Why are the male masters runners so muscular?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Powerful Master wrote:

Many other human beings fit in this box. You will notice that your aging rule is listed as a % in your articles cited. It is not 100%

We're not talking about getting really old but rather running lifetime PRs after mid thirties despite dedication to running for over 20 years.

And then holding that level for much longer rather than falling off a cliff and becoming a sluggish eunuch like yourself.

A sluggish eunuch? You speak a little soon, O Powerful Master. I may have been a better athlete than you at your age, and you could end up worse than me at mine. Somehow I don't think you'll be beating your chest quite so much in another twenty or so years time. Not without a lot of luck.

You set the bar really low.

Oatmeal and dates wrote:

I’m considering trying to become competitive in the 50+ age category for mid distance. I just watched the masters world indoor championships, and it appears me the men are very muscular for their age. I understand many of the guys will be lifting as well as running. What I’d like to know is, are many of the guys on T? I know low T is a thing now and easy to get. I don’t want to go that route, but if everyone is on T does a “clean” athlete have a chance. Of course like everyone, avoiding injury is the main talent at this age. I’m sure T helps with this also. Any masters athletes have any experience with this?

People watch wayyy too many drug advertisements on tv and it's frying your brains.

From the way that post of you post, you'd think you need to load up on drugs to get out of bed in the morning.

What a bunch of total hogwash.

The truth is that people on drugs are more SICK then people who don't use them at all.

Look around in society, look what happens in any hospital, look at what happens when you do to doctors.

This is EASY to see. Open your minds, open your brains, and stop watching the stupid commercials.

Armstrongdies wrote:

No, it's more his tone that people should just stop trying and if they do succeed he is accusing them of doping.

Well, that part is dumb for sure.

Smoove wrote:

Armstrongdies wrote:

No, it's more his tone that people should just stop trying and if they do succeed he is accusing them of doping.

Well, that part is dumb for sure.

Perhaps some commenters should look again at the subject of the thread. What does the description of "muscular" masters athletes imply? Doping is in all sports; why would it not be found also in masters sports?

I have pointed out the scientific studies that show aging is a natural and inevitable process - where did I suggest we should simply give up?

Usain Bolt, the fastest man who has ever lived, retired recently at age 30. He ran his best times when he was in his early twenties. If the "age is no barrier" argument holds true then his fastest times should have been when he was closer to thirty than twenty. Furthermore, he should not have retired, because (if your argument is correct) his best was yet to come - at 35, 40, or even 50. I don't think so. And, neither, apparently, did he.

Powerful Master wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A sluggish eunuch? You speak a little soon, O Powerful Master. I may have been a better athlete than you at your age, and you could end up worse than me at mine. Somehow I don't think you'll be beating your chest quite so much in another twenty or so years time. Not without a lot of luck.

You set the bar really low.

You still haven't told us your pr's, superman. I'm still betting a good 14 year-old could beat you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Smoove wrote:

Well, that part is dumb for sure.

Perhaps some commenters should look again at the subject of the thread. What does the description of "muscular" masters athletes imply? Doping is in all sports; why would it not be found also in masters sports?

I have pointed out the scientific studies that show aging is a natural and inevitable process - where did I suggest we should simply give up?

It doesn't matter what it implies or what you inferred. The bottom line is that many masters tend to be more muscular and another reason was given.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Usain Bolt, the fastest man who has ever lived, retired recently at age 30. He ran his best times when he was in his early twenties. If the "age is no barrier" argument holds true then his fastest times should have been when he was closer to thirty than twenty. Furthermore, he should not have retired, because (if your argument is correct) his best was yet to come - at 35, 40, or even 50. I don't think so. And, neither, apparently, did he.

Try again. Look at more individuals and stop trying to fit them all in one box.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Powerful Master wrote:

You set the bar really low.

You still haven't told us your pr's, superman. I'm still betting a good 14 year-old could beat you.

This has ZERO bearing on the discussion.

Paula was faster than you wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You still haven't told us your pr's, superman. I'm still betting a good 14 year-old could beat you.

This has ZERO bearing on the discussion.

Wrong. He claims he is getting better as a masters athlete than in his youth. If he was pathetic in his youth then perhaps he is better now. But if he isn't any faster than someone entering puberty then he is proving the effects of aging. Or - contrary to his claims - he has absolutely no talent.

Kim Collins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Usain Bolt, the fastest man who has ever lived, retired recently at age 30. He ran his best times when he was in his early twenties. If the "age is no barrier" argument holds true then his fastest times should have been when he was closer to thirty than twenty. Furthermore, he should not have retired, because (if your argument is correct) his best was yet to come - at 35, 40, or even 50. I don't think so. And, neither, apparently, did he.

Try again. Look at more individuals and stop trying to fit them all in one box.

Is Bolt an exception? So how many world records in track are held by the over-40's? Or even the over-30's, for that matter. (That is quite incidental to the likelihood that there isn't a clean world record today.) Why are most professional running careers ending in an athlete's 30's, and not their 40's - even with the availability of doping?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Usain Bolt, the fastest man who has ever lived, retired recently at age 30. He ran his best times when he was in his early twenties. If the "age is no barrier" argument holds true then his fastest times should have been when he was closer to thirty than twenty. Furthermore, he should not have retired, because (if your argument is correct) his best was yet to come - at 35, 40, or even 50. I don't think so. And, neither, apparently, did he.

This morning at 5:20 am, I walked outside my garage and onto our hilly streets and began my 4.5 mile run. Easy, quite easy run. A few cars passed me, and I just settled into the rhythm of my stride before sunrise, some music playing from my pocket (RIP Nipsey Hussle) and I just grew more loose and appreciative as each minute passed.

I passed by 2 houses on my block, one at the top of the street where a man after running his 2nd half marathon found out he had cancer to which spread, and ultimately took his life a few years ago. Age 43. Left behind a wife and 2 kids. I circled by another house to where a young family man recently found out he has treatable cancer, yet still the reality has sunk in for all of us. The inevitable unpredictable, terrifying ride that life is.

I am not trying to be dramatic, just painting a story of realities that happen everyday. Runners, myself included are obsessive compulsive in some form, and can easily get caught up in what times were, should be, or stress that comes from, "What workout should I do to help peak, when should I taper, is this amount of mpw enough to BQ?"

Any day you have your health, and can go for a run, just embrace it for what it is. This sh*t doesn't last forever. We're all different, but some inevitables are just that.

I don't think you're helping the "we can defy the effects of aging" belief around here. An "easy 4.5 mile run" - but no pr? And valuing "health" over performance. Careful - you'll be described as a wimp who has given up.

"Powerful Master" is clearly a juicer, assuming his performances are as strong as he insists. Only an old and insecure juicer would talk the way he does in this thread. Pukking pathetic, probably trying to hang on to some much younger woman until she milks him of his cash and moves on. How tiny are your testicles after the juicing "Powerful Master"?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Powerful Master wrote:

Many other human beings fit in this box. You will notice that your aging rule is listed as a % in your articles cited. It is not 100%

We're not talking about getting really old but rather running lifetime PRs after mid thirties despite dedication to running for over 20 years.

And then holding that level for much longer rather than falling off a cliff and becoming a sluggish eunuch like yourself.

A sluggish eunuch? You speak a little soon, O Powerful Master. I may have been a better athlete than you at your age, and you could end up worse than me at mine. Somehow I don't think you'll be beating your chest quite so much in another twenty or so years time. Not without a lot of luck.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Paula was faster than you wrote:

This has ZERO bearing on the discussion.

Wrong. He claims he is getting better as a masters athlete than in his youth. If he was pathetic in his youth then perhaps he is better now. But if he isn't any faster than someone entering puberty then he is proving the effects of aging. Or - contrary to his claims - he has absolutely no talent.

That claim was never made. It was about stalling aging. You only compare yourself to yourself.

What did you consider "good" times for a 14 year old? You have yet to answer that.

In your early 50s, your warmup from your 20s will be your workout. In your mid to late 50s, your rehab will be your workout. Personal experience.

Fact:

Not one single human who ever existed had more athletic potential in their 40s than their 20s.

This is an undisputable fact!

To disagree with fact makes you an idiot!

As previously stated some, not all, masters athletes are muscular because of the cross training and some are using testosterone (unfortunately a reality). However, if you want to complete in later age competition, like me, I recommend the natural route.

LameMasterIndeed wrote:

"Powerful Master" is clearly a juicer, assuming his performances are as strong as he insists. Only an old and insecure juicer would talk the way he does in this thread.

Pukking pathetic, probably trying to hang on to some much younger woman until she milks him of his cash and moves on.

How tiny are your testicles after the juicing "Powerful Master"?

It's all about effort, sonny.

Powerful Master wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Wrong. He claims he is getting better as a masters athlete than in his youth. If he was pathetic in his youth then perhaps he is better now. But if he isn't any faster than someone entering puberty then he is proving the effects of aging. Or - contrary to his claims - he has absolutely no talent.

That claim was never made. It was about stalling aging. You only compare yourself to yourself.

What did you consider "good" times for a 14 year old? You have yet to answer that.

BS. You claimed you are faster now than in your teens, not that you are only "stalling" aging. A handy 14 year-old can run 2.08 for the 800 (a time I did refer to previously but you don't read well) and 57 for the 400, but the best kids are way faster - 1.55 at least for the 800. You have avoided giving any of your own times; so you are likely slower than a useful 14 year-old - and nowhere near the best. In fact, if you were slower in your early to mid-teens than you are now then you were always cr*p. But keep beating your chest, big guy.

Armstronglivs wrote:

BS. You claimed you are faster now than in your teens, not that you are only "stalling" aging. A handy 14 year-old can run 2.08 for the 800 (a time I did refer to previously but you don't read well) and 57 for the 400, but the best kids are way faster - 1.55 at least for the 800. You have avoided giving any of your own times; so you are likely slower than a useful 14 year-old - and nowhere near the best. In fact, if you were slower in your early to mid-teens than you are now then you were always cr*p. But keep beating your chest, big guy.

I am faster now than I was in my teens. I have never been at the level of an exceptional teen. Ever. But that's not the point. The point is how I am progressing through life.

I am currently at a level of what you would consider a useful one but I don't even train for the 4 and 8 anymore. Not sure why you are riding those so hard. I'm more into Spartan type stuff that caters more to old man strength.

I missed your post on the time. Not really focusing TOO much on your raging responses. It's not a reading issue.