I’d be more interested to know what he does to stay injury free, exercises, stretching, massage, chiropractic? What’s the secret. He seems accident prone but manages to stay clear of running injuries.
I tell you one thing, he sure ain’t using Rogain.
Typically, young male runners obsess over their mileage counts and their weight. Most avoid lifting like the plague. This makes sense since races are won by ectomorph body types. Young runners also tend to not eat much protein because it is expensive and they don't have much money to spend on food. When you are at your physical peak, you can get away with a focus on just running. My teammates and I all did this in our 20's.
Aging guys have a different mindset. As you get to your 30's and 40's, you notice that your physical strength and flexibility diminish. You also see changes in your balance and motor skills. Worst of all, you start to put on weight and your ability to recover diminishes as your hormonal balances change. Lifting, yoga, and cross training are good ways to minimize those declines and older guys gravitate to those activities since most can't or won't run huge volumes any longer. You also see what happens to your unfit colleagues and aging relatives that don't embrace fitness - chronic diseases and falls/fractures that often hasten their inevitable demise.
Older men also have secure incomes and can afford to eat better. While the struggling post collegian gets by on cheap carbs, middle aged athletes can afford more fresh produce and meat. The increased protein intake helps with muscle development and being lean accentuates how that muscle looks. Now, a 50 year old man won't get back to his stick figure college track/XC fighting weight ( and we know that we won't approach those times either) but, if he is carrying only 10-15 additional pounds and half of that is muscle, then he will look like a beast compared to a 125 pound collegiate runner.
I grant that there are some masters athletes that are using illegal substances or that go to a "Men's Clinic" to get testosterone therapy that they really don't need. They are outliers compared to most of the better masters athletes that have stayed running fit while doing the strength work and eating a diet that insures better health later in life.
Armstronglivs clings to the notion that Barton was just a 4:04 miler back in the day who had maxed out his potential. Without this his entire argument is invalid. He also doesn’t understand the fine line between performance and injury.
Beta Lance questions Barton’s performances but doesn’t understand basic conversions, equivalencies, and race specific training. He discounts the altitude, top 10 US ranking, and his 8:31 steeple. In other threads he wasn’t impressed by Barton’s steeple time. When the world record for steeple was 8:31, the mile record was 3:54! His limited track knowledge can’t compute it. But if you ask any decent college coach or track stat person they would say an 8:31 steeplechaser probably runs in the 3:54 to 3:57 range if they focused on it.
Track people get injured all the time. Barton may be more open and honest about his.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_run_world_record_progression
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3000_metres_steeplechase_world_record_progression
The point is not whether Barton "maxed his potential" at 4.05 but that his decline over nearly thirty years is only fractional. Taking injury into account - as this thread does - it may only be about 15 or so seconds in about 3 decades. I question whether that is naturally possible for a runner in their fifties. That is it. If you think it is, perhaps you could give another example of an elite runner whose decline from their twenties to their fifties is in the same ball-park as Barton. I can't think of any.
Go start your own thread about masters doping wrote:
Armstronglivs clings to the notion that Barton was just a 4:04 miler back in the day who had maxed out his potential. Without this his entire argument is invalid. He also doesn’t understand the fine line between performance and injury.
Beta Lance questions Barton’s performances but doesn’t understand basic conversions, equivalencies, and race specific training. He discounts the altitude, top 10 US ranking, and his 8:31 steeple. In other threads he wasn’t impressed by Barton’s steeple time. When the world record for steeple was 8:31, the mile record was 3:54! His limited track knowledge can’t compute it. But if you ask any decent college coach or track stat person they would say an 8:31 steeplechaser probably runs in the 3:54 to 3:57 range if they focused on it.
Track people get injured all the time. Barton may be more open and honest about his.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_run_world_record_progressionhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3000_metres_steeplechase_world_record_progression
I will address one particular point you make, because you base a key part of your argument on it and yet it is quite quite fallacious.
You say that when the wr for the steeple was around the 8.30 mark the wr for the mile was 3.54. True - but the holders of those records respectively were different runners. Of course - because they are very different events. At the time the mile record was 3.54 (Elliott and Snell) no steeplechaser - including the world record holder - was remotely near them over the shorter distance. If you look at the careers of Kryszkowiack and Roelants (the 1960 and 1964 Olympic champions, respectively) you cannot find that they even competed over the shorter distance. They were not fast enough. Their alternative events were the 5k-10k, and marathon.
It may be possible to suggest that an 8.30 steeple is worth a 3.57 mile, but that does not mean an 8.30 steepler could naturally run a 3.57 mile - just as a high jumper isn't likely also to be a long-jumper. For a runner whose best event was the steeple, and not a miler who later turned to the steeple, it is unlikely they would have been equally capable over the shorter distance. I have seen a few steeplechase specialists in the region of 8.30 and none of them were sub-4 milers. Again, not fast enough. A miler is typically a faster athlete than a steeplechaser - which is why specialists of each rarely run both events. So, in summary, an 8.30 steeple does not imply a 3.57 or even sub-4 mile. 4.05 will do it - as we know.
Yep, still accusing but trying to dodge that. Do you troll letstennis.com too?
Federered Up wrote:
Yep, still accusing but trying to dodge that. Do you troll letstennis.com too?
Actually, I am addressing arguments that have been put to me, but discerning an argument - or making one - is clearly out of your reach. It is ironic, because I could make a better case for Barton than you do, as you have nothing of any substance to offer beyond a few schoolboy jibes. You think every argument has to be personal - the sign of a petty mind. He doesn't need friends like you.
You're a troll. Hijacking this thread because you are jealous. Get a life you loser
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is ironic, because I could make a better case for Barton than you do, as you have nothing of any substance to offer beyond a few schoolboy jibes. .
That's rich considering you have done nothing but the latter.
No, you actually can''t wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It is ironic, because I could make a better case for Barton than you do, as you have nothing of any substance to offer beyond a few schoolboy jibes. .
That's rich considering you have done nothing but the latter.
Well, you do have to be able to read beyond one sentence ...
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, you actually can''t wrote:
That's rich considering you have done nothing but the latter.
Well, you do have to be able to read beyond one sentence ...
Nope, you just repeat and recycle. Nothing of substance is offered but doubt.
No, you actually can't wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, you do have to be able to read beyond one sentence ...
Nope, you just repeat and recycle. Nothing of substance is offered but doubt.
If it is only doubt - which it is - it's difficult to see why some of you are getting so agitated. If it continues it is also because others here choose to respond - even if it is chiefly to make it personal.
go away troll wrote:
You're a troll. Hijacking this thread because you are jealous. Get a life you loser
I can almost hear you stamping your little feet on the ground. I have a life already, but I appreciate your concern.
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, you actually can't wrote:
Nope, you just repeat and recycle. Nothing of substance is offered but doubt.
If it is only doubt - which it is - it's difficult to see why some of you are getting so agitated. If it continues it is also because others here choose to respond - even if it is chiefly to make it personal.
Nope. You repeat it continuously at every opportunity instigated or not.. We get it. You doubt him and anyone else who doesn't fit your degradation "science". People are annoyed that you have to crap on anyone over 40 achieving anything that you feel is impossible without drugs.
The only reason you are doing this is to troll and exchange your childish retorts.
If you are this disenchanted with athletics you would just stay away from any and all of it.
I read your comment - and re-read it - but I couldn't find an actual argument relating to aging in sports (or "degradation science", as you put it). But ill-temper you do well.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I read your comment - and re-read it - but I couldn't find an actual argument relating to aging in sports (or "degradation science", as you put it). But ill-temper you do well.
Because it's been explained to you a dozen times already. You didn't get it then, you're not likely to ever get it.
Obtuse obfuscator, you do it well.
Greyhoundharrier wrote:
Hounddogharrier wrote:
That muscle definition is hard to believe in a 53 year old .
No it's not. Just for reference, I'm 56 and I've easily got as much muscle tone as he does. Light weights and high reps. Never smoked and I don't eat garbage. But...believe what you will.
I agree as well. Really sad how someone with talent and hard work can't run something solid and be accused of doping. I've never met Brad but watched one of his races on YouTube. He gave it his all and earned the results. Drugs? I don't think so.
still dreamin' wrote:
Greyhoundharrier wrote:
No it's not. Just for reference, I'm 56 and I've easily got as much muscle tone as he does. Light weights and high reps. Never smoked and I don't eat garbage. But...believe what you will.
I agree as well. Really sad how someone with talent and hard work can't run something solid and be accused of doping. I've never met Brad but watched one of his races on YouTube. He gave it his all and earned the results. Drugs? I don't think so.
I am not going to disagree with you and this question is not aimed at Barton or anyone in particular (yes, it is possible he is clean) but is a general observation: how can you tell the difference between talent and hard work, and doping? They'll look the same. A doped athlete can train harder and appear more talented because they are more successful. Doped athletes will look clean - until they are caught. And we know only few are caught. If Brad is clean we also know for a fact that he's also beating guys who aren't. That's sport, now.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If Brad is clean we also know for a fact that he's also beating guys who aren't. That's sport, now.
This is definitely an accusation.
He's only raced a few times over the last several years. Who are the guys that he raced that are in fact doping?
You seem to know. Is it you? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If Brad is clean we also know for a fact that he's also beating guys who aren't. That's sport, now.
This is definitely an accusation.
He's only raced a few times over the last several years. Who are the guys that he raced that are in fact doping?
You miss the point, as usual. It isn't an accusation against Barton; it is simply recognising that any serious level of competition includes dopers in the field, along with clean competitors. A fact of life. If they are in sports as diverse as championship darts and curling - as violations have shown they are - then of course they are also in running events. If it weren't so, there would be no need for any kind of anti-doping in running - or any other sport. They won't necessarily win, and they won't be carrying a sign identifying themselves. Most will appear "talented and hard-working". Barton is currently the best in the world in his age-group; it follows that amongst those who aren't as fast as him, there will be some who are on something - even if he hadn't directly raced them. That's the sport.