Yale prof creates table predicting how much aging runners will slow

hah

There are many 50 year olds on my team who aren't slowing at all. this kind of linear compution doesn't work.

I'm 90 seconds faster over 10k than I 'should be' by that scale - I'm 48 and am just as fast as I was at 39, similar training.

I was sent this earlier today. Replied with the Ed Whitlock wiki page link

I read the article yesterday. I even clicked through to look at the tables. I don't see anything new there. What's the difference between what this author is doing and the age grade tables?

to be Fair wrote:

One of many Times stories with the effect of encouraging the American public to aim lower.

Eh, I can see it working both ways. Plenty of runners quit entirely when they realize that their days of PRing are behind them. If a runner decides to set a new target instead of hanging up the spikes once their college track fitness is gone, I don't really see that as aiming lower.

As one would expect, the tables aren't very accurate for individual performances. My wife and I are 66. She was an elite swimmer, and still is a competitve masters swimmer. The table was more that 2:30 off for her 1650 yds. I was an average small college mid-distance runner. The table is slightly more than 1:30 off for my 5K time based on a race I ran a couple of weeks ago.

The tables work when you average the performances a large group of people, but not particularly accurately for a single individual.

Wednesday Grocery Shoper wrote:

I was sent this earlier today. Replied with the Ed Whitlock wiki page link

Sent this today as well, thought about the same reply but didn't. He definitely slowed with age, it's just that he was obviously still freakingly fast for his age.

As others have said, bogus research.

It is much more a matter of the approach to training and racing and health than about aging, at least depending on just what level you reached and how hard you trained when you were younger, and on what age you are. It is awfully difficult to avoid pretty steep declines from age 50. But it is entirely credible to say that you have been able to run multiple pr's in your 40s, even your mid to late 40s if your 20-35 peak was considerably worsened or interrupted by injuries or lack of training. Like you, I have been able to reach the same or a higher level from age 39 to 47, though I do not reach the same level every season or year, necessarily, because injuries and illness (from the kids for the most part) and sometimes lack of training partners keep me from reaching that level sometimes. I was out for 15 years from age 20 to 35 and eventually hit multiple pr's at age 39 and then again at 43 and 45. You need to be able to get that base and to get very good speedwork and tempos, and having regular training partners helps a lot. They're not always there after college. A lot of people fade more because of lack of desire/time/training than aging per se.

start here wrote:

I read the article yesterday. I even clicked through to look at the tables. I don't see anything new there. What's the difference between what this author is doing and the age grade tables?

If you enter some numbers, you can see how it is different from the age grade tables.

minong wrote:

Wednesday Grocery Shoper wrote:

I was sent this earlier today. Replied with the Ed Whitlock wiki page link

Sent this today as well, thought about the same reply but didn't. He definitely slowed with age, it's just that he was obviously still freakingly fast for his age.

As others have said, bogus research.

All that needs to be said on the issue: " Ray Fair, a professor in the economics department at Yale"

(emphasis mine)

number denier wrote:

hah

There are many 50 year olds on my team who aren't slowing at all.

Since I am not on any PEDs, my times are really close to the tables.

I had a great summer when I was 39. I had another great summer last year at 50. My 10k best was 12 seconds slower than predicted. My 5 mile time which was run on the exact same course was 4 seconds slower. A 5k run on the same course was 2 seconds slower than predicted. My half marathon time was 9 seconds faster.

Both years I raced close to 40 times and my age group placings were very similar. My conclusion is his tables are fairly accurate (like the age-graded tables) and anybody who has been around for years would know that.

I tried them out. They start at age 35, so they don't give you the calculation if your pr was at a much younger age, but at any rate, they predict based on a 1:14 half at 39 that I'd be running 1:19 now, but I ran 1:16 this year and I was sick. No peds, just a lot of miles and workouts and preventive exercises.

number denier wrote:

hah

There are many 50 year olds on my team who aren't slowing at all. this kind of linear compution doesn't work.

I'm 90 seconds faster over 10k than I 'should be' by that scale - I'm 48 and am just as fast as I was at 39, similar training.

Yeah that's why you see 50 year olds running 2:08 marathons the a days. They just don't slow down.

jjjjjj wrote:

I tried them out. They start at age 35, so they don't give you the calculation if your pr was at a much younger age, but at any rate, they predict based on a 1:14 half at 39 that I'd be running 1:19 now, but I ran 1:16 this year and I was sick. No peds, just a lot of miles and workouts and preventive exercises.

And 1:10 at 25 beats 1:14 at 39.

old geezer runner wrote:

.

The tables work when you average the performances a large group of people, but not particularly accurately for a single individual.

That goodness, as I am your age and same background and since I now have the time, and still some energy am trying to get back in shape after years of sitting at a gall-durn desk and dont' want to have that pathetic shuffle I see in my peers.

actual engineer wrote:

minong wrote:

Sent this today as well, thought about the same reply but didn't. He definitely slowed with age, it's just that he was obviously still freakingly fast for his age.

As others have said, bogus research.

All that needs to be said on the issue: " Ray Fair, a professor in the economics department at Yale"

(emphasis mine)

I assume you don't know what the study of economics is. It's likely not what you are thinking it is.

number denier wrote:

There are many 50 year olds on my team who aren't slowing at all. this kind of linear compution doesn't work.

I'm 90 seconds faster over 10k than I 'should be' by that scale - I'm 48 and am just as fast as I was at 39, similar training.

The similar training you're doing at 48 is relatively harder than it was when you were 39. You just weren't pushing yourself when you were younger.