Older runners with less leg miles ->advantage?

if i were empirically minded and had your data handy, I would have attempeted to write what you did. Thank-you, appreciated the post.

There was a thread awhile back about declining maximum heart rates as we age and how continuous training limits the decline, which is irreversible. That would argue in favor of guys who never quit running rather than guys who started late or who started up again.

But then jtupper weighed in on that thread, saying that max HRs were all over the map, that they didn't change much in his longitudinal test group, and that they weren't predictive of performance.

That's reassuring, because at 52 years of age I have a max HR of 170, which fits nicely with the 220 minus age formula. It seems natural to me that a lower HR max would mean less blood delivery and therefore inferior performance in an endurance sport. But Daniels's comments are encouraging. By the way, my morning pulse of 39-42 is the same as it was in my teens and 20s.

For the record, I cycle about 10 hours a week, going hard three days, easy three days, and resting one day to work on core strength. I haven't been able to run for 20 years due to a hip injury that flares up from the jarring of running.

Any thoughts about the role of declining maximun heart rates through aging and whether its better to continue training rather than laying off for years?

I am in a similar situation (close to 40 with fresh legs). I know that given a couple consistent years I could PR from 10k and up but I am wondering if it is likely that I could PR at the mile, 2 mile, and 5k. My HS PR in the mile was 4:20 and I ran that off 35 or less miles a week and maybe 6-8 months a year of training.

What kind of luck have other people had approaching their shorter distance PRs? Did Jack Foster run well at short distances or just the marathon? Are there any stories of someone who was a decent miler in high school who picked it back up in their late 30s and got near to their mile PR? For the sake of the discussion, assume that I would be training for 10k-marathon and not devoting myself to tons of gruelling speedwork. If it's not realistic that I could run 4:20 again, what would you estimate? (4:30, 5:00, ?)

Four months ago an episode of atrial fib.This happened out of the blue while running.I was actually feeling really good right up until my heart started to flutter.This convinced me to stick with mountain biking and walking.

I walk about 5 miles a day.I ride 2 or 3 times per week.The rides are 1 to 2 hours with lots of climbing at threshold.

My fitness is very good.

I feel like I will be able to do the biking and walking for a long time to come.Also I am not worried about slowing down.At least not on my walks!

AK-50 wrote:

Interesting question that might apply sometimes. I saw a lot of top college age runners kind of fall off the wayside with injuries and what not by their early 30s. They still wanted to race well but couldn't keep ahead of injuries.

I also as a lot of open runners run themselves into the ground with marathons and such by their early to mid-30s.

And I've seen people start late in career and hit their 40s with fresh legs.

I'm 50 been at this for 32 years, and might be considered somewhat of an anomaly. But from my mid-20s through 40 I ran no marathons, did moderate mileage focusing on 10k and less,

and spent 3-6 months per year focusing on nordic skiing. So at 50, I've go issues, but the legs still feel fresh on a good day.

Thanks for telling it the way it is. The college age kids trying to maintain into their thirties are attempting to train at the level of 10 years previous....the 35 yo wants the same race results as he had at 25. He commits the cardinal sin of "strain, don't train".

Also, multiple marathons are the death knell of a runner.

An older runner needs plenty of rejuvenation/rest periods to keep the enjoyment/enthusiasm.

I'm also in "comeback" mode after a 25+ year layoff (wow, most letsrun posters aren't even as old as my layoff!!). I'm 47 now.

I would love to believe that my legs are somehow "fresher" than my non-quitting friends but the sad fact is that they regularly kick my butt (These are people I used to beat back "in the day" even off of very little training) Of course, it's taking me longer now to get back in shape and I think I will have to do much more mileage. I don't think I can "get away" with less now.

Having lots of friends who have continued running makes me fairly skeptical of this late starter "freshness" hypothesis. There are so many variables to consider and control for.

For one, lets not forget the fact that many non-runners develop joint problems, leg issues, heart problems etc. as they age. There also seems to be a genetic component that can't be dismissed. Some people just deteriorate at a faster rate when they get older, running or not.

Case in point: I have a friend who ran a lot non-stop since high school, including several marathons. He has recently developed arthritis in his mid forties. Ah ha!! you say? There's proof that the continuous pounding screws you up, right? Well, not so fast. You see, he has a twin brother who almost never ran and developed the SAME problem in his 30's. So, you could argue that perhaps the running gave my friend an extra 10 years, and even now, he's still not as bad off as his brother.

Also, the late starters who do well are probably not in the group who deteriorate so fast as they age. People with arthritis, knee problems, etc in their forties are probably NOT going to start training seriously. So we have a selection bias. Furthermore, what about all the late starters or returnees who "suck"? We just don't hear about them.

The best way to test this "freshness" hypothesis and control for other factors (like genetics) would be to round up a large sample of twins and have some of them run continuously since high school to mid forties. Then have a group run in HS/college and take time off to forty and start training until 45. Have a final group not do any training until 40. Of course, such a study is probably impossible to do so we are all left with stories like the one of my friend that I mentioned above.

The Nordic skiing is the best low impact aerobic exercise I have found and it has extended my running career, such as it is, into my late 60s (I am 68 and tend to win in my age group with 50 minute 10Ks). I actually gain aerobic conditioning through the winter and find my legs fresh for running in the spring.

ggilder wrote:

The Nordic skiing is the best low impact aerobic exercise I have found and it has extended my running career, such as it is, into my late 60s (I am 68 and tend to win in my age group with 50 minute 10Ks). I actually gain aerobic conditioning through the winter and find my legs fresh for running in the spring.

I'd say your running career is quite impressive and that you've obviously found something that works. I can only hope that I'm running 50 min. 10Ks in my late 60s.

Nordic skiiing is a great way to continue cardiovascular fitness without the pounding. If you don't live in a snow area, nordic track is a good way to go.

As we get older we loose muscle mass this is called sacropenia happens in all of us, some faster than others. My advice would be to combine strength training with your running. Once you develop a pretty good strength base with basic strength work then progress to plyometrics judiciously. This will help you maintain some of your fast twitch muscle fibers. Explosive strength sprint drill training is beneficial with appropriate dosage and recovery.

Any aches pain soreness should be adressed immediately, better to put out the ambers before a wild fire starts. Softer surfaces are better than hard ( no brainer, but sometimes difficult to find).

Forget about old PRs , even hiigh school , go for new ones age group or just faster at the end of the season. This takes some adjustment mentally.

Wishing you succesful miles!

There are still many good masters and vets who have run continuously, but some of the big guns seem to slow down when they hit their mid 40s. Others like Peter Magill in the US and Alain Boucher in CA took a number of years off in their 30's and have come back strong. I've caught up to my high school mile and 2 mile times at age 42 after 3 years of training, but that's probably as much of a reflection of my apathy about running and poor work ethic when I was young.

Everything that 48 said.

I also think it's good to only run on dirt trails. For me, this means only on week-ends. I also wear lace-up ankle supports to avoid twisting my ankles, to which I am very prone now that I'm older. During the week I cross country ski in winter, roller blade around my subdivision year round if the pavement is dry, I have a good elliptical machine I use about twice a week, and I jump on a backyard trampoline April through November (at night after dark--I have some pride you know). I only jump on the tramp about once a week because it's just so boring. I bring music out there with me--it helps.

I think what keeps me injury free and my legs feeling good are the above things.

Also, sit in an icy bathtub for 15 minutes after your runs.

Go git 'em.

Here's something on the benefits of "young legs"

"most adult-onset runners have 4-6 years before the PR's stop ... if they start running with "young legs."

http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=12863

Herman Atkins ran about 2:11 for the marathon way back when. He got a job and a life and stopped racing. Every 5 years, when he'd hit a new age group, he'd take up training for about 6 months and win the national master's championships. I don't know if he'd claim he was "saving his legs" in the long breaks between serious training, but it seemed to work.

silly old fossil wrote:

Also, multiple marathons are the death knell of a runner.

False

An older runner needs plenty of rejuvenation/rest periods to keep the enjoyment/enthusiasm.

True.

This makes a lot of sense.Regardless of age, intuitively, it's the sort of advice maybe triathletes living in cold, cold weather might want to consider instead of those brainnumbing miles biking on rollers in the living room for hours in front of the television...

ggilder wrote:

The Nordic skiing is the best low impact aerobic exercise I have found and it has extended my running career, such as it is, into my late 60s (I am 68 and tend to win in my age group with 50 minute 10Ks). I actually gain aerobic conditioning through the winter and find my legs fresh for running in the spring.

There's PROBABLY (never mind all the people who sound so convinced of there opinions) not much in that theory to base any decisions on. No more than the old saw that you have a certain number of orgasms coming to you in a lifetime.

Also--and to me --imo-- more important is the thought and process you use to bring yourself up to speed and strength.

If you bring yourself back to, or better than your former condition for racing, running, you will want to take care to move gradually, watch all aspects of health and your daily life. Specifics of training and racing are to me not as important as your judgement and attitude about using caution balanced with a willingness to do the work consistently and with an eye to progress --gradual progress combined with increased realistic expectations.

Best of luck, and don't even worry about that age thing at your age.

I ran my best times at ALL distances from 1 mi to fifty, and I have been at it for over fifty years.

Believe me, no talent was involved.

2 mi=10.25 at forty four

20 mi=2.02 at forty six

1/2 marathon=1.22 at fifty one

marathon=2:47 at forty-five

'course I'm a wreck now.....lol.

jamese1045 wrote:

I ran my best times at ALL distances from 1 mi to fifty, and I have been at it for over fifty years.

Believe me, no talent was involved.

2 mi=10.25 at forty four

20 mi=2.02 at forty six

1/2 marathon=1.22 at fifty one

marathon=2:47 at forty-five

'course I'm a wreck now.....lol.

Uh...if you ran a 2:47 marathon at age 45, then talent WAS involved. Not world class talent obviously, but some talent nonetheless. It's sad that even adults subscribe to that "I have no talent I just work hard" silliness.

I think it is highly individual and depends on the extent of whether you have accumulated permanent versus temporary injuries and whether you have developed other permanent joint/tendon diseases that could be unrelated to running.

From age 21 to age 50, I've run about 37,000 miles. I started running at age 20, not competitive in college, and once I'd ramped up for a couple years my pattern was to make every run about 10 to 12 miles every other day or 3 times a week.

I didn't start marathons until age 38, and ran about a dozen marathons, a couple ultras and about 70 races at distances at or above 10 miles from age 38 to age 44.

No permanent injuries from running OR racing. No osteoarthritis.

However, a torn meniscus from volleyball took almost 2 years to make full recovery and along the way I had a hip stress fracture and a relapse which even 1.5 years later is still making me baby my running surfaces and total weekly mileage.

Nevertheless, I don't feel like I have any permanent injuries related to running and plan to continue running 20 or 30 miles a week of longer distance runs 3 days per week until very old age if at all possible.

I meant to add, my PRs were at age 43 and 44, but since then I haven't raced. However, when I do speed work for 3 or 4 weeks my times get back into a similar zone and my tempo runs are similar. So I don't think my legs have lost their "zip" due to cumulative miles. Decline in max heart rate with age does play a role, however, but the original poster's question was regards to slower performance due to cumulative years of running.