Myth: Masters Lose Top End (100m-400m) Speed At A Greater Proportion Than Longer Distance Ability

how 'bout for us 50-somethings?

over50andnotlookingback wrote:

how 'bout for us 50-somethings?

Someone else will have to do the stats.

Thing is, in my opinion the older records are less meaningful, statistically, since they draw from a much smaller pool of results.

Skuj wrote:

I have found that Stamina is more of a problem.

Discuss.

Personal experience suggest the opposite. Stamina is easily maintained for me (55) and others I know of, compared to top end speed. That's long gone and hard to find.

I think one thing most people are ignoring, is the fact that distance running is something that compared to sprinting, way more people never give up...or many pick up later in life. Sprinting? How many elite sprinters do you still see competing when they are older? How many people do you see picking up sprinting as a sport when they get older? Compared to guys who get into distance running and start being competitive in their 30's, 40's. How is it possibly even fair to compare the two....

"Elite sprinters" has very little to do with this debate. And, I can point to more 60+ sprinters that I know than 60+ middle distance people.

Mrr82 wrote:

I think one thing most people are ignoring, is the fact that distance running is something that compared to sprinting, way more people never give up...or many pick up later in life. Sprinting? How many elite sprinters do you still see competing when they are older? How many people do you see picking up sprinting as a sport when they get older? Compared to guys who get into distance running and start being competitive in their 30's, 40's. How is it possibly even fair to compare the two....

Maybe the overall records for top sprinters have dropped off less tham distance runners in master runners.

However, how is it for the individual runner? Can a life long sprinter maintain a higher percentage of his speed than a life long 5ker? (I'm guessing a life long marathoner drops the largest percentage of his speed.)

Speed and power explain sprinting times. Running economy and lactate threshold explain longer distance performance. One can maintain the latter with high mileage and tempo runs. One can maintain the former by hitting the track, lifting weights, drills, hills etc.

What is more difficult to maintain is MaxVO2 which peaks naturally around ages 17-22. As one's max HR declines with age then so too will MaxVo2. And since MaxVO2 explains a great deal of middle distance performance, Skuj is correct in surmising that his 800-3000m times are most affected by aging.

I notice that my pure speed is still quite a bit better than what my 3000m-5km times would indicate. I can also hang in there for 10km at not so much slower than 5km pace. The stuff in the middle, well, very hard to drop my 5km times these last few years (am 44). Pure speedwork and and 10km+ have improved nicely but 2000m-5km times are stuck where they were 4 years ago in spite of loads of longer intervals @ MaxVO2 pace.

that's impressive, but the general point stands that master's records, particularly higher up, are softer than open records, which is why you find the age grade winners (a percentage of the top performance for their age/gender) virtually always over fifty.

I'm a 49 year old sprinter, and I'm fast as hell!

No seriously, I wasn't the greatest HS sprinter, but I recently timed a 100 yard dash and I'm only 3 tenths off my HS PR. I was pretty pleased with this! I think it's easier to get hurt sprinting vs. distance running as an older athlete. I hope I can sprint until I drop dead.

Thank you for this explanation/insight.

According to Earl Fee in his book "The Complete Guide to Running" sprinters decline less than mid-distance and distance runners. He has a table on page 409 that shows this. The 100m performance declines the least. 800 through marathon decline about the same. I agree with the explanation given about max VO2 dropping. I also think that in the 100 and 200 we are looking at the aging of the anaerobic system while distances above this we have aging of the anaerobic system plus the aging of the aerobic system. Therefore the decline in performance is compounded. It is also possible that distance runners suffer more muscle damage through the larger amounts of training (see Noake's book) and that this also slows us down more over time. Who really knows, I sure don't.

I don't time 100m sprints/strides. I may do 10-20 of them after a run ~ but just % effort? Wish I could help.

tony

Sub 12 with a flying start wouldn't be a big deal for a top-class miler. I was a very modest 1500m/mile runner (4:02.3/4:21) but could crack 12 for the fastest reps of a 3 x 4 x 150m acceleration run session. I'm 52 now, and did 14 and change as part of a warm-up for a speed session the other day.

where are you nw master wrote:

I would like to know what Tony Young can run in the 100m right now (and what he could have done years ago) also. Sub 12 with a flying start?

Skuj wrote:

"Elite sprinters" has very little to do with this debate. And, I can point to more 60+ sprinters that I know than 60+ middle distance people.

There is a very real correlation between elite athletes and sub-elites, so I have to agree with mrr82 on this one. The fact that you know more 60+ sprinters than longer runners is likely a reflection of the company you keep. No disrespect intended, but longer runners are typically more self-motivated and put more time into their training. There are many hard working sprinters, too, but the majority are looking to stay active while taking the easiest route. Try getting away from your lazy companions and hang out with some real athletes.

Kenyan Runner Gal wrote:

Skuj wrote:

"Elite sprinters" has very little to do with this debate. And, I can point to more 60+ sprinters that I know than 60+ middle distance people.

There is a very real correlation between elite athletes and sub-elites, so I have to agree with mrr82 on this one. The fact that you know more 60+ sprinters than longer runners is likely a reflection of the company you keep. No disrespect intended, but longer runners are typically more self-motivated and put more time into their training. There are many hard working sprinters, too, but the majority are looking to stay active while taking the easiest route. Try getting away from your lazy companions and hang out with some real athletes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......that's funny, and you've just embarrassed yourself. (I was hoping that you had finally decided to just, you know, go away.)

Kenyan Runner Gal wrote:

There is a very real correlation between elite athletes and sub-elites, so I have to agree with mrr82 on this one. The fact that you know more 60+ sprinters than longer runners is likely a reflection of the company you keep. No disrespect intended, but longer runners are typically more self-motivated and put more time into their training. There are many hard working sprinters, too, but the majority are looking to stay active while taking the easiest route. Try getting away from your lazy companions and hang out with some real athletes.

I agree with this.

Mrr82 wrote:

I think one thing most people are ignoring, is the fact that distance running is something that compared to sprinting, way more people never give up...or many pick up later in life. Sprinting? How many elite sprinters do you still see competing when they are older? How many people do you see picking up sprinting as a sport when they get older? Compared to guys who get into distance running and start being competitive in their 30's, 40's. How is it possibly even fair to compare the two....

Actually skuj, mrr82 is correct, and it is a point I was trying to (or thought about) making also. And skuj, it SUPPORTS (whether he meant to or not) your hypothesis that "Masters DON'T Lose Top End (100m-400m) Speed At A Greater Proportion Than Longer Distance Ability." So, geez man, stop always looking for a fight ! (:-) ok, that charge can be leveled at me, but I usually don't fight with people who agree with me).

In case you are confused, the REASON his comment agrees with your hypothesis is: IF master's sprint WR's are as close to the open WR's as the master's distance records are to the open WR's (as I have shown that they are), AND there are less serious master's sprinters around as mrr82 contends, that likely suggests that the master's sprint WR's could be even faster if they had more quality athletes attacking those marks. See?? I think it is true. There are so many more opportunities (local road races) for master's distance runners than there are for master's sprinters that it makes sense that there would be many more master's distance runners than sprinters.

In sum, there is a much bigger pool of master's distance runners, making those WR's more likely a reflection of what the best master's can do in comparison to the all time best in those events, than there are master's sprinters. The sprint records are likely softer in that regard (smaller pool of master's sprinters from which the best will emerge), yet they are still at least as good (%-wise comparison) as the distance WR's.

Your theory is a good one skuj, it's just that I came out with it on letsrun last year!

Well it'll be interesting in 4 years to see if Haile will try a 5k or 10k. If this website is correct...http://www.mastersathletics.net/fileadmin/html/Rankings/All_Time/10000metresmen.htm ... Haile will demolish those times. (13:43/28:30 for 40-45).

Lancy.....I'm terribly confused now.