creme de la creme wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The studies were of elite athletes.
That's why it doesn't mean much.
Non-elites are also subject aging, and sometimes more than the highly-trained.
creme de la creme wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The studies were of elite athletes.
That's why it doesn't mean much.
Non-elites are also subject aging, and sometimes more than the highly-trained.
Subject to aging.
runn wrote:
I'd love to know how he stays healthy. I have 47 years of running and my biggest issue at 60 is the nagging little injuries that keep me from being consistent. It's frustrating.
I'm 32 and I have the same problem and would like to know the same thing. The annoying thing is that my lungs are still in great shape. I can go for jogs at 7:00 to 7:30 pace only breathing through my nose without having run for months.
Armstronglivs wrote:
creme de la creme wrote:
That's why it doesn't mean much.
Non-elites are also subject aging, and sometimes more than the highly-trained.
Individuals age differently and respond to training differently. How hard is this to understand? Do you have dementia?
That is a glib response. Human beings will physiologically age within a given range, some faster or slower than others - but still within that's range. The research - which you have ignored - shows that. Extreme outliers raise questions. Your dismissal of those questions out of hand is no different from excusing testosterone levels that are out of the normal range on the biological passport (which give rise to a presumption of doping), or the excuses so often afforded Lance Armstrong by his fans, that he was a unique talent with off-the-charts cardiovascular capacity. Outside the normal should always raise questions. Except to closed minds.
Armstronglivs wrote:
That is a glib response. Human beings will physiologically age within a given range, some faster or slower than others - but still within that's range. The research - which you have ignored - shows that. Extreme outliers raise questions. Your dismissal of those questions out of hand is no different from excusing testosterone levels that are out of the normal range on the biological passport (which give rise to a presumption of doping), or the excuses so often afforded Lance Armstrong by his fans, that he was a unique talent with off-the-charts cardiovascular capacity. Outside the normal should always raise questions. Except to closed minds.
If this dude is on TRT, he should demand his money back based on his appearance alone.
Armstronglivs wrote:
According to the science on aging, we lose 1.5-5.0% of our strength every year from aged 50 (not to mention the decline in cardiac efficiency). He would therefore be at least 15% weaker than he was 10 years ago. But he is only 10-12% slower/weaker than he was nearly 30 years ago. I'd love to know how he does it.
Me too. ?
YMMV wrote:
If this dude is on TRT, he should demand his money back based on his appearance alone.
What's is this guy's weight? He does look a little small & frail in that photo someone posted on page #1. One thing is for certain - he surely doesn't look like that middle-age monster marathoner that's built like a bodybuilder who's photo has appeared many times here on this forum.
It's crazy out there with fast old guys wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
According to the science on aging, we lose 1.5-5.0% of our strength every year from aged 50 (not to mention the decline in cardiac efficiency). He would therefore be at least 15% weaker than he was 10 years ago. But he is only 10-12% slower/weaker than he was nearly 30 years ago. I'd love to know how he does it.
Me too. ?
sorry guys but i would not be surprised to hear that he does not pay any attention to anything and occasionally even indulges in a beer. that is the grace of the genes. he is in the gauß-distribution completely outside on the edge. we not.
Armstronglivs wrote:
That is a glib response. Human beings will physiologically age within a given range, some faster or slower than others - but still within that's range. The research - which you have ignored - shows that. Extreme outliers raise questions. Your dismissal of those questions out of hand is no different from excusing testosterone levels that are out of the normal range on the biological passport (which give rise to a presumption of doping), or the excuses so often afforded Lance Armstrong by his fans, that he was a unique talent with off-the-charts cardiovascular capacity. Outside the normal should always raise questions. Except to closed minds.
Well I must be outside the range too because I don't feel this age related decline that you are so obsessed with. Maybe you are the one with the closed mind?
No, I'm not taking any meds. Why would I? I don't have your mindset, which is flakey.
Armstrong what? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
That is a glib response. Human beings will physiologically age within a given range, some faster or slower than others - but still within that's range. The research - which you have ignored - shows that. Extreme outliers raise questions. Your dismissal of those questions out of hand is no different from excusing testosterone levels that are out of the normal range on the biological passport (which give rise to a presumption of doping), or the excuses so often afforded Lance Armstrong by his fans, that he was a unique talent with off-the-charts cardiovascular capacity. Outside the normal should always raise questions. Except to closed minds.
Well I must be outside the range too because I don't feel this age related decline that you are so obsessed with. Maybe you are the one with the closed mind?
No, I'm not taking any meds. Why would I? I don't have your mindset, which is flakey.
Hi Jon!
I'm right though. You people are flakey and naive, thinking there has to be some pharmacological secret. And you wonder why sports have drug problems. You epitomise the problem.
Armstrong what? wrote:
I'm right though. You people are flakey and naive, thinking there has to be some pharmacological secret. And you wonder why sports have drug problems. You epitomise the problem.
Drugs working is no secret but this thread is more about a guy who aged poorly thinking everyone ages the same.
I am aging very well drug free thank you very much.
Nothing flaking off yet wrote:
Armstrong what? wrote:
I'm right though. You people are flakey and naive, thinking there has to be some pharmacological secret. And you wonder why sports have drug problems. You epitomise the problem.
Drugs working is no secret but this thread is more about a guy who aged poorly thinking everyone ages the same.
I am aging very well drug free thank you very much.
People make fantastic claims about drugs. Yes EPO increase red cell mass. But as I have explained many times Armstrong and all the other cyclists didn't have 10% higher power outputs. It's naive to believe that you can go beyond your natural oxygen uptake. In the case of exercise physiologists, making that claim, they are just ignorant and won't address the issues that wiser researchers point out.
Yes Armstronglivs is very opinionated and often wrong.
I'm glad you are ageing very well and drug free. Maybe you can eventually see that people have false beliefs in magic potions? Maybe not? Pharmacology in sport has other insidious dimensions you should consider.
Armstrong what? wrote:
Nothing flaking off yet wrote:
Drugs working is no secret but this thread is more about a guy who aged poorly thinking everyone ages the same.
I am aging very well drug free thank you very much.
People make fantastic claims about drugs. Yes EPO increase red cell mass. But as I have explained many times Armstrong and all the other cyclists didn't have 10% higher power outputs. It's naive to believe that you can go beyond your natural oxygen uptake. In the case of exercise physiologists, making that claim, they are just ignorant and won't address the issues that wiser researchers point out.
Yes Armstronglivs is very opinionated and often wrong.
I'm glad you are ageing very well and drug free. Maybe you can eventually see that people have false beliefs in magic potions? Maybe not? Pharmacology in sport has other insidious dimensions you should consider.
Yeah ,stop rehashing that old statement all over again. Nobody believes you.
I just want everyone to compete based on their natural ability, whatever their age.
Nothing flaking off yet wrote:
Armstrong what? wrote:
People make fantastic claims about drugs. Yes EPO increase red cell mass. But as I have explained many times Armstrong and all the other cyclists didn't have 10% higher power outputs. It's naive to believe that you can go beyond your natural oxygen uptake. In the case of exercise physiologists, making that claim, they are just ignorant and won't address the issues that wiser researchers point out.
Yes Armstronglivs is very opinionated and often wrong.
I'm glad you are ageing very well and drug free. Maybe you can eventually see that people have false beliefs in magic potions? Maybe not? Pharmacology in sport has other insidious dimensions you should consider.
Yeah ,stop rehashing that old statement all over again. Nobody believes you.
I just want everyone to compete based on their natural ability, whatever their age.
What if I need Viagra? My natural ability doesn't allow me to compete in the bedroom anymore. ?
Things change when you get old wrote:
Nothing flaking off yet wrote:
Yeah ,stop rehashing that old statement all over again. Nobody believes you.
I just want everyone to compete based on their natural ability, whatever their age.
What if I need Viagra? My natural ability doesn't allow me to compete in the bedroom anymore. ?
You probably need to replace your incentive if you know what I mean.
Dean Youngblood wrote:
Things change when you get old wrote:
What if I need Viagra? My natural ability doesn't allow me to compete in the bedroom anymore. ?
You probably need to replace your incentive if you know what I mean.
"You are only as old as the women you feel "
Diminutive Dynasties wrote:
YMMV wrote:
If this dude is on TRT, he should demand his money back based on his appearance alone.
What's is this guy's weight? He does look a little small & frail in that photo someone posted on page #1. One thing is for certain - he surely doesn't look like that middle-age monster marathoner that's built like a bodybuilder who's photo has appeared many times here on this forum.
I would guess that Ronnie Hill put up some top age group marathons.
What amazes me is how Tommy could keep his enthusiasm for all these decades.
SirReggie wrote:
What amazes me is how Tommy could keep his enthusiasm for all these decades.
Did he for all of them?