NY Times tells Olga Kotelko’s secret: No decay in muscle chemistry

Olga Kotelko, the W90 phenom, is profiled in a stunningly well-researched article in the current New York Times Magazine. See it here. Near the end of Bruce Grierson’s report, we learn why Olga is able to set world records on a whim: “In October, the first of Kotelko’s muscle samples came back from the lab. The results were compelling. In a muscle sample of a person over the age of 65, you would expect to see at least a couple of fibers with some mitochondrial defects. But in around 400 muscle fibers examined, Taivassalo said, ‘We didn’t see a single fiber that had any evidence” of mitochondrial decay. ‘It’s remarkable,’ she added.” So is the video that accompanies the story.

Olga is compared to Phil Raschker in a long piece in the NYT Magazine.

The story, headlined “The Incredible Flying Nonagenarian,” continues: “As the data on Kotelko gather, it’s hard to avoid a conclusion. ‘Olga has done no more training than many athletes, and yet she’s the one still standing,’ Hepple says. ‘Why? In my mind, it has everything to do with her innate physiological profile.’ ”

So Olga is an outlier, no doubt. But her sweet disposition and supportive attitude makes her a hero of mine as well. Only error in story: references to the 90-95 age group. Trivial compared to the great publicity given our sport. Thanks, Bruce!

I was interviewed several times for this piece, and the author graciously called this site “the main news source of the growing masters athletic circuit.” (Your check is in the mail, Bruce!) The online article also links to masterstrack.com. And I was phoned a half-dozen times by a fact-checker for the Times. So it’s pretty solid —except for the 90-95 flub, which I didn’t have a chance to correct.

My favorite part of the piece:

Olgas spraying data points into unmapped space is enough to set the hearts of gerontologists aflutter, to Kotelko, the idea that there may be, somewhere, even one more older track star — a genuine rival — is tantalizing.
She yearns, she insists, with semiplausible conviction, to be pushed. There’d be no talk of low-hanging fruit and meaningless medals if there were someone she could race close and beat in real time. “I’d love that,” she told me more than once.

The story comes up with a potential rival: “Mitsu Morita, an 88-year-old from Japan, is faster than Kotelko was at that age and is breaking all of Kotelko’s records in that age bracket.”

If the article ever goes off the Web, send me a note. I’ve copied it for posterity.

Print Friendly

November 25, 2010

10 Responses

  1. peter taylor - November 25, 2010

    A common error, Ken, if still unsettling. Yes, she is in the 90-94 group, not 90-95. Another thing that can seem bothersome is to say of Bill Collins, for example, “He holds the 100 record for men 55 and up” rather than men 55-59 (even though he is the best for 55 and over; we just don’t do things that way). Oh, well, at least the outside world talks about us sometimes.

    Olga, in my experience, has a very warm heart and contributes a great deal to the meets. Glad to see that the New York Times took a scientific approach and found her to be biologically exceptional.

  2. Weia Reinboud - November 25, 2010

    Nice and long article!

  3. Who's your daddy - November 25, 2010

    A true biological freak of nature. It also implies that one’s lack of results as an older adult; could be due to more rapid aging; as opposed to training habits. I’m not saying one shouldn’t train either; but I’d love to read the scientific research on Olga. It also means one should train and compete for enjoyment; and let the “winning” take care of itself.

  4. Rob D'Avellar - November 25, 2010

    Super article…the kind of coverage masters athletics needs and deserves.

  5. peter van aken - November 25, 2010

    her favorite event is the hammer throw! the article that was “fact checked” chose to list the weight of her implement as “7 pounds”. The official designated weight of the womens hammer at that age is 3 kilograms….anyone know the conversion of 3 kilograms into pounds? I guess articles written primarily for an American audience need to present measurements in an archaic imperial system, but I wish they had used metric measurements….

  6. Weia Reinboud - November 26, 2010

    It even could be 2 kilograms.

  7. Jerry Smartt - November 26, 2010

    3 kilo = 6.6 pounds.

  8. Weia Reinboud - November 26, 2010

    Women over 75 now use a 2k hammer, that is just over 4.4 pounds in conservative measurement.

  9. Grant Lamothe - November 30, 2010

    I just found out that Olga will be featured tonight Tuesday, Nov. 30 on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, biggest network in Canada) tv Evening News starting at 10:00 pacific time.

    If you have access to the CBC, check it out -it should be interesting, not to mention and great PR for Masters Track.

  10. Rob D'Avellar - December 2, 2010

    This is the link to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Olga that Grant is talking about:

    http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=1674056520

    Copy and paste it into your browser.

Leave a Reply