Masters racing is pointless if you've trained hard in your youth

Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:

I didn't argue that it was rational, I said it was fun.

prove me wrong wrote:

Because setting PRs is fun. If you're over 35 and think you have a realistic chance of PRing, go for it! But it's completely irrational to put in a similar amount of work for a much slower time (relative to your lifetime best).

Training hard and not getting close to your PRs doesn't sound like fun to me!

i kind of get the point of the op. I feel like if I put in maybe 2 straight years of solid training, without setback, and my times still do not matchup to the years prior, im gonna be ready to cut my activity in half and just do it for the health and social benefits.

Just another snot-nosed young punk who thinks older people are only good for Soylent Green. Older people should just stop sharing their knowledge, wisdom and experience with this ungrateful entitled new generation of know how to do nothing for themselves turds.

this is a good post, thank you i understand now

I'm curious about all these masters-hating threads. I remember, at my best, being encouraging of the masters racers (and always afraid that some tough-as-nails master would destroy me). Who cares what someone else does for their hobby?

btw, I run only for fitness now.

Sex is best in your teens as well.

But we keep doing it because we love it.

It also reminds us of our earlier sex/running.

I love you more than your own mother.

Run today, run tomorrow.

Run forever !

highhoppingworm wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Baloney. I was a 2:19 marathoner 47 years ago and still race as a master. I ran upwards of 175 miles in a week, averaged 110 miles a week for six years. Pointless is the myriad of trolling turds that have nothing better to do with their miserable life.

Oh the irony. The deep deep irony.

You’re a perfect example of what I was referring to. You are actually a low hopping slug.

My guess is you probably won't be running when you are my age. I get just as much enjoyment shooting for a sub 4 hour marathon at the age of 60 as I did running 2:30 when I was 23. I really don't care whether you or anyone else thinks it is "pathetic" for someone older to be working out. If you want to be happy in life it is important to be able to derive enjoyment from making progress whatever your starting point happens to be and however it compares to what you've achieved earlier in life.

I ran faster in my 40s than in my teens, so it made sense.

As a masters runner, I'm going to leave these thoughts and a link for your consideration.

1) Why race as a master? It's fun! That's the most important reason. If it isn't fun, why do it? Besides, part of the fun is showing up at a Turkey Trot and using the young fast runners to help you nail a PR or even a podium spot (perhaps even the masters win?). Unlike you, I didn't train or race hard in my youth, so I have that going for me for now.

2) It gets "somewhat" easier to chase the unicorn and get into Boston the older you get.

3) You can still "PR" if you compare age graded times across your entire running career. Take a look at this:

http://www.mastersathletics.net/index.php?id=2595

It all goes back to racing because it's fun. It has to be fun to be worth it.

I loved masters racing. Competition was good, but I was able to win a few overall masters and get some free shoes, gift certificates, etc. I got to do a local elite program at my hometown marathon and start in front of the hordes with the international elites. I weighed about 5 lbs more at 40 than I did at 20. I got to train with some really good runners and the occasional elite athlete passing through town. Hitting a 17 min 5k or 2:45 marathon in your 40s is an entirely different ballgame then when you are in your 20s. Most of the masters runners I raced with had masters PRs that they chased and did not care about how that compared to lifetime.

On the other hand, there is a moment when the crystal in the middle of your palm changes color and it is your time to pack it in. Once I got on the north side of 45, it was a big struggle to keep from hemorrhaging time every year and it just wasn't worth the time and trouble anymore. Weight training becomes more important as you get closer to 50 and being a rail thin runner isn't the best option anymore.

People like and enjoy different things. If someone enjoys Masters racing how can it be pointless?

If someone takes up lifting, as in your original post, they will be setting PRs that are way less than what they would've been in their prime. Just because someone didn't lift when they were younger and they're now setting PRs doesn't make it any different from someone running and doing slower times now than when they were younger. It's just that one was recorded and one wasn't (the earlier state of fitness). You may as well pack everything in when you get older if that's how you're thinking.

oldmanjingle wrote:

One can argue that setting lifetime PRs is as pointless as a masters runner as racing and not coming close to your youth PRs. Lifetime PRs at any level are fairly pointless unless you are breaking records. I wouldn't trade say a win in a conference championship race for another half second off my PR.

^^^^^^ This! ^^^^^^^

I was thinking the same thing. Winning a marathon at age 40 overall and then coming back five weeks later and finishing third overall in deplorable condtions (high winds, heat, and some poor footing) at altitude against a much stronger field was way way more fun than setting my PB at Grandma's Marathon in a field of 6,000+.

Also winning a couple of local races at age 60 + 62 overall was worth as much to me as my youthful PR at age 24 That time in the 1980 wouldn't have placed me in the top five of most of the races I entered back then.

Unless the wheels fall off, I look forward with gusto to another 10 years of training and racing.

The OPs statement: "Just jog around and do some strides to stay fit, and channel your competitive energies toward something like bowling...." actually made me laugh out loud.

Boomer out...

golden hamster wrote:

If someone takes up lifting, as in your original post, they will be setting PRs that are way less than what they would've been in their prime. Just because someone didn't lift when they were younger and they're now setting PRs doesn't make it any different from someone running and doing slower times now than when they were younger. It's just that one was recorded and one wasn't (the earlier state of fitness).

I doubt it. An older person who trains and maximizes his potential will almost always beat a younger untrained person (assuming similar body size, genetics, etc.). You'd have something like this:

Person A at age 20: trains as a runner and doesn't lift. He would have benched 150 on the spot if a friend challenged him, but since that didn't happen, that untrained 150 lb lift goes unrecorded.

Person A at age 50: trains as a lifter and benches 200, which beats his unrecorded age 20 PR.

Now, if Person B were a competitive lifter in his 20s, he should definitely switch to something like running or sprinting at age 40+, since he won't be setting any more lifting PRs at that age.

Amen, I'm with ya.

And I'll add this. I work in healthcare with a lot of people who are disabled, injured and in pain, ranging in age from their 30's to 80's/90's and beyond. Most of them are lucky to be able to walk to the mailbox without severe pain, let alone race or even run at all. I can guarantee you every single one of them would say, "If you can still run and enjoy it, at any age, do it!" Any of them would give their left arm to be able to run a little, "too much," or even run at all, because they can't anymore.

It all depends on a person's attitude. If they think training hard or running at all is 'pointless' and they don't enjoy it, they shouldn't do it. If they do enjoy it, and they think there is a point to whatever amount of training they're doing, then they should do it.

Life is too short to live by anyone else's standard of what has a point, or doesn't. Live according to one's own.

Naperville Runner wrote:

My guess is you probably won't be running when you are my age. I get just as much enjoyment shooting for a sub 4 hour marathon at the age of 60 as I did running 2:30 when I was 23.

I do plan on running to stay fit at that age. But it'll be 10 MPW of jogging, and not serious training and racing.

I was never very good to begin with and run even slower now, so probably not the best to ask. However, the two times I did back down on purpose (age 35) and again at about 42 and just ran 15-20 miles a week for about 6 months I ended up with long-term injuries that took years of rehab and recovery. And I found that I was unhappier those years I couldn't run or couldn't run without pain. So when I got healthy again at age 46, I said No More. No more backing down until I can't. I run and train 'cause I enjoy it. End of story.

It's fun when I pass some youngster and he/she looks like their going to crap their pants.

First, you're slower than I was at your age, and was until I was 35 or so. The odds that I am wrong about this are about .00004 percent, so I'm comfortable saying this.

Secondly, it's not running, but I can also guarantee you that I ride bikes faster than you do. I can assure you this one million percent.

I also have a supermodel wife, earn more money in a year than you'll ever make, and probably still run faster than you. Of this, I'm not sure, unless you're running in the high-16s on the track, for 5000 meters.