slower actually), but only ran 50 miles/week, 100 miles of that would have broken me, and 140 would have been unthinkable.
In any case, Ed deserves all of the kudos he is getting, and more.
amkelley wrote:
I found the NY Times article both inspiring and informative. What I do find a bit sad, and surprising, is that Whitlock says he doesn't enjoy running for its own sake and finds training to be drudgery. He runs mostly so that he can gain acclaim by performing well in races. I can't imagine doing something that is supposed to be recreation that requires so much time and effort on a daily basis if the only enjoyment I got from it was when I entered a race. I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with that--everyone needs to find his own source of motivation.
This is what Bolt says. I take both with a grain of salt. When you run this much, it is drudgery. But at the same time no one's making you do it, so you have to get some satisfaction from the process, too. I think it's just diminished by the exultant feeling from a race outcome. Most of us don't have such exciting race results, so we take joy in the smaller things.
This was in the Comments section. Added on by the reporter:
Since a number of you asked about his diet, this is what Ed sent to me today in response: "I don't pay any real attention to that. I don't eat a lot of meat but I am not a vegetarian. Fair intake of fruit and vegetables, heavy on carbohydrates, probably more fats and sugar than would be recommended. Do nothing to control my weight from diet."
Ed seems to be besting John Gilmour's records slowly but surely. Gilmour is 95 or 96, only running track now. Last seen in november 2016
Ed's accomplishments show what is possible with what we today consider to be advanced age.
Ed, you're a role model for what aging can look like if people just take care of themselves and exercise. Best wishes for 2017!
Well put.
With the smallest amount of weight training Ed would retain better performance levels.
Just saying.
easy weeks wrote:
SAlly V wrote:To run a 2:54 marathon at 50 is crazy good.
I'll have to disagree with this - Ed is truly incredible to run a 2:54 in his 70s (absolutely agree with you there), but I am almost 49 and could run a 2:54 tomorrow morning. And I am nothing special - definitely not "crazy good."
almost 49 and 50 is not the same. wait until you are 50
ocracoke wrote:
Anyone know if Ed drinks?
I recall reading a quote from him some years back where he was asked whether he had any vices and he replied 'none - unless a 1/2 bottle of red wine per day is a vice'...
Classic guy, great inspiration.
Reading about Mr. Whitlock is as fun as reading about the Olympic runners.
He's so thin though. At 115 lbs at 5'7" his weight to height ratio is 1.72. Dennis Kimetto is also 5'7" and at his listed weight of 121 his ratio is 1.80, more than Ed's. Those of us at 2.0 or more don't stand a chance. Keep going Ed!
Lada wrote:
ocracoke wrote:Anyone know if Ed drinks?
I recall reading a quote from him some years back where he was asked whether he had any vices and he replied 'none - unless a 1/2 bottle of red wine per day is a vice'...
Classic guy, great inspiration.
Also, among the trophies pictured in the NYT article is a can of Coors Light, which I suppose may mean that at least he doesn't have anything AGAINST drinking (and if you call Coors Light drinking)...
As far as his weight, article says he was down to 105 lbs for the Toronto Marathon, which even for 5' 7" seems absurdly small. Amazing person.
And what range from a sub-4 hour marathon to a 7:18 Mile at age 85. Bravo, Ed! #GOAT
http://www.bringbackthemile.com/news/detail/the_best_mile_moments_of_2016
weighting game wrote:
With the smallest amount of weight training Ed would retain better performance levels.
Just saying.
I agree. Yes, he is healthy overall and just and amazing specimen aerobically. No doubt.
personally, I don't want to be that thin when I'm that old. There is something to be said for upper body strength and functionality. I'd like to be able to run reasonably well at 85-90, but also be able to knock out some dips, pullups, and at least bench my weight two or three times.