Yes

I mean the consensus is that to improve you kinda have to put a certain level of unusually high stress on your body. While amateurs do it at a lower level, amateurs likely like the genetics that makes increases resistance to slows down the wearing process and also lack regular constant monitoring of exercise intensity, frequency, rests, diet etc.

I've been lucky to run fourteen years so far without any injuries at all, starting when I was twenty-seven. I don't train "for" anything, though, other than maintaining my own fitness. I just do my 10K three times a week and that's good enough for me.

reading some popular media from around 1900 in the USA, it seemed to be a common perception that people who trained for track and field events generally expect a short life somehow.

Nursing a sore right Achilles as I read this...

Funny two weekends ago I watched a woman set a world record for the mile for women 80-85.

I think that supercompensation is not as strong an effect in amateurs and that this is the #1 driver of injury.

I've long suspected there is a range of exertion that is net negative with regard to injury risk. No exercise at all means no exercise related risk. However, I strongly disagree that an extreme amount of exercise is the riskiest. I think the most dangerous level of exertion sits right in the middle somewhere. That special zone where you are grinding down your bones a bit but your hormones and other compensation mechanisms don't react accordingly because you aren't going quite hard enough.

It depends on the intensity level. In the pandemic of 2020, I ran 26.2 mile runs at an easy effort for 5 weekends in row in the spring and 6 in the fall, generally with my easy effort getting faster as I went. Rather than the sequence of big runs wearing my out, I was getting stronger.

Now, if I had tried to run every one at "race pace", I would likely be trashed or injured by the end from insufficient recovery.

The key is simply to keep moving.

Staying safer and getting the benefits comes down to progressive training (carefully managing volume and intensity), adapting lifestyle/recovery, and getting guidance/support (coaches, clubs, medical help) rather than assuming pros are built differently and amateurs are safe.

FTA:

“A high-level athlete doesn’t need to see a sports doctor.

[…]

Professional athletes benefit from much better […] medical support than novice or amateur runners”

So, which is it? You might say their “specific programme that includes dietary measures, recovery phases and processes” is medical support but doesn’t involve doctors, but if you do, I think that’s playing with words.

> Note the paradox here: one of the principles of training is to stimulate the body, to “wear it out” at a given moment in time in order to trigger the physiological processes that will lead to improved capabilities, the fight against fatigue… and, ultimately, increased resistance to physical stress.

A somewhat recent paper:

Systematic review and meta-analysis of antioxidants with or without exercise training improving muscle condition in older adults

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12491480/

Seems to imply that as we get older, antioxidants might help the body recover from exercise. More specifically, antioxidants may help resolve exercise induced inflammation in adults aged over 55 years.

So it seems that, yes, as you get older, its easier for the body to wear down, but this can be mitigated somewhat.

TLDR: no, they do not wear out the body in the same way

Professional runners will do high impact lifting and daily stretching. Amateurs will do whatever they feel like doing for prep work, including nothing at all. It's disturbing that they leave this critical detail out.