Older endurance athletes have long been admired for their longevity, grit, and elite conditioning well into their 60s and 70s. Their stories often serve as aspirational blueprints—proof that age doesn’t have to diminish performance, and that consistency can defy time. But new data is beginning to tell a more complex story, one that doesn’t diminish the benefits of movement, but urges a sharper look at the cost of unrelenting intensity over decades.
A study out of the University of Leeds, funded by the British Heart Foundation, just delivered one of the clearest signals yet: heart scarring is significantly more common in older male endurance athletes—and it may be linked to a higher risk of abnormal heart rhythms and sudden cardiac death. For anyone over 50 who’s still training hard every week, it’s a moment to pause—not in fear, but in reflection. This isn’t about avoiding risk altogether. It’s about understanding what kind of stress accumulates over time, and what kind of system architecture your body really needs to stay sustainable.
The study focused on 106 former competitive cyclists and triathletes—men who had maintained more than 10 hours of intense exercise per week for at least 15 years. Their average profile fits the high-discipline mold: not just active, but consistently high-performing, often structured, sometimes obsessive. Each participant underwent advanced heart imaging and was fitted with an implantable loop recorder to monitor electrical activity over the following two years.
The results were stark. Nearly half—47 percent—showed signs of myocardial fibrosis, or scarring of the heart muscle, particularly in the left ventricle, which is responsible for pumping oxygenated blood throughout the body. For comparison, only 11 percent of a non-endurance control group showed similar scarring. This wasn’t just about appearance. Over the two-year follow-up period, 22 percent of the athletes experienced abnormal heart rhythms, most notably ventricular tachycardia, a rapid rhythm that can interrupt blood flow and in some cases, trigger sudden cardiac arrest.
One of the study participants, 74-year-old Brian Cookson, former president of British Cycling and the Union Cycliste Internationale, became a real-world example of just how critical these insights can be. While training at Manchester Velodrome, Cookson felt slightly unwell. His sports watch registered a heart rate of 238 beats per minute—far beyond safe physiological limits. Though he didn’t collapse, he did something most high-achieving athletes might avoid: he reported it.
Thanks to the implanted heart monitor, Cookson’s cardiology team could confirm he had experienced a bout of ventricular tachycardia. He was urgently fitted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)—a device that can shock the heart back into rhythm if a dangerous arrhythmia strikes again. The event didn’t end his training, but it changed everything about how he approaches it. These days, if his heart rate climbs toward 150, he eases off. Not because he’s weak, but because he now knows that adaptation—not escalation—is what will keep him moving long into his eighties.
Here’s the performance fallacy: we believe more is better. That if you can still run 20 kilometers at age 65, you should. That if your metrics are solid, your heart must be healthy. But conditioning can obscure fragility. Endurance builds impressive cardiovascular efficiency, but it may also invite long-term remodeling of heart tissue—structural change that isn’t immediately felt but quietly alters electrical pathways over time.
It’s not that intense endurance training inevitably leads to heart damage. Many of the athletes in the study had no detectable scarring or rhythm issues. But the risk wasn’t marginal. And the more years and hours logged at high heart rates, the more likely the stress was to accumulate. The left ventricle, constantly pushed to its max, doesn’t always bounce back the way skeletal muscle does. Repeated microtrauma, especially during threshold training or long races, can leave traces. Scar tissue doesn’t conduct electrical signals like healthy tissue. That’s the problem. It’s not about weakness—it’s about interference.
This isn’t a reason to stop running, cycling, swimming, or training hard. It’s a reason to refine the architecture of your weekly output. The body doesn’t reward heroics. It rewards precision. The optimal protocol for cardiovascular health after 50 likely looks different than the one that delivered podiums at 30. That means pulling back on volume. Shifting from cumulative stress to strategic adaptation. Rebalancing intensity with restoration.
Modern performance culture idolizes peak output. But for older athletes, the smarter play is minimum effective dose. That’s the least amount of training required to preserve strength, endurance, and mitochondrial efficiency without triggering excess inflammation, tissue degradation, or autonomic overload. A Zone 2 aerobic base—long, easy efforts at low heart rate—continues to deliver benefits without taxing the heart’s electrical system. Strength training becomes even more essential, improving vascular health and offsetting age-related decline in muscle density and insulin sensitivity. Occasional high-intensity intervals or threshold efforts? Still valuable. But only when recovery is non-negotiable.
The real shift isn’t just physical. It’s psychological. Many lifelong athletes define identity through effort. Ease feels like cheating. Backing off feels like giving in. But there’s a hidden discipline in restraint. In deciding that long-term performance isn’t about chasing metrics, but preserving integrity. In understanding that longevity is a product of consistency, not maximalism. Cookson could have ignored the warning signs. Instead, he opted to adapt.
It’s also worth noting that the study focused on older male athletes. Female endurance athletes remain understudied in this context. While their hormonal profiles differ—and may offer some cardioprotective effects—the risk data simply isn’t conclusive yet. That needs to change. So do the assumptions baked into coaching models for aging athletes, most of which still treat volume as the cornerstone of conditioning.
The good news? This research wasn’t about illness. It was about awareness. Most of the athletes studied were asymptomatic. Those who experienced dangerous rhythms were often alerted by devices, not dramatic episodes. This creates an opportunity. With enough monitoring, intervention can come before collapse. With smart protocols, effort can be shaped—not abandoned.
The first layer of awareness is internal. Dizziness, faintness, unexplained fatigue, breathlessness—these are not badges of effort. They are system signals. Too often, they’re rationalized away: poor sleep, dehydration, not enough salt. Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it’s not. If something feels wrong, don’t push through. Stop. Check. Adjust. The second layer is structural. Routine check-ups won’t catch the electrical instabilities that advanced imaging or loop recorders reveal. For anyone over 60 training more than five hours a week, especially if you have a long history of racing, consider requesting a cardiac MRI. Not to find something wrong. But to make sure the system you’re building on is clean.
None of this diminishes the value of movement. Inactivity remains a far greater health threat. Regular exercise lowers blood pressure, improves metabolic function, supports mental health, and prolongs life expectancy. But intensity and frequency don’t scale linearly past midlife. They flatten—or worse, invert. At a certain point, the question becomes not “How hard can I go?” but “How much stress can I recover from sustainably?”
It’s time to retire the binary narrative of athlete versus sedentary. Performance isn’t defined by medals or marathons. It’s defined by the capacity to function well—and consistently—for as long as possible. That includes climbing stairs without breathlessness. That includes walking ten thousand steps without fatigue. That includes waking up with enough energy to be present, focused, and pain-free. And yes, that includes continuing to ride, swim, or run if that’s part of who you are. But with more margin. More feedback. More precision.
The durability mindset is not about limits. It’s about lifespan management. The best endurance athletes in the coming decade will be those who treat performance like architecture—not adrenaline. Those who train their nervous systems to respond, not just endure. Those who see movement not as conquest, but as calibration.
In the end, the goal isn’t to eliminate risk. That’s impossible. The goal is to map it. To know what’s beneath the hood, to understand the signals, and to shift when the system says shift. That’s not weakness. That’s wisdom.
Because strength is not always visible. It’s not always measured in watts or pace or elevation gain. Sometimes, it’s in the decision to pause. To listen. To rebuild the week’s rhythm around what your heart can still carry—with power, with safety, with pride.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
