Armstronglivs wrote:
Hounddogharrier wrote:
4:04.9 to 4:19 in 28 years. Hard to believe.
As I said above, I would have expected him to be closer to 3.50/55 in his prime. Not 4.05.
What? He only ran "4:05" in his prime and he's able run 4:19 at age 50? ?
Advocate for the Devil wrote:
Jayordon wrote:
Just because he ran a fast time doesn't mean that he's on drugs. There is no reason to suggest that he is.
Except that he ran 4:01.7 1500m three years ago and hasn't raced since because of constantly fighting injuries. Most guys would be going way backwards in fitness at his age and that kind of injury plagued training. Yet here we are talking about a guy getting faster.
He was injured 3 years ago. He's finally healthy again so obviously hes getting faster
It's crazy out there wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
As I said above, I would have expected him to be closer to 3.50/55 in his prime. Not 4.05.
What? He only ran "4:05" in his prime and he's able run 4:19 at age 50? ?
I take it you aren't 50?
Jayordon wrote:
Advocate for the Devil wrote:
Except that he ran 4:01.7 1500m three years ago and hasn't raced since because of constantly fighting injuries. Most guys would be going way backwards in fitness at his age and that kind of injury plagued training. Yet here we are talking about a guy getting faster.
He was injured 3 years ago. He's finally healthy again so obviously hes getting faster
So even though he's 50 there's no reason for age-related decline, even after years of injury that impeded training and competing? Some of you have a rather naive perception of what time and wear and tear do to us as we age.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Not exactly true ... wrote:
We can guarantee that you're an insufferable troll.
And that you can't find a counter argument.
You just have speculation. Your argument doesn't even have evidence. There is nothing to argue with you because you lack any substantial proof. The one thing we have evidence of is a former all-american running a 4:19 mile. Fly out to his house and do all the tests yourself or email someone to demand it if you really want some sort of answer. Its very sad to see your insecurities be taken out on an old man who would crush you in running right now (yes, that is an ad hominem and you deserve it).
FYI the M50 1500m of 3.58.26 Record equates to 4.17.3 Mile using the NCAA Conversion tables........
hats off to brad barton. he is an outstanding masters talent. that's it. he has great speed, he did not not reach his personal limit when he was young, he did not wear out, four consecutive years of low mileage and high quality in the legs so he stayed healthy and of course as a motivation trainer he knows what to do.
Jess Axin wrote:
I have no idea about anything, but I also heard he is a woman.
If this is true, he should be banned from men's competitions.
Armstronglivs wrote:
runn wrote:
Could he be taking testosterone for other reasons? Believe me (I'm 60) your body doesn't respond the way it used to in certain situations. I'm VERY healthy and there are times when I wish I could be 30, you, you know what I mean.
I can't imagine what it's like for the guys my age (and 15 years younger) who haven't taken care of themselves like I did.
Well, as you know, there are drugs for every occasion.
What do you take to keep your trolling at the elite level of s young pup?
Armstrongpwned wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, as you know, there are drugs for every occasion.
What do you take to keep your trolling at the elite level of s young pup?
If I'm in the juice, why is it so hard to suspect a 4.19 fifty year-old?
Former Sub 14:00 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And that you can't find a counter argument.
You just have speculation. Your argument doesn't even have evidence. There is nothing to argue with you because you lack any substantial proof. The one thing we have evidence of is a former all-american running a 4:19 mile. Fly out to his house and do all the tests yourself or email someone to demand it if you really want some sort of answer. Its very sad to see your insecurities be taken out on an old man who would crush you in running right now (yes, that is an ad hominem and you deserve it).
If attacking me makes you feel good, then go ahead. But it doesn't help your argument. Yes, I - and others here - have been speculating, which is why I don't claim to know as a fact whether a 4.19 mile at fifty is bona fide or not. But for the reasons I gave earlier, I am sceptical. As are others. My estimation, which is all it is, is that a sub-4.20 guy at fifty would likely have been a low-3.50-3.55 guy at twenty five - not 4,05; particularly after the inevitable injuries and wear and tear the next quarter century would bring. It simply isn't possible to be able to train at fifty as you could twenty five years earlier - if you were an elite. I assume you are younger guy and you haven't experienced yet what the years will do long past your best.
Any adverse side effects?
The 4:04.97 was run at Big Sky Conf outdoor in 1991. 4500', with a 4.3 second NCAA conversion (and those are fairly conservative). That an 8:31 steeple PR indicate at least 4:00 ability.
Masters runner here, 4:31, 4:38, 5:00 at 22, 40, and 50 (with drop off less in longer distances).
Those are facts not troll speculation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Armstrongpwned wrote:
What do you take to keep your trolling at the elite level of s young pup?
If I'm in the juice, why is it so hard to suspect a 4.19 fifty year-old?
Were you a troll when you were younger? Hard to say what your ultimate potential was. Your current feats are spectacular but not unbelievable. You appear to be aging better as far as troll sarcopenia goes. There is no set rate of decline.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Former Sub 14:00 wrote:
You just have speculation. Your argument doesn't even have evidence. There is nothing to argue with you because you lack any substantial proof. The one thing we have evidence of is a former all-american running a 4:19 mile. Fly out to his house and do all the tests yourself or email someone to demand it if you really want some sort of answer. Its very sad to see your insecurities be taken out on an old man who would crush you in running right now (yes, that is an ad hominem and you deserve it).
If attacking me makes you feel good, then go ahead. But it doesn't help your argument. Yes, I - and others here - have been speculating, which is why I don't claim to know as a fact whether a 4.19 mile at fifty is bona fide or not. But for the reasons I gave earlier, I am sceptical. As are others. My estimation, which is all it is, is that a sub-4.20 guy at fifty would likely have been a low-3.50-3.55 guy at twenty five - not 4,05; particularly after the inevitable injuries and wear and tear the next quarter century would bring. It simply isn't possible to be able to train at fifty as you could twenty five years earlier - if you were an elite. I assume you are younger guy and you haven't experienced yet what the years will do long past your best.
Maybe he could have been faster when he was younger if his training was better. Is there some sort of obligation for older athletes to be careful to not perform relatively better when they are older?
Is he only "allowed" to run a time which exactly indicates only 4:05 capability at 27?
Active Masters wrote:
The 4:04.97 was run at Big Sky Conf outdoor in 1991. 4500', with a 4.3 second NCAA conversion (and those are fairly conservative). That an 8:31 steeple PR indicate at least 4:00 ability.
Masters runner here, 4:31, 4:38, 5:00 at 22, 40, and 50 (with drop off less in longer distances).
Those are facts not troll speculation.
So you lost a good 30 secs since your peak. That seems reasonable. So what is 30 secs better than 4.19?
The Troll Sarcopenia wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If I'm in the juice, why is it so hard to suspect a 4.19 fifty year-old?
Were you a troll when you were younger? Hard to say what your ultimate potential was. Your current feats are spectacular but not unbelievable. You appear to be aging better as far as troll sarcopenia goes. There is no set rate of decline.
Trolling does require a certain natural ability and it is even possible to get better with age. Unlike running.
Is there a free Video of this 4:19 mile run? Would be great to watch. His run 5 years ago was impressive.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The Troll Sarcopenia wrote:
Were you a troll when you were younger? Hard to say what your ultimate potential was. Your current feats are spectacular but not unbelievable. You appear to be aging better as far as troll sarcopenia goes. There is no set rate of decline.
Trolling does require a certain natural ability and it is even possible to get better with age. Unlike running.
I don't believe that's possible. It has to be drugs. None of the other old trolls on here can contend with you.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Active Masters wrote:
The 4:04.97 was run at Big Sky Conf outdoor in 1991. 4500', with a 4.3 second NCAA conversion (and those are fairly conservative). That an 8:31 steeple PR indicate at least 4:00 ability.
Masters runner here, 4:31, 4:38, 5:00 at 22, 40, and 50 (with drop off less in longer distances).
Those are facts not troll speculation.
So you lost a good 30 secs since your peak. That seems reasonable. So what is 30 secs better than 4.19?
There you go with your exact ratio for every person again.