Is this the Hughes guy who sometimes runs with his son? The ridiculous ripped and huge, uh, “athlete”?
-
24
-
#1: Top-rated Training Shoe: Brooks Ghost 15 for $99Get a top 1%-rated shoe right now for $99 (30% off) -
Nope, I was thinking of someone else. Next.
02 -
Running 100 mile weeks isn't the hard part at that age. It's the ability to put in the training paces necessary to run 2:30 MP and much faster (1/2 MP, 10k pace, etc.). It's not as if he ran 2:02 in his prime. He was a 2:13 marathoner, if I recall. So, he's a remarkable case.
32 -
Here's an article from Outside a few years ago:
How To Run a 2:27 Marathon at Age 59 - Outside Online
13 -
He is the guy who ran sub 2:30 with his son, though I haven't been able to find the ridiculously ripped image.
30 -
Stupid links function on the new board! Just Google it.
12 -
57yearold wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ed Whitlock ran 2.52.47 at age 69. He was 22 minutes slower than Hughes while only 7 years older.
7 years older is a huge gap.
Unless you are over 55 you have no idea what age does to you.
Hind: It doesn't make you faster.
"Huge" is an understatement. The loss of fitness starts to become especially hyperbolic in your 50s and way more so in your 60s.
70 -
cvcv wrote:
i can't tell you how he trains, but i can tell you what i do.
First, running 100+ miles weeks as an older runner is no different than at any other age.
you have to build up to it. and no, it is not all just slow running.
you have to know how to recover: means eat well, sleep well. and go easy on the days when your body says go easy.
i have noticed that i don't plan workouts as much any more (this is actually good advice for any age). Do the workout your body lets you do. If i feel quick, i run speed workouts. If i feel tired, i either take a day off running or run knowing that i am tired = so slower.
Even when i do workouts the number and speed of the reps is not preset. You might think this means i do less, but often it is the exact opposite. By going into a workout with no preset number in mind, i ease into it better. Find my pace better. and feel better. therefore in the end, i do more. and many times end up faster overall.
Your advice is only of interest if it works. So: how old and what times?
21 -
kmaclam wrote:
57yearold wrote:
7 years older is a huge gap.
Unless you are over 55 you have no idea what age does to you.
Hind: It doesn't make you faster.
"Huge" is an understatement. The loss of fitness starts to become especially hyperbolic in your 50s and way more so in your 60s.
i hear this claim a lot from older folks i run with. doesnt most of the aging research suggest its probably wrong? the thing that makes age-related decline appear more serious in the 60s isn't really that the ceiling actually starts dropping faster (for some reason, a linear 1%/year seems to stick in my mind, but that could be way off)--it's more just that it becomes harder to optimize and maintain the training. i suppose that could be the same as "hyperbolic loss of fitness," but it strikes me as at least a little different in the sense that for most folks, it's probably possible to the avoid the hyperbolic part as long as they continue to work on figuring out what, precisely, is necessary in training and recovery. i guess if one form of the claim is just something like "it just gets exponentially harder to know what, exactly, to do, to stave off age-related decline in specific situations," maybe i buy that.
33 -
cvcv wrote:
i can't tell you how he trains, but i can tell you what i do.
First, running 100+ miles weeks as an older runner is no different than at any other age.
you have to build up to it. and no, it is not all just slow running.
you have to know how to recover: means eat well, sleep well. and go easy on the days when your body says go easy.
i have noticed that i don't plan workouts as much any more (this is actually good advice for any age). Do the workout your body lets you do. If i feel quick, i run speed workouts. If i feel tired, i either take a day off running or run knowing that i am tired = so slower.
Even when i do workouts the number and speed of the reps is not preset. You might think this means i do less, but often it is the exact opposite. By going into a workout with no preset number in mind, i ease into it better. Find my pace better. and feel better. therefore in the end, i do more. and many times end up faster overall.
What's your age, weekly mileage and recent race times?
12 -
one model wrote:
kmaclam wrote:
"Huge" is an understatement. The loss of fitness starts to become especially hyperbolic in your 50s and way more so in your 60s.
i hear this claim a lot from older folks i run with. doesnt most of the aging research suggest its probably wrong? the thing that makes age-related decline appear more serious in the 60s isn't really that the ceiling actually starts dropping faster (for some reason, a linear 1%/year seems to stick in my mind, but that could be way off)--it's more just that it becomes harder to optimize and maintain the training. i suppose that could be the same as "hyperbolic loss of fitness," but it strikes me as at least a little different in the sense that for most folks, it's probably possible to the avoid the hyperbolic part as long as they continue to work on figuring out what, precisely, is necessary in training and recovery. i guess if one form of the claim is just something like "it just gets exponentially harder to know what, exactly, to do, to stave off age-related decline in specific situations," maybe i buy that.
Yes. I've been able to maintain pretty consistent training from early 50s to mid 60s and the decline is linear and very much in line with AG predictions -- within a narrow band of a few AG percentage points, with weather being the most important variable on a given day. If it's warm, at the low end, if it's cool, at the high end.
50 -
I'm 63 and totally impressed by his quality and volume, especially the volume. I do 50-60 mpw and no way I could do 100mpw and most people 60ish could not do that without breaking down someway.
70 -
GettingFasterDude wrote:
rojo wrote:
I'm not surprised by this. Hughes seems to be on an incredible roll, setting age group world records every time he runs. Great for him. It will be interesting to see if he can take down Ed Whitlock's records. He seems to be on the right path to do it, but a lot of bad stuff can happen from age 62 to 70-85+, when Whitlock went on his epic world record streak.
he is doing it in carbon plate shoes, something Ed did not have at the time. So what do we do here, add 4% to this guys time? Also reason why he does as many miles is the shoes prevent you from damaging yourself so you recover faster....
52 -
one model wrote:
kmaclam wrote:
"Huge" is an understatement. The loss of fitness starts to become especially hyperbolic in your 50s and way more so in your 60s.
i hear this claim a lot from older folks i run with. doesnt most of the aging research suggest its probably wrong? the thing that makes age-related decline appear more serious in the 60s isn't really that the ceiling actually starts dropping faster (for some reason, a linear 1%/year seems to stick in my mind, but that could be way off)--it's more just that it becomes harder to optimize and maintain the training. i suppose that could be the same as "hyperbolic loss of fitness," but it strikes me as at least a little different in the sense that for most folks, it's probably possible to the avoid the hyperbolic part as long as they continue to work on figuring out what, precisely, is necessary in training and recovery. i guess if one form of the claim is just something like "it just gets exponentially harder to know what, exactly, to do, to stave off age-related decline in specific situations," maybe i buy that.
But why would it be harder to "optimize & maintain the training" when you are now at the age where most likely you are no longer working full time anymore, if at all. You are now wiser, more experienced and have some disposable income to invest in yourself (good gear, p.t., chiropractic, massages, whatever...). At 63, working only 15 hours/week & with plenty of time for naps, I feel my training is more 'optimized' than ever. What's not optimized is my max heart rate, testosterone, muscle mass, balance, coordination, power, stride length,....most of which (all?) are long ago, not declining linearly. I've long ago figured out what is necessary to train optimally, recover optimally, eat optimally,...and feel I'm using every card in the deck & even a few up my sleeve (caffeine for ex.). This exponential decline doesn't just appear more serious in your 60s (and way more so in your 70s, 80s,...), I believe it's a scientific fact.
50 -
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Is this the Hughes guy who sometimes runs with his son? The ridiculous ripped and huge, uh, “athlete”?
Yeah he set some records with his son. The other bald ripped British geezer running 2:30 is Graham Green
60 -
So anyone know what happened to Martin Rees, the iron welshman who was throwing down similar times same age five years ago, but with pre-bouncy era shoes? From Power of 10 it looks like 2016 was his last year of competing. I seem to remember he was a blue-collar worker of some sort on his feet all day.
00 -
There is Room for All wrote:
Evidence? He was an Olympian as a younger man and still puts in 100 miles a week. I am certain that there is some doping going on in the older age-groups but Tommy seems to be following in Ed Whitlock's footsteps - a talented runner that just keeps at it and trains more than just about anyone his age.
...and super shoes.
Haven't you learned the good old lesson never put your hands in fire for someone else?
00 -
You should be banned based on your username, as well as that post.
22 -
one model wrote:
kmaclam wrote:
"Huge" is an understatement. The loss of fitness starts to become especially hyperbolic in your 50s and way more so in your 60s.
i hear this claim a lot from older folks i run with. doesnt most of the aging research suggest its probably wrong? the thing that makes age-related decline appear more serious in the 60s isn't really that the ceiling actually starts dropping faster (for some reason, a linear 1%/year seems to stick in my mind, but that could be way off)--it's more just that it becomes harder to optimize and maintain the training. i suppose that could be the same as "hyperbolic loss of fitness," but it strikes me as at least a little different in the sense that for most folks, it's probably possible to the avoid the hyperbolic part as long as they continue to work on figuring out what, precisely, is necessary in training and recovery. i guess if one form of the claim is just something like "it just gets exponentially harder to know what, exactly, to do, to stave off age-related decline in specific situations," maybe i buy that.
Talk is easy when you are under 50 years of age.
Age research put probably too much weight on age group records which are usually done by outliers who started running late in life (Hughes is somewhat of an exception).
The truth is that most people who ran have given up running at the age of 55 or 60. There are only a couple of us out there. Probably not the most competitive otherwise we would be worn out like all the others.
Personally I can say, that I was never slower but I am ranking higher in races now than earlier in life. Not just for the age groups but also overall. I had a couple of 2nd places and one win overall in the last years. That had not happen for a very long time before.10 -
damn, there goes my age grade %. I keep trying to inch above 80%, and these fast geezers keep making it harder
20
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun