Ed Whitlock - 85 yr old marathoner - gets nearly 1,500 word feature in NY Times by Jere Longman

"2:54 marathon at age 73 and 3:56 this year at age 85."

These times are absolutely phenomenal, but for me, the bigger story is just how fast the human body decays with advancing years. To lose 1 hour 2 minutes in about a decade, for someone who certainly puts in the miles, is a bit disappointing. You would never see this type of lose in any decade period between 10 and 70. What will the loss be in another decade? I don't know, but I'm rooting for Ed to show us that the the deterioration starts to level off.

I'm not sure you can use Ed's slowing times as a measure of how fast the human body decays with advancing years anymore than you can use his records of indications of what the human body is capable of doing even as it ages. One person is simply too small a sample size. And Ed has trouble with arthritis which has limited his training recently. He said prior to the race that his training had not been ideal. Of course you always can say that something like arthritis is part of tha aging process which leads to the decay. But you also can consider the possibility that if he gets past the arthritis and can do maybe three months of his normal training he wouldn't be quite as "decayed."

HRE wrote:

I'm not sure you can use Ed's slowing times as a measure of how fast the human body decays with advancing years anymore than you can use his records of indications of what the human body is capable of doing even as it ages. One person is simply too small a sample size. And Ed has trouble with arthritis which has limited his training recently. He said prior to the race that his training had not been ideal. Of course you always can say that something like arthritis is part of tha aging process which leads to the decay. But you also can consider the possibility that if he gets past the arthritis and can do maybe three months of his normal training he wouldn't be quite as "decayed."

HRE, you are absolutely right. A single data point is a poor sample to draw any conclusion from; although it would be interesting to examine the universe of samples, which is probably small to begin with, to see just what we have to look forward to, and then only if we are lucky enough to make it that far.

HRE, you are absolutely right. A single data point is a poor sample to draw any conclusion from; although it would be interesting to examine the universe of samples, which is probably small to begin with, to see just what we have to look forward to, and then only if we are lucky enough to make it that far.

From the following link, with more data points, the future looks rather grim. The average loss between the 70-74 group and 80-84 is about an hour, and the variance dramatically increases. After that, it only gets worse. Nevertheless, I'm still pulling for Ed all the way.

[quote]go ed wrote:

Turbogeezer,

The slow and steady training volume with a brief sharpening phase is very much like the program Tom Osler described in his 1978 book "Serious Runner's Handbook." Well worth the time investment if you wish to train this way. It can be found online in pdf format.

There's a similar program in Tom's original, "the conditioning of distance runners" which came out in 1967, I believe.

Hahah, I pulled out my old copy from back The Day and re-read much of it just a few weeks ago. Pretty good stuff. He definitely was a pioneer in emphasizing enjoyment and health over grueling efforts towards performance. Sensible advice similar to Ed's own training.

Norman K. wrote:

Turbogeezer,

The slow and steady training volume with a brief sharpening phase is very much like the program Tom Osler described in his 1978 book "Serious Runner's Handbook." Well worth the time investment if you wish to train this way. It can be found online in pdf format.

I also have an old copy of the WMA scoring tables, based on stats and estimates from before Ed Whitlock's re-write of the records. They show 2:54 at 73 as "100%". The equivalent for 85 is 3:32. The decline from 2:59 to 3:59 is from 75 to 89+, so almost 15 years. Ed is not going to beat that, but he is so far ahead of his contemporaries that for now his decline will define the ACTUAL performance curve.

My feeling is that with say, ten Ed W's all vying for the records, and state-of-the-art PT, diet, training, etc.., the WMA curve instead of the Ed W curve would apply. His age 73 record will likely stand for many years, but not so much his other age records.

Ed's main contribution is to make people aware that running can indeed be a lifelong activity. This is as important in many ways as any pioneering by other athletes and coaches over the years, and inspires the more averae runners in ways that Olympic champions cannot. And certainly anyone who challenges his times will have a serious challenge in front of them!

Can we change teh title of the thread to "ED MF WHITLOCK" plz

You can't say lifelong because he missed 20 years of running.

to whit wrote:

You can't say lifelong because he missed 20 years of running.

That is a whole other question. Ed himself credits his later drive to perform on having been on hiatus in his prime years. Many of us masters runners can relate to that. "lifelong" may not be the perfect term, technically, but over the span of years the fire can still burn and surprise us in delightful ways.

Coincidentally, my competitive career so far is having almost identical gaps and competitive periods, now into my 60's, as Ed, at a much lower level, of course. Still have the flame though, And even look forward to my 70's!

This definitely has me rethinking my retirement years training.

What about the studies that indicating going long and the associated heart inflammation can lead to damage or heart attacks? Seems that is more apt to happen in less fit marathons as I recall. Here is one such article:

https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/endurance-training-is-bad-for-your-heart

Kind of think Ed is dispelling this, or is quite the exception?

We have Ed running 2:31 at age 48. from what I can tell, he's been running ever since so by now he's been going for almost forty years. And he was running in his teens and twenties. That's a significant length of time. "Lifelong" may not be totally accurate but he's been at it for a lot longer than probably most LR posters have been.

iiagdtr wrote:

This definitely has me rethinking my retirement years training.

What about the studies that indicating going long and the associated heart inflammation can lead to damage or heart attacks? Seems that is more apt to happen in less fit marathons as I recall. Here is one such article:

https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/endurance-training-is-bad-for-your-heart

Kind of think Ed is dispelling this, or is quite the exception?

What about the studies showing that people who have high levels of physical activity have lower levels of 6 different markers related to cardiovascular disease than sedentary people?

For example:

There is also this part in the NYT article:

A VO2 max reading of 54 appears to be unsurpassed for people tested in their 80s, said Scott Trappe, the director of the human-performance laboratory at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., who has studied Swedish cross-country skiers who continued to perform at high levels into their 80s and early 90s, including the 1948 Olympic champion Martin Lundstrom.

“There’s nothing higher than that in the literature,” Trappe said of Whitlock. “It’s phenomenal physiology.”

... a healthy young adult has about 160 motor units in the shin muscle, called the tibialis anterior, which helps lift the toes. In an octogenarian, that number could have declined to about 60 motor units, Hepple said, but Whitlock retained “closer to 100.”

This preservation might largely be explained, he said, by a chronically elevated level of circulating chemicals, called neurotrophins, which protect and nurture neurons, helping them survive.

It might have something to do with the fact that ED HAS BEEN RUNNING 2 TO 3 HOURS PER DAY AND A LOT OF RACES FOR MANY YEARS (with no weight training so far).

iiagdtr wrote:

This definitely has me rethinking my retirement years training.

What about the studies that indicating going long and the associated heart inflammation can lead to damage or heart attacks? Seems that is more apt to happen in less fit marathons as I recall. Here is one such article:

https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/endurance-training-is-bad-for-your-heart

Kind of think Ed is dispelling this, or is quite the exception?

Not exactly an exception, since most lifelong runners don't have heart damage or heart attacks.... But as far as it goes, I think the fact that Whitlock doesn't do many marathons (he said he averages about 1 a year) and doesn't do intense interval training plays a role in protecting his heart.

Remember that Ed is NOT training like most marathoners. He is running MUCH slower in terms of his training pace than almost all comparable performers, with MUCH higher mileage. I had six cardio-conversions for A-fib between 2006-2011. None since I slowed my training pace, while still doing the mileage and alactic speed training. I also have eliminated grains and eat low-carb. If you want to run long in every sense, you have become a fat-burner. Every other marker of heath has improved also.

iiagdtr wrote:

This definitely has me rethinking my retirement years training.

What about the studies that indicating going long and the associated heart inflammation can lead to damage or heart attacks? Seems that is more apt to happen in less fit marathons as I recall. Here is one such article:

https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/endurance-training-is-bad-for-your-heart

Kind of think Ed is dispelling this, or is quite the exception?

HRE wrote:

We have Ed running 2:31 at age 48. from what I can tell, he's been running ever since so by now he's been going for almost forty years. And he was running in his teens and twenties. That's a significant length of time. "Lifelong" may not be totally accurate but he's been at it for a lot longer than probably most LR posters have been.

He has actually taken several stretches of a year or so off.

I already told Ed that I thought he has done a very long Lydiard aerobic base phase (40 years)…and that he should now try a 12 to 16 week peaking phase including speed intervals, vVO2max intervals, with vLactate Threshold Maximum Steady State workouts also included…and some sand dune hill sprints in Australia…and some weight training with plyometrics to improve his running economy…and an altitude tent.

Ed told me that he thought all of my ideas were stupid and that he was not going to ever use any of my stupid ideas in his training program.

Darn.

breaks matter wrote:

HRE wrote:

We have Ed running 2:31 at age 48. from what I can tell, he's been running ever since so by now he's been going for almost forty years. And he was running in his teens and twenties. That's a significant length of time. "Lifelong" may not be totally accurate but he's been at it for a lot longer than probably most LR posters have been.

He has actually taken several stretches of a year or so off.

I understand that those stretches were to allow the arthritis in his knees to go away. It depends on how you want to phrase things but we generally count a runner not running while waiting to heal as a runner. At any rate, he's still got a lot more running years on him than most LR posters.

Why is Ed so inflexible in his training program?

He is the most stubborn Canadian I have ever seen.

Do you think that it is because he was born in England?