Yet here you are - still swinging. So much projection.
Yet here you are - still swinging. So much projection.
As are you, but much more invested. Get help.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
As are you, but much more invested. Get help.
Still projecting.
It also eludes your understanding that my disputes here are with those who treat this board as an alt right echo chamber. Then there are those like you, who indulge in your own form of personal attack while indignantly protesting at the response it receives. Self awareness is not one of your traits, Spartacus.
long sleeve shirt wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Yes, it is "mind -blowing and "unbelievable". Assuming he is clean, what adjectives would you use for his performances if he doped? What times would they be?
I'd like to believe he's clean, but given everything we know one would have to be a fool to think that drugs aren't a strong possibility here. A 2:13 marathoner in his prime running 2:28 at age 48 is plausible, but then that same runner going 2:27 at 59 is just hard to fathom.
Its the shoes:) Seriously we get a lot of guys that just aren't slowing down ( See Kenneth Munigara) from their prime they way other people did. If you figure the shoes are worth 2-3 mins, it explains a lot.
The tough part for all of us is that we have no idea what good aging is like. We have a general feel for what average aging is like but we don't know what the distribution is. Maybe only dropping like 15-20 mins from you prime at age 60 is something that 5% of the population can do.
At the risk of making this subjective, a sports physio for one of my country's national sides said I would easily fall within the top 5% of my age group (mid-60's) for strength etc. There's no way that I could be only 15-20% less than my physical peak of 40 years or so ago. I gave the example earlier of top athletes like Shaheed and King whose world age group records at 60 are comparable to a very good 13 year old. A lot of people here just don't get how aging affects us.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
As are you, but much more invested. Get help.
Still projecting.
It also eludes your understanding that my disputes here are with those who treat this board as an alt right echo chamber. Then there are those like you, who indulge in your own form of personal attack while indignantly protesting at the response it receives. Self awareness is not one of your traits, Spartacus.
Nope, just sticking up for people being defamed. Especially the elders .
Get help.
Tommy Hughes is one of a man
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Still projecting.
It also eludes your understanding that my disputes here are with those who treat this board as an alt right echo chamber. Then there are those like you, who indulge in your own form of personal attack while indignantly protesting at the response it receives. Self awareness is not one of your traits, Spartacus.
Nope, just sticking up for people being defamed. Especially the elders .
Get help.
Hasn't worked for you.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Nope, just sticking up for people being defamed. Especially the elders .
Get help.
Hasn't worked for you.
Deep.
Armstronglivs wrote:
At the risk of making this subjective, a sports physio for one of my country's national sides said I would easily fall within the top 5% of my age group (mid-60's) for strength etc. There's no way that I could be only 15-20% less than my physical peak of 40 years or so ago. I gave the example earlier of top athletes like Shaheed and King whose world age group records at 60 are comparable to a very good 13 year old. A lot of people here just don't get how aging affects us.
Sure your in the top 5%. But think about what a low bar that is. What percentage of 60 years olds do you think do 2 strength workouts/week and 3 aerobic ones? 5%? 1%? The questions is what is it like if you are in the top 5% of the people who do try to stay in shape. That would be like .1% of the general population not the top 5%. Imagine the average drop off from 30 to 60 is like 30 mins. How many people only drop 20? That is what it will be like to be in the top 5% instead of average. It is the youth age group effect in reverse. Some kids stop growing at 14 and other keep growing til they are 20.
But sure 13 is about right. A 13 year old has run a 4:26 mile which destroys the 60 year record. 15:33for 5000m which is ~40s faster than the 60 year old track record. So those masters have a lot of room to improve right?:) Note the marathon for 13 year olds is a lot slower. Guessing it is a combo of low opportunity (you only can 1 or 2 marathons), very low participation, and it takes time to get the aerobic system in top shape.
You just shifted the goal posts. So you don't mean the top 5% in the 60's but the top 0.1%. It still won't help your argument. Even the very best in their age group will experience the effects of aging. Although their absolute level will be higher than their contemporaries they will decline at a rate that isn't too dissimilar because of the inevitable changes in human physiology we are all subject to. The examples of Shaheed and King demonstrate this. (Shaheed has been a top masters athlete since he began competing in his 30's, and has held all the age group records he has competed in.) As the best in the world in the 60's they are easily in the top 0.1% of their age group, but are still only running times relative to a kid in their early teens. 13 year olds compete in middle distance events but rarely the marathon. But Hughes' hm and marathon times are comparable to good (but not elite) adult runners over those distances. That is simply at another level from his middle-distance contemporaries. It is also illusory to think that 60 year olds have a lot of room for improvement. They cannot reverse aging - as much as some of you seem to think they can.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Still projecting.
It also eludes your understanding that my disputes here are with those who treat this board as an alt right echo chamber. Then there are those like you, who indulge in your own form of personal attack while indignantly protesting at the response it receives. Self awareness is not one of your traits, Spartacus.
Nope, just sticking up for people being defamed. Especially the elders .
Get help.
You aren't sticking up for anyone except yourself. Hughes doesn't need the help of a nobody like you. It is your own ego that you're defending. Everything is about you.
The brotherhood on ancient warriors. You are not a member.
Tommy Hughes is awesome! Man, what did he have for breakfast???!!!
World records aren’t held by 5%ers. They are held by .1%. Nobody cares that you aged better than a bunch of people who haven’t worked out in 40 years. The question is how you aged against people who have.
Hughes time are the same as good adult runners. But great 13 year olds are also better than good adult runners. So I a, not sure what your point is?
And nobody is talking about reversing aging other than you. The question is what the rate of decline is. If you want to say losing like 20 mins from you peak is impossible, great. The question is how do you prove it. You need to come up with a couple thousand guys who ran seriously in their 20s and then did the same in the same when they were 60. If we learn everyone else fell off 30-40mins, his 16 min drop would look crazy. Find that their is a range from 15-40, and then their isn’t anything to see. But right now we don’t really have those numbers.
Excellent summary.
You keep overlooking the fact that it was you who raised the 5% measure. But it doesn't matter whether an athlete is in the top 5% of their age group group or 0.1% - as you now argue - they are subject to the same aging processes relative to their own level, because of inevitable changes in human biology. Although there will clearly be some variation in those changes they will have experienced the same general changes as experienced by all. As the expression goes, "time waits for no man".
The question is what rate of decline between 25 and 60 do you find credible? I have offered the examples of top masters athletes in their 60's who couldn't compete against good adults in their 20's or 30's; Hughes' times show that he could. As I said earlier, a 2.08/4.50 md runner of 13 (which is where Shaheed and King are) is comparable to at least a 1.52/4.15 adult. That is what Hughes is comparable to in marathon terms.
There is also data that estimates the rate of natural physiological decline that occurs with aging. It begins at about 30 at 1% per year and continues to increase, exponentially after 50. An athlete trained to their peak in their youth cannot get faster or stronger as they age. Unless they dope. If their decline is way out of line with the best in their age group the same conclusion could apply. Like the sci-fi film "Cocoon", if someone can breakdance at 60 then there is something very odd going on. Same for an athlete who has lost only 10% of their speed in over 30 years - as Hughes has.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
The brotherhood on ancient warriors. You are not a member.
How ancient? Neanderthal?
Partially and the rest Cro-Magnon.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Partially and the rest Cro-Magnon.
That explains quite a lot.