Yep. they were all like Gladiators. Every single one.
Yep. they were all like Gladiators. Every single one.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Partially and the rest Cro-Magnon.
Armstronglivs is part chimp, part orangutan. Don't confuse him.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Yep. they were all like Gladiators. Every single one.
They are also extinct.
rthtyh wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Partially and the rest Cro-Magnon.
Armstronglivs is part chimp, part orangutan. Don't confuse him.
The confusion is yours. Understandably - it probably always is.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rthtyh wrote:
Armstronglivs is part chimp, part orangutan. Don't confuse him.
The confusion is yours. Understandably - it probably always is.
I love you too, gay boy.
rthtyh wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The confusion is yours. Understandably - it probably always is.
I love you too, gay boy.
So you're coming out? That's ok - you can even change genders if you want. If you haven't already.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Yep. they were all like Gladiators. Every single one.
They are also extinct.
Their DNA lives on in modern day Gladiators.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
They are also extinct.
Their DNA lives on in modern day Gladiators.
You have more in common with those who didn't make it out of the Stone Age. There aren't many job vacancies going for "gladiators" today.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Their DNA lives on in modern day Gladiators.
You have more in common with those who didn't make it out of the Stone Age. There aren't many job vacancies going for "gladiators" today.
Thank you for the compliment. Primitive skills will always be useful. I am skilled in Bushcraft too. Still pretty relevant the way things are going.
There's enough for the elite. There always will be. Fans love them some Maximus.
Not so much Commodus if you know what I mean.
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
So Bernard Lagat (2:14:30 as a 45 year old) would have been 15% faster (1:54 marathon) if he ran as a 30 year old? Does that sound remotely reasonable to you? Of course not because your assumption that people slow 1%/year after 30 is just wrong. And nobody is getting faster as they age. 2:30 is slower than 2:14. that is grade school math.
Most studies have people slowing down ~20% from 25 to 60 not 35% (i.e. what 1%/year for 30 years would be). And pretty much every study has show that it is a linear drop not exponential for those age ranges. But 20% is the average. When you look at the distribution it is much wider. Some people drop 10% and others are up at 40%. But those studies struggle to normalize for things like training. Like a 12% drop average? Nope. But you wouldn't expect the WR holder to be average. You would expect him to tilt towards the lower end of the scale and his numbers while great aren't totally absurd
Now the mileage he runs might be. Not sure if I ever heard of another old guy grinding out that much mileage at that pace. Of course that might also explain why he hasn't slowed as much as the others.
Armstronglivs wrote:
[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:
You keep overlooking the fact that it was you who raised the 5% measure..
I didn't raise the 5%. You did. I just pointed out how being in the top 5% of people that are unfit isn't exactly the ringing endorsement that you think it is. Being top 5% in the special ed class doesn't make you a genius...
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:
You keep overlooking the fact that it was you who raised the 5% measure..
I didn't raise the 5%. You did. I just pointed out how being in the top 5% of people that are unfit isn't exactly the ringing endorsement that you think it is. Being top 5% in the special ed class doesn't make you a genius...
I didn't. Your argument shifted - because it was flawed. You first raised the criterion of being in the top 5% of an age group - without any qualification.
To refresh your memory, here is your original comment:
Maybe only dropping like 15-20 mins from you prime at age 60 is something that 5% of the population can do.
That includes obviously the top 0.1%. You then changed your argument to say the top 5% of "the unfit" - which is probably in the bottom half of the age group. Not the same at all.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have more in common with those who didn't make it out of the Stone Age. There aren't many job vacancies going for "gladiators" today.
Thank you for the compliment. Primitive skills will always be useful. I am skilled in Bushcraft too. Still pretty relevant the way things are going.
There's enough for the elite. There always will be. Fans love them some Maximus.
Not so much Commodus if you know what I mean.
In terms of bushcraft, I can see you swinging from trees. But your pretensions are without limit. I doubt that Hughes would see you as much of a "gladiator" - as he laps you.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
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.
So Bernard Lagat (2:14:30 as a 45 year old) would have been 15% faster (1:54 marathon) if he ran as a 30 year old? Does that sound remotely reasonable to you? Of course not because your assumption that people slow 1%/year after 30 is just wrong. And nobody is getting faster as they age. 2:30 is slower than 2:14. that is grade school math.
Most studies have people slowing down ~20% from 25 to 60 not 35% (i.e. what 1%/year for 30 years would be). And pretty much every study has show that it is a linear drop not exponential for those age ranges. But 20% is the average. When you look at the distribution it is much wider. Some people drop 10% and others are up at 40%. But those studies struggle to normalize for things like training. Like a 12% drop average? Nope. But you wouldn't expect the WR holder to be average. You would expect him to tilt towards the lower end of the scale and his numbers while great aren't totally absurd
Now the mileage he runs might be. Not sure if I ever heard of another old guy grinding out that much mileage at that pace. Of course that might also explain why he hasn't slowed as much as the others.
The 1% figure I gave isn't a measure of loss of speed but loss of strength through sarcopenia, or natural physical aging. To some extent this decline can be slowed through training, nutrition and good genetics. Physiologists have measured this as resulting in a significant reduction each decade.
An example might be seen in the world mile record. The open record of 3.43 compared with the 50's age group record of 4.19 shows a decline of 16%. That is over at least 2 decades. The decline becomes exponential after 60 and later. As we see, the age record at 60 of 4.49 is 12% slower than the 50's record - and that loss has occurred in only 8 years (the age difference between the respective record holders)and not 20 years.
By contrast, we can see that Hughes has slowed much less than that. His best marathon time was 2.13, and at 60 his time of 2.27 is only 10% slower. That is over 3 decades. He has declined only 3.3% on average each decade since 30. That is way off the charts compared with the other times I gave above.
I am assuming you are not in your 60's that you think there isn't anything questionable about that.
A further point to factor in is that age group records will not necessarily be achieved by those who were the best at younger ages; there are those who have reduced the effects of injury over the years or whose genetics have simply produced a slower rate of decline. That means even someone like El G or Lagat would not necessarily be the best at 60 if they continued competing.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Thank you for the compliment. Primitive skills will always be useful. I am skilled in Bushcraft too. Still pretty relevant the way things are going.
There's enough for the elite. There always will be. Fans love them some Maximus.
Not so much Commodus if you know what I mean.
In terms of bushcraft, I can see you swinging from trees. But your pretensions are without limit. I doubt that Hughes would see you as much of a "gladiator" - as he laps you.
That too. I have a Tarzan like physique and brachiation is a HUGE part of my event.. Tommy and I don't do the same event. I easily defeated a sub 2:30 guy last year. He would be as impressed by me as I am with him. Horses for courses.
And stables.
Dope Hardstrong wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In terms of bushcraft, I can see you swinging from trees. But your pretensions are without limit. I doubt that Hughes would see you as much of a "gladiator" - as he laps you.
That too. I have a Tarzan like physique and brachiation is a HUGE part of my event.. Tommy and I don't do the same event. I easily defeated a sub 2:30 guy last year. He would be as impressed by me as I am with him. Horses for courses.
And stables.
If you didn't beat a sub-2.30 guy over a marathon you didn't beat a sub-2.30 guy. In your own words - "horses for courses". You weren't running his event. Furthermore, if you aren't 60 you aren't anywhere near the same ball-park as Hughes. Come back when you are, Tarzan.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If you didn't beat a sub-2.30 guy over a marathon you didn't beat a sub-2.30 guy. In your own words - "horses for courses". You weren't running his event. Furthermore, if you aren't 60 you aren't anywhere near the same ball-park as Hughes. Come back when you are, Tarzan.
That's kinda the point. You almost get it.
As long as it's proportional to current age, that's all that matters.
Besides, Tommy is doping as you have said about 100 times now.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The 1% figure I gave isn't a measure of loss of speed but loss of strength through sarcopenia, or natural physical aging. To some extent this decline can be slowed through training, nutrition and good genetics. Physiologists have measured this as resulting in a significant reduction each decade.
An example might be seen in the world mile record. The open record of 3.43 compared with the 50's age group record of 4.19 shows a decline of 16%. That is over at least 2 decades. The decline becomes exponential after 60 and later. As we see, the age record at 60 of 4.49 is 12% slower than the 50's record - and that loss has occurred in only 8 years (the age difference between the respective record holders)and not 20 years.
By contrast, we can see that Hughes has slowed much less than that. His best marathon time was 2.13, and at 60 his time of 2.27 is only 10% slower. That is over 3 decades. He has declined only 3.3% on average each decade since 30. That is way off the charts compared with the other times I gave above.
Great so you agree that 1% number is meaningless since we don't care about the average decline. We care about the decline in people who train which is much less. Why the heck did you bring it up?
Sure it is off the charts but that is because you are comparing an apple to an orange. You would have to be an idiot to expect them to be on the same chart. Just because a world record declines at a certain rate doesn't mean all athletes will decline at that same rate. . For contrast, how much did the 60 year old mile record holder decline? Well he was a. 4:10-4:20 guy in his prime, so his decline was also in the 10-15% range. So no Hughes isn't off the charts. He is right in line.
And as far as exponetial decline, go plot up the mile WR. It isn't until ~80 that you hit what anyone could remotely call exponential decline. And even then you are stretching the term. If that is because of accelerated aging effects (possible) or sample size (very possible. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that their is 1/10th the number of 80 years olds as 75 year olds), is hard to say.
Solid response.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The 1% figure I gave isn't a measure of loss of speed but loss of strength through sarcopenia, or natural physical aging. To some extent this decline can be slowed through training, nutrition and good genetics. Physiologists have measured this as resulting in a significant reduction each decade.
An example might be seen in the world mile record. The open record of 3.43 compared with the 50's age group record of 4.19 shows a decline of 16%. That is over at least 2 decades. The decline becomes exponential after 60 and later. As we see, the age record at 60 of 4.49 is 12% slower than the 50's record - and that loss has occurred in only 8 years (the age difference between the respective record holders)and not 20 years.
By contrast, we can see that Hughes has slowed much less than that. His best marathon time was 2.13, and at 60 his time of 2.27 is only 10% slower. That is over 3 decades. He has declined only 3.3% on average each decade since 30. That is way off the charts compared with the other times I gave above.
Great so you agree that 1% number is meaningless since we don't care about the average decline. We care about the decline in people who train which is much less. Why the heck did you bring it up?
Sure it is off the charts but that is because you are comparing an apple to an orange. You would have to be an idiot to expect them to be on the same chart. Just because a world record declines at a certain rate doesn't mean all athletes will decline at that same rate. . For contrast, how much did the 60 year old mile record holder decline? Well he was a. 4:10-4:20 guy in his prime, so his decline was also in the 10-15% range. So no Hughes isn't off the charts. He is right in line.
And as far as exponential decline, go plot up the mile WR. It isn't until ~80 that you hit what anyone could remotely call exponential decline. And even then you are stretching the term. If that is because of accelerated aging effects (possible) or sample size (very possible. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that their is 1/10th the number of 80 years olds as 75 year olds), is hard to say.
I brought the rate of decline up to indicate that all of us are subject to decline - sarcopenia - including the very best athletes. Training of itself doesn't guarantee that the rate of decline is significantly slowed if you don't have the outlier genetics to go with it. But even those genetics present biological limits as to what is achievable. And despite what you think, the effects of aging have been shown to accelerate past 50 and especially 60. I very much doubt that you speak from experience. Are you over 60?
The 60 year old mile record holders (King and Shaheed) weren't competing in their youth, so we don't know what their peak times would have been. But we can also see that top masters athletes like Shaheed slowed in a decade more than Hughes has in 30 years. This is not comparing "apples with oranges"; they are the best runners in the world in their respective age group categories.
Shaheed ran a 4.27 mile in his 50's and over 4.50 at 60. So this is not comparable to Hughes. Shaheed lost about 10% in a decade, which is typical age-related decline, albeit at the highest level in his age-group, whereas Hughes lost 10% - the same as Shaheed in a decade - but in 30 years. 3% decline per decade to 60 is in the realm of science fiction.