How does Bernard Lagat look so much younger than his age and his stride still appears ageless when he runs?

Kind of crazy that Lagat’s peak coincided with El Guerrouj and El G stopped running in 2004.

15 years ago.

He claims that he takes one whole month off at the end of each year. Anthony Whiteman, who owns the 800m age 40 and 45 masters record and is second to Bernard Lagat on the 1500 age 40, claims to take off THREE months at the end of each season.

1. He's not that old

2. Black don't crack

3. He shaves his head. I bet if he let it grow in, he'd look 55.

Armstronglivs wrote:

` wrote:

Probably has to do with the low mileage. Dude has mastered getting the most out of every step.

This cracks me up. The usual reason offered here for unbelievable times is high mileage and hard training. And now I see that the secret is to train little harder than Bannister. So which one is it? Anything but the obvious.

That was kinda my point. For most people to run as fast as Lagat has, they have to put in a ton of mileage. The fact that he is so good off low mileage, however he did it, is probably why he has such longevity.

I once heard someone say "ahhh, to be 70 again"

He is financially sound and has little stress. Still having fun

` wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

This cracks me up. The usual reason offered here for unbelievable times is high mileage and hard training. And now I see that the secret is to train little harder than Bannister. So which one is it? Anything but the obvious.

That was kinda my point. For most people to run as fast as Lagat has, they have to put in a ton of mileage. The fact that he is so good off low mileage, however he did it, is probably why he has such longevity.

So you can be better with less training than others? That isn't the usual argument advanced here for achievement. (Canova et al.) Indeed, if it were true then the best runners in the past (Coe, Ovett?) should have also been 3.26xx runners - like Lagat - since presumably they didn't train as hard as the faster top athletes of today or they would have recorded similar times. Less is more right? Or only for some. I would bet on another reason. The usual.

He is bald, so you don't see the graying hair; he takes a day off every week and a long break after seasons; he doesn't do high mileage or push his workouts really hard; and he has been doing this for a long time, thus having 20 years in which he was essentially preserving the length of his telomeres from his 20s.

https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a25400990/running-anti-aging-effects/

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

Eat steak wrote:

^^^this

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2102773

ALSO.......he's not afraid, like so many pseudo-nutrition experts on here, of eating a HIGH carb diet, with plenty of refined carbs (pasta, rice, bread, etc). Whole grains are preferred, but Lagat states he eats LOTS of rice, pasta, bread.

Sorry to rain on you low carb parade.

What a GD freak.

I miss his crazy-eyed sprints at the end of track races so damn much. He was absolutely terrifying.

To answer your question, he has A-level genetics and looks like a fashion model. He will still be very handsome even at age 60 or so. Life isn’t always fair.

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

Eat steak wrote:

^^^this

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2102773

ALSO.......he's not afraid, like so many pseudo-nutrition experts on here, of eating a HIGH carb diet, with plenty of refined carbs (pasta, rice, bread, etc). Whole grains are preferred, but Lagat states he eats LOTS of rice, pasta, bread.

Sorry to rain on you low carb parade.

I thought LR was mostly high carb crowd? Have I been gone too long? I used to get crapped on in the past when I promoted higher protein intake.

Here is why Lagat can still run a sub 4 mile when he is 45:

1) he doesn't overtrain and accumulate all the little injuries old people blame on age.

2) that efficient stride was a big reason he got to 3:26, meaning it's extremely efficient and would have to lose a lot to not be efficient.

3) he still takes what he is doing seriously instead of working a desk job, getting fat etc.

Interesting hypothesis. I have rs2802292 GG allele as well as 2060793 AA and 1935949 CT. I’ve run pretty quick for my age, and my stride still feels smooth with good a good pop in my stride

Also, rs2811712(A;G)

Armstronglivs wrote:

` wrote:

That was kinda my point. For most people to run as fast as Lagat has, they have to put in a ton of mileage. The fact that he is so good off low mileage, however he did it, is probably why he has such longevity.

So you can be better with less training than others? That isn't the usual argument advanced here for achievement. (Canova et al.) Indeed, if it were true then the best runners in the past (Coe, Ovett?) should have also been 3.26xx runners - like Lagat - since presumably they didn't train as hard as the faster top athletes of today or they would have recorded similar times. Less is more right? Or only for some. I would bet on another reason. The usual.

It seems like you not only don't run but you don't know anything about it or training and talent.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Here is why Lagat can still run a sub 4 mile when he is 45:

1) he doesn't overtrain and accumulate all the little injuries old people blame on age.

2) that efficient stride was a big reason he got to 3:26, meaning it's extremely efficient and would have to lose a lot to not be efficient.

3) he still takes what he is doing seriously instead of working a desk job, getting fat etc.

Kiprop also has a very efficient stride. ?

not a big surprise wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you can be better with less training than others? That isn't the usual argument advanced here for achievement. (Canova et al.) Indeed, if it were true then the best runners in the past (Coe, Ovett?) should have also been 3.26xx runners - like Lagat - since presumably they didn't train as hard as the faster top athletes of today or they would have recorded similar times. Less is more right? Or only for some. I would bet on another reason. The usual.

It seems like you not only don't run but you don't know anything about it or training and talent.

That's the kind of response to be made when you can't actually address the point. I could just as easily say you are ignorant of sports physiology, and it would be true.

The point is that two contradictory arguments are offered on this site for modern-day running achievement: mileage, or low mileage (but only for Lagat, it seems). Each argument cancels out the other.

Armstronglivs wrote:

not a big surprise wrote:

It seems like you not only don't run but you don't know anything about it or training and talent.

That's the kind of response to be made when you can't actually address the point. I could just as easily say you are ignorant of sports physiology, and it would be true.

The point is that two contradictory arguments are offered on this site for modern-day running achievement: mileage, or low mileage (but only for Lagat, it seems). Each argument cancels out the other.

Nope. That's just because people can't agree on what constitutes high or low mileage. Hint: Lagat is neither.

Coe and Ovett would have been faster if they trained like Lagat. But they did not. That's how training techniques advance.

The argument was that Lagat trains light. How is that an advance on what Coe and Ovett did? It's also contrary to every other argument advanced here, about how much harder athletes train today. Either way, it is all excuses to avoid the obvious, that athletes are doping.