Why does marathon participation and performance plunge from age 59 to 60?

Obviously this is marathon performance plunging from age 55 to 60, not 59 to 60.

Unfortunately, with ageing, performances drop a lot after 60, and even more so later.

There is also the psychological barrier of being over 60, which is the official entry point into senior citizen status almost everywhere.

people approaching death realize there is more to life than running an arbitrary distance in an equally arbitrary amount of time, contemplate how much of their life they have wasted in pursuit of arbitrary goals, and pursue different arbitrary goals while putting less effort into the arbitrary goal on which they have already wasted a large percentage of their life

Ghost1 wrote:

There is also the psychological barrier of being over 60, which is the official entry point into senior citizen status almost everywhere.

I've always thought it was 65, not 60.

obviously... wrote:

Obviously this is marathon performance plunging from age 55 to 60, not 59 to 60.

Some of the best winning times are by runners age 58 or 59.

Ghost1 wrote:

Unfortunately, with ageing, performances drop a lot after 60, and even more so later.

There is also the psychological barrier of being over 60, which is the official entry point into senior citizen status almost everywhere.

I've wondered about this psychological angle as turning 40 or 50 did not affect me in the least but 60 does seem like grandpa territory. But, being newly retired does provide some enthusiasm for training and there is curiosity about how long the training will be possible.

60 is a massive birthday, psychologically. 40 and 50 are big, but people can still tell themselves they are young. But 60? That’s old. So the build up to 60 is a huge motivator. People want to be young. It’s a race against time. But, once you tuen 60? What can you do now? Acceptance. You’re old now, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Arthritis!

For those older runners that have arthritis running a marathon will beat the snot out of you!

Hell, just running 5ks & low mileage can be a challenge.

Ba Humbug

I think the time that is involved in training and recovery that is needed has a lot to deal with it.

That 20 miler for training turns into 1/2 your day. Also the recovery from that can take a long long time. In your 20s the adaptation process doesn’t take as long as a 60 year old. When your 25 to adapt to a 20 miler may only take 1 or 2 runs. For a 60 year old it may take up to 5 or so runs to adapt to that 20 miler.

It may different if you start running later in life. I think generally every one has about 15-20 good racing years.

Oh and by the time your 60 many are involved with grand parenting. Also many start having problems with arthritis ect. For women menopause can have a dramatic effect on their race times. Also adapting to heat becomes harder as we age.

By time your 60 running just for health and fitness become more of a priority than your race time.

That all makes sense. I'm just intrigued by the quick, almost instantaneous and uniform fall over those few years, according to the race results, especially with the numbers of people who are living longer and longer.

Arthritic Old Stiff wrote:

Arthritis!

For those older runners that have arthritis running a marathon will beat the snot out of you!

Hell, just running 5ks & low mileage can be a challenge.

Ba Humbug

That's what did me in and it became a problem soon after my last marathon at age 51. That one went well enough that I thought I'd run a few more but it wasn't to be. Also in my case I'd been running marathons pretty consistently since I was 19 and at various times over the years felt like I'd run enough of them. I've always done enough training that "just finishing" has no appeal. Chasing personal bests or placing fairly well were always the motivators and the PB years are long gone. I could refocus on placing well in my age group if the arthritis ever let up but I don't know if that's enough motive or not. Truthfully, I never liked racing marathons and did them because I finished higher in race fields as the distances got longer.

I realized that marathons were beating the crap out of my body by age 20. For most people, it appears to take 30-40 more years to reach the same conclusion. In my case, running plenty of miles, plus sprint training, post-60, without arthritis or needless aches and pains.

Older Runner Guy wrote:

I realized that marathons were beating the crap out of my body by age 20. For most people, it appears to take 30-40 more years to reach the same conclusion. In my case, running plenty of miles, plus sprint training, post-60, without arthritis or needless aches and pains.

Absolutely. I'm only in my 40s, have run a dozen marathons, and am seriously questioning how many more I want to do. Even in the absence of any physical problems like arthritis, how long do you want to keep putting your body through that? Even if I still could train for and race marathons at 60, I can't imagine still WANTING to.

With each passing year, the idea of becoming a 5k "specialist" (ha!) has increasing appeal. Limited weekly mileage, no need for long runs, no excessive recovery time, seriously reduced injury/overuse risk, and you can race one every week.

armadillo wrote:

With each passing year, the idea of becoming a 5k "specialist" (ha!) has increasing appeal. Limited weekly mileage, no need for long runs, no excessive recovery time, seriously reduced injury/overuse risk, and you can race one every week.

They are certainly easier to recover from but why does everyone think that running your personal best 5K requires fewer miles in the bank? You need to be very strong aerobically and the more miles the better, even for 5K. The exception might be those who have greater percentage of fast twitch muscle fiber but generally speaking most people run a faster 5K with more miles under their belt. Also, I may have run many lifetime miles but if in my current cycle or build-up my mileage is low I will most certainly feel that on the back-end of a 5K.

gdbdgbfgn wrote:

armadillo wrote:

With each passing year, the idea of becoming a 5k "specialist" (ha!) has increasing appeal. Limited weekly mileage, no need for long runs, no excessive recovery time, seriously reduced injury/overuse risk, and you can race one every week.

They are certainly easier to recover from but why does everyone think that running your personal best 5K requires fewer miles in the bank? You need to be very strong aerobically and the more miles the better, even for 5K. The exception might be those who have greater percentage of fast twitch muscle fiber but generally speaking most people run a faster 5K with more miles under their belt. Also, I may have run many lifetime miles but if in my current cycle or build-up my mileage is low I will most certainly feel that on the back-end of a 5K.

I'm not in college anymore. My personal bests were set several presidential administrations ago. That's no longer relevant. It doesn't take that much mileage to be competitive in the local old man division of a 5k. 5ks certainly require less mileage than marathons, especially for us old hobby joggers.

Just not having to trudge through a bunch of 20 milers makes a huge difference when you're on the wrong side of 40 (or 50 or 60).

gdbdgbfgn wrote:

armadillo wrote:

With each passing year, the idea of becoming a 5k "specialist" (ha!) has increasing appeal. Limited weekly mileage, no need for long runs, no excessive recovery time, seriously reduced injury/overuse risk, and you can race one every week.

They are certainly easier to recover from but why does everyone think that running your personal best 5K requires fewer miles in the bank? You need to be very strong aerobically and the more miles the better, even for 5K. The exception might be those who have greater percentage of fast twitch muscle fiber but generally speaking most people run a faster 5K with more miles under their belt. Also, I may have run many lifetime miles but if in my current cycle or build-up my mileage is low I will most certainly feel that on the back-end of a 5K.

Go back and read his first paragraph - the one you didn't quote. He's not a 25 year old setting PRs - he's a masters runner that's been there, done that.

I generally think it's a bad idea to keep racing marathons into your 50s and 60s. You can get away with it when you're in your 20s through 40s, but past age 50, things change. The orthopedic and cardiac risks go up so much. If you can still race 5 and 10ks into your 60s, you should be thrilled with that. THRILLED. I have so many running friends who can no longer run at all because of various physical ailments (mainly arthritis), and almost to a man, they tell me to stay away from marathons at my age.

obviously... wrote:

Obviously this is marathon performance plunging from age 55 to 60, not 59 to 60.

Or even from 55 to 64, so over an even longer period.

Statistical Artefact wrote:

obviously... wrote:

Obviously this is marathon performance plunging from age 55 to 60, not 59 to 60.

Or even from 55 to 64, so over an even longer period.

This exactly. There is also a noticeable drop off from 45-50. But the age 60 drop off starts actually at about 57-58 and continues past 60. Have done a half dozen marathons post-50 but only every other year or so.

I’m not sure if your VO2 aclerates as one pasts the 60 mark. That could be.

Also the hard cold facts are people actually start dying at 60. Cancer, cardiovascular issues, joint and mobility issues increase.

You can only run so much at that age. And marathon training requires huge amount of miles. A 5 k you can get away with much less too.