Ridiculous Life Expectancy of Top Runners

YMMV wrote:

Shorter, Rodgers were running 150-200 miles/week with lots of higher intensity in their 20s and 30s while Ed W was working 9-5 and raising a family. In his 60's and 70's Ed was running 100-120 mpw of "fluff running" at a jog with weekly races when he wanted to peak. Very different time courses in terms of stress and recovery.

That doesn't make sense and goes against the science of aging with athletes. Consistent studies show age-related degenerative changes starting at around age 50, particularly with the muscloskeletal system. It wouldn't matter if the running is intense, slow, jogging, etc. Running/jogging is a high-impact activity on lower extremities (geez...who would have thought) and 100+ mpw for someone in their 60s & 70s is insane without chronic injuries occurring.

The tendon & ligament structural integrity diminishes exponentially with age. Tissue & cartilage just doesn't rebuilt itself as efficiently with the aging process and is subject to injury with the impact forces of chronic running & jogging. That's why so many highly competitive runners in their younger years have switched to competitive cycling when they've reached their 50s & 60s. They're are simply sick & tired of the chronic injuries and were unwilling to dramatically cut back on mileage and cross train, take days off, rest, etc.

Being elite level fast is harder on the body, even if you are gifted at it.

I doubt tissues are proportionately tougher just because they happen to be better at running fast.

It's like this wrote:

Being elite level fast is harder on the body, even if you are gifted at it.

How?

Take two runners in their prime; one an elite runner and the other a sub-elite age-group competitor. Both are similarly built with the approximate same height & weight. Lets say both run ~60 mpw and do the same type of workouts, i.e. long run, tempos, speed work, sprint work, etc. Lets say both work max VO2 levels at the same duration for the appropriate workouts.

Why would the training be harder on elite's body but not the sub-elite? I could see genetics separating the two in terms of ability but not wear & tear on the body.[/quote]

Ed W had elite-level biomechanics, a super-light build since he didn't overeat and developed his gifts very late in life with very gentle, patient and effective training. If you don't understand how that worked so well for him you have a poor understanding of training fundamentals and the adaptability of the human body.

Most people would never even consider the patient approach he took. I am obsessed with running well and healthfully, but three hours a day, every day alone in a graveyard for years is beyond even my comprehension of what it takes to break the records he did.

YMMV wrote:

Ed W had elite-level biomechanics, a super-light build since he didn't overeat and developed his gifts very late in life with very gentle, patient and effective training. If you don't understand how that worked so well for him you have a poor understanding of training fundamentals and the adaptability of the human body.

Stupid post.?

Like all world-class runners don't have superb biomechanics, super light builds (why do think some elites are called "diminutive dynasties"?) and don't overeat. So, anybody with "elite-level biomechanics" and a "super-light build" who don't "overeat," and develope "gifts very late in life with very gentle, patient and effective training" will go on to run incredibly fast times and demonstrate anti-aging characteristics? (How in the heck do you develope gifts late in life for distance running when you're aging? ?). All of course if the athlete understands "training fundamentals and the adaptability of the human body."

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.

+1

Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:

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.

+1

This. I think elite distance runners either get injured eventually from decades of high miles or they burn out. A friend, a 3-time Olympian, kept training through injuries until he eventually became too injured to race at the elite level so he moved to cycling. Plus,how motivating is it to train hard to run sub 3 when you won marathons in your youth? OTOH, for guys like me who couldn't even make their HS or college track team, running competitively as an age grouper an ongoing thrill.

Today, some elite older runners didn't take up competitive running until after age 50, so their legs were relatively fresh and not abused by the poor quality shoes of a couple decades ago. Medical advances are also allowing these older runners to stay competitive longer.

Illustrations of each point. One of my training partners became a runner to join his son in a race about 6 years ago. He ran the 2nd fastest AG time in the world in his long sprint event a few years later. Another friend recovered from colon cancer to run a top 20 world time in the 400m. Fresh legs helped the former; medical advances saved the life of the latter.

RiRiRiRidiculous wrote:

I'm not sure what sort of point the OP is trying to make. The word "Ridiculous" means "absurd". If a lot of Top Runners (why the CAPS??) lived to 45 or 110, I would find their age at death "Ridiculous". Dying at 78? That seems about right.

For someone who is keen enough to observe the somewhat subtle difference between the true definition of "ridiculous" and the intended meaning in many colloquial & informal circumstances today, you're too dismissive of the somewhat subtle difference in life expectancy between your own perception of life expectancy and the actual life expectancy of those people at that time.

Additionally, why bother criticizing the use of capital letters on words ("Top Runners") in a title? It's standard written English.

fisky wrote:

Medical advances are also allowing these older runners to stay competitive longer.

Yeah...like testosterone and growth hormone replacement therapy. This is the emerging trend that no one wants to talk about. Have you noticed the growing number of "Low-T" centers cropping up in the U.S? (Retired pro athletes are even advertising for some of these joints!).

Over the past years I've talked with more & more middle-aged runners, cyclists & tri-athletes who are on TRT (and the ones with the dough are utilizing GH therapy). I met one guy after a race who even gave me the business card of the low-T center he was using! Lol.

You generally don't get faster and recover better as you get older.

Looks like Coevett was right

https://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/these-serious-marathoners-lived-19-years-longer-than-average