Why were amateur marathonners so fast 30-35 years ago?

I'm a big fan of Bryan Cranston. He is great from Malcolm in the Middle and Breaking Bad. I think one reason is less traffic on the roads to worry about, more green space, short courses, ability to blood dope without been catched, and better music to listen to.

People were fitter in general, and lived more active lives, much less obesity, probably a slightly better diet. The low mileage training ideas hadn't been spread around, and if the other runners around you are going faster you'll hold yourself to a higher standard and likely be faster.

Also LMAO at blaming blood doping. The same people could blood dope just as easilly now because no one would care, they are hobbyists.

As for short courses, well there'd also be long ones, so where are all the slow times? And I've done both long and short races in the last few years. A lot of small ones still aren't very accurately measured. Bizzaire the excuses people make to pretend we haven't gotten worse.

If you see some logs from the past, you'll find more running by feel and usually HARD.

No gps, no hrm, just out of the door and hammering it.

They ran more

Mt Runmore wrote:

They ran more

We wuz tuffer then, I tells ya. Shoveled snow off the track to do our 10x440s in 20 degree weather wearing baggy sweats and Tiger galoshes, then fetched buckets of water from the well so we could shower.

Heartbreak Hill was a lot higher then, too.

1. The kids who now play soccer would have been funneled toward running in those olden days.

2. Very little obesity, as mentioned above.

3. An adult in 1980 had grown up with 3 broadcast TV channels and essentially no other screens. He/She was outside, playing

and moving.

4. Title IX had not yet destroyed many college TF and CC programs that developed runners who became dedicated amateurs in their twenties and thirties.

5. Far less scholarships went to non-US, 24 year olds. Kids get excited and motivated and will always work toward big rewards. The big cash and prizes are now few and far between for runners at the college level.

5. 2:50 or better was the Boston qualification standard for men under forty; 3:10 for forty and older. Everyone was training toward bigger goals.

I finished in 400+ place out of a thousand starters in my second marathon attempt in the early eighties.

My same finishing time at the same marathon, again with about a thousand starters, 30 years later put me in about 40th place.

I think it's something in the water and cellular/wifi rays scrambling our brains.

I would add:

6. Better work - family balance. When you were at work you worked, when you were at home you were free to do what you liked. Today too many people are tied to their work through cell phones, lap tops etc. to the point that they feel it is a career limiting mistake to not be constantly available. That 2 hour LSD run could cost you a promotion.

"They ran more"

Quite true! Not talking about the very elitest of the elite but there were far more men (not sure about women?) training 100 miles a week or so and running sub 2hrs 20 mins for the marathon - and equivalent times at the shorter distances.

Also, less coaching "advice" out there. Many runners just picked up information from older runners who had trained pretty hard themselves. These days there is lots of stuff available on line - most of it pretty awful stuff.

Training for distance events isn't very complex, it's simple. But extraordinarily hard work for a prolonged period.

I'd also add that decades ago, the number of high school sports available was very limited, especially in smaller school districts in the rust belt and south.

My school had no soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, volleyball, swimming; football, baseball and basketball were everything.

Football was very important and many, many very good athletes ended up in XC because of their size and the realization that they'd never play and just be chewed up on shite squad.

That same school and many others now have all of the boutique sports that take smaller, talented runners from XC and TF.

Ultimate frisbee players are going to be at a disadvantage to the runner who has had wise, measured coaching for years.

milermb wrote:

"They ran more"

Quite true! Not talking about the very elitest of the elite but there were far more men (not sure about women?) training 100 miles a week or so and running sub 2hrs 20 mins for the marathon - and equivalent times at the shorter distances.

Also, less coaching "advice" out there. Many runners just picked up information from older runners who had trained pretty hard themselves. These days there is lots of stuff available on line - most of it pretty awful stuff.

Training for distance events isn't very complex, it's simple. But extraordinarily hard work for a prolonged period.

I agree. Hundred mile weeks were pretty common not just for guys with Olympic team potential but with just normal "club" runners, guys who did okay in local races and no more. I knew maybe ten guys who routinely got to the 100 mile neighborhood in the 70s. I'd be hard pressed to find two today. And people then ran the marathon a lot more frequently than now in most cases so you had to be faster to place well.

It's a grand illusion.

More races.

This results in.

Less concentrated quality at races.

Which gives the illusion that the quality is going down.

Same reason why we think people were some much better in the 70s/80s.

It's not because we've gotten slower.

But the quality of the top 1% in running have gotten dramatically faster.

For example, look at how many people go under 2:05 at the Dubai marathon.

Now look at the marathon world record progression.

People knew quality produced greater results than mindless mileage. Most people maxed out at 40 miles per week QUALITY. 20x400 with rest heart rate down to 120 before starting the next.

Quality training quality RESULTS wrote:

People knew quality produced greater results than mindless mileage. Most people maxed out at 40 miles per week QUALITY. 20x400 with rest heart rate down to 120 before starting the next.

Are you talking about marathon runners 30-35 years ago when you say maxed out at 40 miles a week?

Quality training quality RESULTS wrote:

People knew quality produced greater results than mindless mileage. Most people maxed out at 40 miles per week QUALITY. 20x400 with rest heart rate down to 120 before starting the next.

What's up JS?

I used to run in the 17 min range in the late 80s and 90s and would regularly finish 30th to 50th place in local 5k races. Today, those times would finish top 10 or sometimes even win races, which I find ridiculous. Now it seems people who train, race a lot less and either go to the big XC meets, track or only do one marathon a year and don't show up to race every weekend.

The biggest difference I see is the good high school runners or mid pack college runners just seem to hang it up after graduation. Plus those new runners who didn't run in school don't race for time and only run for fitness. They do color war races and these obstacle course races. Many more people who do "train" move over to triathlons which takes away from quality in road races.

As for marathons, I don't think there were many of those non elite runners who were doing 100+ miles a week back then, but more were running in the 60- 70 mile range. Many people today think a 20 mile run on the weekend with three other runs of 6-8 miles is enough.

90% of the new addition to marathon running are people who have no business running one. In the old days, slow people didn't run it. You earn running it by training for shorter races first. And only when you run decent times in 5/10K, you run the marathon. Now days, run marathons first and post selfies of it before, during and after it. The priorities have changed. And RW is even pushing harder for fatties to run it so they have more subscribers.

HRE wrote:

Quality training quality RESULTS wrote:

People knew quality produced greater results than mindless mileage. Most people maxed out at 40 miles per week QUALITY. 20x400 with rest heart rate down to 120 before starting the next.

Are you talking about marathon runners 30-35 years ago when you say maxed out at 40 miles a week?

Yes. When US marathoning was at its ZENITH. Salazar was known for 40 miles per week of quality training. That is why if he were still competing today he would be racing side by side with Rupp.

Elites are faster, hobby joggers are slower. This has been a trend for several years now.

I was talking to an old running friend recently about how local races just aren't very competitive any more, compared to 20+ years ago. We would run 16-17 minutes and get our doors blown off. Now those same local races are won in 18-19 minutes.

Some legitimate reasons have been mentioned. I'll add one more: youth sport specialization. Parents have been indoctrinated that kids have to specialize in one sport, year-round, practically from pre-school if they want a scholarship. How many potentially good runners never even give the sport a try because they're playing soccer or baseball year-round?