GCsp wrote:
Ed Whitlock pretty much took a several decades off in the prime of his life. Nothing wrong with that, but I'd hesitate to call him a lifelong runner. If he had been, he wouldn't have been so fast in his later years.
So, if he hadn't taken several decades off in his prime he wouldn't have been so fast in his later years? That doesn't make sense when there are a lot of GM/Senior runners who are fast and have been running since HS & college 🤔. When Whitlock returned to running he still would have had an older body to contend with (i.e., the body doesn't stop aging because you take several decades off from running). It's genetics that determine training load & consistency without developing injuries as you age. Whitlock was extremely thin with no upper body mass; a perfect distance runner's build...who would have thought.