Ridiculous Life Expectancy of Top Runners

Coevett wrote:

Vhhjjjj wrote:

5000m 1956 Olympics

48, 60 and 84 y.o. respectively

A bit lower than average

As I pointed out, Vladimir Kuts committed suicide at 48. He was also an alcoholic.

Even running for 100miles a week will result in 22 hours of investment in that exercise per day, where HR will be lower for the short and long term. Therefore it is obvious that it will extend life expectancy and have positive benefits for health.

You clearly don't understand life expectancy at birth.

Life expectancy increases after you've passed the dangeous first few years of childhood.

Agduebdo wrote:

You clearly don't understand life expectancy at birth.

Life expectancy increases after you've passed the dangeous first few years of childhood.

And you clearly haven't read more than one or two posts in this thread.

Coevett wrote:

Agduebdo wrote:

You clearly don't understand life expectancy at birth.

Life expectancy increases after you've passed the dangeous first few years of childhood.

And you clearly haven't read more than one or two posts in this thread.

And you still haven't explained what someone's athletic performane in their twenties or thirties has to do with a lifetime of running and mortality.

Taking only medalists will bias the results with people that were top of the heap and spent the rest of their lives living as champs which I would think would be a positive for LE but very specific occurances.

How does 4-12 in an Olympic 1500m or 5000m fare? Obviously these would be top competitors that put in tons of work but never with the benefit of being known as a medalist. This is probably closer to the reality of what this thread is about.

Ron Clark just died at age 70

@coevett wrote:

And you still haven't explained what someone's athletic performane in their twenties or thirties has to do with a lifetime of running and mortality.

This is really the issue. How did their exercise levels, nutrition, and proactive health care compare to their peers over the decades. I think we can assume it was above average, but to be a true study, it would have to correct for these variables.

Almost 20 years ago, I heard Walter Bortz speak on longevity. Author of Dare to Be 100, Bortz theorized that after age 30, what he referred to as vitality dropped by 2%/year. By age 70, vitality dropped below 20%, which resulted in a dramatic increase in illness and mortality.

Bortz also believed that one could slow this aging process to 1/2% per year by exercise and healthy lifestyle, reaching age 70 with 80% of vitality intact. Bortz is now 87 and runs 15 mpw. He ran Boston about 10 years ago, so he practices what he preaches.

The problem is that the running boom started in the late 70s, so top athletes from the 40s and 50s had already retired long ago and didn't end up running into their 40s or 50s (a few notable exceptions). The Frank Shorters, Bill Rogers... are still too young to look at longevity.

Alain Mimoun is one of these exceptions I believe and he died in his 90s.

Josh Baldwin would disagree with this, start sprinting B*tches

jamin wrote:

Training competitively puts more stress on your body than just the exercise stress itself. By consuming an average of 3,500+ calories per day for years on end you wear out your digestive/metabolic system faster.

Please cite some legit evidence for this claim. Are you suggesting elite endurance athletes will die of intestinal cancer or diabetes related complications? I don't get it.

iowakidscanrun wrote:

jamin wrote:

Training competitively puts more stress on your body than just the exercise stress itself. By consuming an average of 3,500+ calories per day for years on end you wear out your digestive/metabolic system faster.

Please cite some legit evidence for this claim. Are you suggesting elite endurance athletes will die of intestinal cancer or diabetes related complications? I don't get it.

You must be new here. Nothing Jamin posts is ever based on legit evidence.

The most recent (and most scientific) study was published this year and found that just 1 hour of running could add 7 hours to your lifespan, and further there was no evidence at all that prolonged running was counterproductive (although the benefits did plateau).

JHVbjhbjh wrote:

The problem is that the running boom started in the late 70s, so top athletes from the 40s and 50s had already retired long ago and didn't end up running into their 40s or 50s (a few notable exceptions). The Frank Shorters, Bill Rogers... are still too young to look at longevity.

Alain Mimoun is one of these exceptions I believe and he died in his 90s.

Why are most of these world class elite marathoners not competing nor running at all into their older years? Forget longevity - what about their physical health? Their muscloskeletal systems? Their cardiovascular systems? You mentioned Shorter & Rodgers. I don't think Shorter is running any marathons anymore and I heard he has some chronic back problems. Is Rodgers still running marathons? (The last Boston I found was in 09?). What about Salazar? Is he running at all? (I heard he's pretty beat up and may have heart problems?). How about the great marathoner Ron Tabbs? And Dick Beardsley I think is still consistently running marathons but it's on bilateral knee replacements.

Ever notice it's the non-elite avid runners who are running marathons well into their 60s, 70s & even in some cases their 80s (e.g., Whitlock). Why do these guys, who in some cases have been running since H.S., continue to run marathons for decades not breaking down like the elite marathoners. These non-elites are built just like the elites, train as hard and many are high-mileage guys just like the elites were. Why could Whitlock run incredibly fast marathons in his advancing age and hardly ever break down while many of the elite marathoners are ready for the trash heap by their middle-age?

What's up with this?

Two reasons to start: 1. Whitlock et al never trained anything like as hard as Rodgers/Shorter etc. but anyways....2. there do appear to be performance longevity genetics completely independent of peak ability. Nearly all elite 60+ runners were only ever OK club standard in their youth. I am ignoring PEDS here, of course.

Medalists prior to the 1970s or 1980s ("amateurs") were not typically making much money at all, so they wouldn't necessarily be even middle class, let alone wealthy.

Coevett wrote:

Hmmm...so burning the metabolic candle at both ends for 20 years, reduced stem cells, pumping themselves silly with every illegal black market PED they could get their hands on (according to you), and yet maybe 1 in 100 Olympic medalists are dying of cancer or stroke or heart disease in their middle age??..

The middle age population in general is at low risk for cancer. It's an old-age disease. Any risk the elite athletes gain from burning up their stem cell reserve is offset by their generally good health and immunity.

Heart disease and stroke risk comes from being overweight. There are exceptions, but fit populations won't have high rates at any age.

YMMV wrote:

If you want truly exceptional longevity, look at mountain climbers. If they survive into their 40s, they really got legs after that:

Fritz Weissner 88

Edmund Hillary 88

Heinrich Harrer 94

Anderl Heckmair 99

Riccardo Cassin 100

Fred Beckey 94

Yuichi Miura (85 currently, climbed Everest age 80)

Chris Bonington 83 currently and looks great

Jim and Lou Whittaker currently 88

And there's this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUJnZeCc7Hw

Living at altitude (outside of Africa) does appear to extend life expectancy.

Growing your own fruit and vegetables may also add years to your life. Doing gardening is good exercise for those over 65.

Bad Wigins wrote:

An olympic gold medalist presumably enjoys a reasonably secure life economically and a high level of health care, unless they foolishly squander it somehow. So you can't assume that they get there from their athleticism, they are only reaching typical upper-class ages.

World elite leaders have even greater longevity. Queen Elizabeth, Mandela, Mugabe, Ramses II, Fidel, Carter, Bush, are just a few who made it past 90.

My view of athletic elites is they burned the metabolic candle at both ends in their teens and 20's and should have fewer stem cells remaining afterward, causing them to age faster. Once they get to 70 or 75 they are like rotting zombies animated by the pure hate they acquired decades before. They last a few more years that way.

Mandela was most impressive because he spent decades in an African prison, though it was by the sea. Living by the sea is good for your health, obviously.

Squidby wrote:

Two reasons to start: 1. Whitlock et al never trained anything like as hard as Rodgers/Shorter etc. but anyways....2. there do appear to be performance longevity genetics completely independent of peak ability. Nearly all elite 60+ runners were only ever OK club standard in their youth. I am ignoring PEDS here, of course.

You'll have to elobrate - how did the "Whitlocks" of the world not train anything as hard as the elite marathoners and be able to run those incredibly fast marathon times they're posting well into their 60s & 70s? These anti-aging wonders aren't pulling off fast marathon times with low mileage, low intensity, fluff-running type stuff. I know one 60+ yr old marathon dude in my local community who's been running 80 mpw & twice-weekly speed sessions for decades and shows no signs of injuries nor slowing down (and he's been running marathons since his college days!).

So, why aren't the world-class elite dudes like Shorter, Rodgers, Salazar, etc. not running consistent marathons or if they do run a marathon, not running times as fast as the Whitlocks of the world? (Rodgers' last Boston I could find was in 09 with a time over 4 hrs, and Shorter ran this years Bolder Boulder 10k at 1 hr 8 mins...so he was either fluff running for fun or he was injured). In addition, these world-class elite marathoners still look in fantastic shape with some weighing very near their race weight in their prime - so it's not like they've gained weight and let themselves go to pot (ever see Shorter lately? He looks very fit & trim!). And I would argue that they also had very good genetics or they wouldn't have been able to be world-class marathoners & Olympic medal winners.

So, what's up with these anti-aging fast marathoners tearing up the roads decade after decade while the elites seem to be all broken down and most aren't even running marathons anymore? ?