50+ Masters Training and Racing Open Forum

Started out good, but then it got crazy. Crazy but mostly good.

Ran 4 days through Thursday, where I did an 11 mile trail race (single track out and back with about 1000 or 1200 of vertical with all the ups and downs on the way out). 1.5 miles in I rolled my foot, which went pop! I kept going and battled it out with a local 45 yr old for the masters (45+ division for this series) title. threw everything I had from about 3 miles on, and he just stuck with me. Slowed if I slowed. Sped up when I did. Anyway, I led for the last 3 miles and he matched every single move. With 300 to go I threw it down and had a few meters, but we had an uphill finish for the last 50. He edged up on final few meters and pipped me at the line by half a step. It was fun, but I hate it when they do that, and that's the 4th out of 5 races where I've been out kicked over the final K or so.

About that foot. Limping now (ankle and mostly PF). But it's getting better after 4 days. Hoping to run again in the next few days.

Then coached HS jv team at a rural meet at a mountain town, put on the first ever xc race of a new series I'm starting (4 races this year) as a fund raiser for kids that I'm coaching for running and skiing. Only 7 participants in this one, but the next 3 will be at home. It will grow.

Then we went salmon fishing! Caught 6 nice ones with my son at the Port of Valdez yesterday.

Wow, a lot reports already this week. Must be the extended weekend. :-) Now if we can cajole some of our recent past regulars to hop back in, we can really get this thing rolling.

TDF, great to have you back. Sounds like you've really turned a corner, hope that the sails are at your back for awhile.

Orville, it's always a pleasure to have you posting. There is always something to be learned from what you have to share.

As usual, Mopak, you tire me out just reading your weekly athletic engagements. With all that you do, that seems to engage every muscle group in the body, I'm surprised you'd ever feel the need to step into a gym.

AK-53, hope that the ankle heals quickly. It's always a scary moment when you turn an ankle.

Skuj, I'm not sure why some are so worried about the number of sessions. I've read that increasing the number of sessions can actually improve recovery. What I have read is that too frequent hard sessions, where you push yourself to the limits, are usually the culprit for breakdown. Point is that I think that the doubles are a great thing, so long as most of them are easy runs. If it were me, however, I'd still try to get a long run (>1hr) in every 10 days or so. For me, I could tell the difference in the end of races when I hadn't done enough longer runs. But that's just me.

As a few others of intimated, I also don't get excited about the prospects of working in the gym, but I do think that I've probably suffered from imbalanced training of late, that could be corrected with some proper gym work.

Really glad to hear from you all. Let's keep 'em comin'!

lucKY2b wrote:

I've read that increasing the number of sessions can actually improve recovery.

Kiryea wrote:

This would seem to be contradictory. Can you recall the reasoning behind something that seems to be anathema? Thanks.

Anathema? Really? And contradictory to what, please elaborate? OK, so maybe I shouldn't just say "increasing the number of sessions", rather "doing doubles" can actually improve recovery. My understanding from those that advocate doubles is that the optimal training frequency for the body is about two stresses per day, so it's a question of creating an optimized training schedule that your body can and will adapt to. I have not seen a study that suggests that as we get older this optimal frequency gets lower. If you have a study, I'd be interested.

Again, my understanding is that it is the frequency of *hard* sessions that is the limiting factor. Some people have found as they get older they do need to increase the recovery time between hard sessions. But that doesn't mean not running, just not running hard.

Thank you for your thoughts lucky. (And please know that my long-time obssessive stalker-troll has followed me to this good thread. I'll do my best to ignore his comments, which are nearly 100% designed to knock me down. Hopefully he will merely provide comic relief, and keep bumping the thread.)

And I ran a 10k today, haha. :)

I read an article by Jeff Cuddeback (age group star in tris)in Inside Triathlon, in which he suggests that frequent shorter efforts are better for the older athlete. He mentions factors such as improved muscle memory, better adaptation, increased motor skills, better recovery. I didn't see any quotes from studies though, probably just based on his personal experience.

In my mid 30s to early 40s I always commuted by (mtn) bike. These rides were normally around 30-40 mins. each way. My longest ride most weeks would be an hour time trial. I had my best years on the bike during this time. I could jump on a road bike and hammer 38-40kph for 30-40kms off this training.

As a younger man I rode similar overall volume but with less frequency e.g 2 long rides and some medium long faster rides (on a road bike). I would struggle to hold 36-37kph pace for 30-40kms.

In my mid 40s I moved to the country and had a long commute to work. I would usually try to ride in from 1/2 way and back twice a week for 2 days of 2 x 1.5-2hr rides. I would also throw in an hour time trial on the weekend.

I found myself struggling to hit 35-36kph for 30-40kms off this training.

This certainly is no sort of scientific evidence but it does suggest to me that frequent short efforts are a valid approach to training.

These days it is normally easier for me to put in one longer session than several short ones and I also enjoy it more.

So far this week. Yesterday, after work a 90 minute ride although it was broken up at 60 mins as I stopped in at home for 15 mins to organise my busy wife's dinner. Today, stopped on the way in to work and ran for 85 minutes on some smoother faster trails than the ones at home. 45 mins out ( generally uphill) and a brisk 40 back.

Kiryea wrote:

Personally, as a 57 year old,

lol

Wow, I made a thread about this very topic of doubles vs singles recently.

I've been at 10-11 sessions per week since mid August and I already feel fitter than I did before starting it.

I find it very interesting that we are debating singles vs doubles...elsewhere on letsrun the doubles conclusion usually wins for a wide variety of reasons.

In my case, one aspect is...I simply run more per week now. It was about 35mpw for quite a while, now it is 45-50mpw.

I've always been convinced that Marathoners should do the singles, and sprinters should do doubles. Middle distance can lean towards one or the other, depending upon a variety of factors.

In my case, all this is academic though: work is 3.5km away, I shall not take the car, therefore I can walk there in 45mins, or, I can run there in an equal (if I take the scenic route) or lesser time. So, my work situation caused me to do doubles on most days per week, but now, I realize that it really was the right thing to do in my case. Even if I was retired from work, I'd do doubles vs singles.

Another aspect of this discussion might be....what is the smallest session that makes sense?

In my case, I always figured 30mins should be the minimum, but recently I decided that 5k is acceptable. That's equal to the distance of the longest race I care about. I'm sure there are times during tapering / coming back from illness or injury where a 3k might be suitable, but in regular training (and most of my morning runs to work), I think I'll be happy with 5k. The afternoon runs are longer.

Well, I was going to run a half-marathon this coming weekend, but after running hard sessions twice weekly since April, I'm feeling rather flat.

I may bag it.

35 easy miles this past week, with an extended trip to a family wedding over the long weekend. On the subject of doubles versus singles I think another consideration is whether you are more of a fast-twitch or slow twitch body type. As someone who was a long sprinter (220/440) in college, I definitely find that long continuous runs are better for building and maintaining endurance for me. Shorter, more frequent workouts seem to dial up my 400-1500 speed quite nicely and fairly quickly, but I find myself really suffering even at 5k unless I am putting in a lot of 75-90 min runs on a regular basis.

Kiryea wrote:

Regarding the smallest feasible session, I recall once hearing that 35 minutes was the minimum. This had something to do with the length of time it takes for aerobic enzymes to reach optimal function and/or optimal fat metabolism. No doubt there are some positive aspects to shorter sessions, but serious aerobic athletes understandably are drawn toward longer runs.

A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. (\"I recall once hearing.\")

(To my friends, privately or on this thread, let's just ignore taunts, percieved or otherwise. It doesn't change anything I do, never has, never will.) :)

Today I did 25min jog this morning and 35min run in the late afternoon. The 35 got up to a "tempoey gallop".

Another thing I've always believed in for middle distance is "very short tempo", ie 10-15mins duration, after a warmup. I put it in quotations because at times I think it is ok to get near 10k pace if feeling particularly strong...so, faster than tempo as advertised in most books, but I think a single short burst of this is immensely useful in training. Anyone else a fan of this?

Great Plains wrote:

Well, I was going to run a half-marathon this coming weekend, but after running hard sessions twice weekly since April, I'm feeling rather flat.

I may bag it.

Bummer, do you feel that you peaked, or are you just feeling a bit stale?

How did this HM fit into your fall racing goals?

Yesterday I had fashioned a nice, long response to kiryea, mopak, skuj, but then we lost power and everything I wrote was gone. I don't want to rewrite it all, also, many posts have now interceded.

Upshot is that I don't do doubles, although I wish I did. I too find it hard to fit into my schedule.

A good friend of mine about our age (4 years younger) PR'ed in every distance (from 5k to marathon) two summer's back when he did doubles, but he also upped his mileage from about 80 MPW to 100 MPW in the process. Since then, he's backed off of doubles and hasn't run as fast since.

On this board, we've had msr (doubles) and racerdb (doesn't do doubles) who are both national caliber 5k guys with comparable times. So one can achieve reasonable success as a master's distance runner both ways. Could racerdb be faster if he ran doubles? His experiment of one would have to find out whether or not it works form him.

I believe Pfitzinger says minimum of about 25 minutes. Physiologist Tudor Bompa indicates that there is supercompensation that you can take advantage of with double workouts.

After hitting about 45 or 46 I threw out the adage that you don't need to do doubles until you get to about 70 miles a week. Since then I train when I can. Somedays due to scheduling/coaching I can only get in two short runs (or ski workouts).

I still like to have at least two longer workouts (1:15 to 1:45 and 1:30 to 3:00) most every week. I find an easy shake out run of 25 to 40 minutes 6 hr or more before another workout helps with recovery and and at the end of the day I'm not as tired compared to a 10-11 miler that includes 20 min at threshold with a long warm up and cool down.

To each their own.

AK-53 wrote:

I find an easy shake out run of 25 to 40 minutes 6 hr or more before another workout helps with recovery and and at the end of the day I'm not as tired compared to a 10-11 miler that includes 20 min at threshold with a long warm up and cool down.

This is precisely my recent experience. And, at the end of each week, I truly feel/believe that I am doing 10-14 sessions per week which are good for the Mile and down, vice 6-7 sessions per week. The 6-7 sessions might have longer sessions, but I don't equate that with "better". Doubles means I am training more often.

M, age 53.

I ran the "half" of the Tupelo Marathon this past Sunday: 14.2 miles. Since age 45, I've run it four times, including this one: 1:42, 1:45, 1:48 (last time, in 2009), and, this time around, 1:50. The weather is the big variable. The race starts in the pitch-dark, on a country road at 5 AM. (I rose at 3, showered, and drove an hour from my home to Tupelo. Gotta love the rush of cars at 4:30 AM. Runners are crazy.)

The weather at best is low 60s and dry. This Sunday it was the other extreme: high 70s, not too humid at the start, but then humidity incoming, so that we had a light mist by the end. I'm a lousy warm-weather racer. For comparison sake, in January 2010, at age 50, I PR'd in a Birmingham 10-mile at 6:55 pace. I ran 7:45 pace in Tupelo, but would have run at least 20 seconds a mile faster if the weather had been ideal.

Knowing I was f---ed by the weather, I kept it steady but didn't push too hard. Hooked up with another runner just before 10 miles and rolled with him until 13. Then I slowly pulled away. There was only one runner visible ahead of me, a woman, and she was at least 100 yards away. But I pushed very hard until 14, then kicked even hard for the last .2 and nipped her at the line. My HR monitor had me at 196 bpm, which is seriously maxed for me these days.

Not a great time for me, but good enough for first grandmaster, amazingly. More importantly, I'm psyched by what was in effect a hard workout (at a cumulative HR of about 87-88% rather than the 90% that a full-on half marathon would have seen me push) and can't wait for harder training this fall and some good races.

Cheers, all.

I should have said that I ran the PR in Birmingham when the temp was 17 degrees. I race well when it's cold.

Yeah, I think the older I get, the more I like the cooler temps, and the more I suffer when it is hot.

From my FB entry on my 2nd run of the day (25min jog in a.m.):

My late afternoon run today = 16:30 "jog" + 4x100m strides + 6x200m starting every 2mins + 10min "jog", in WARM weather. The "jogs" involved Lampson Rd hill, which is never easy. I used the old track at EHS and cruised something like 36-36-35-34-35-34. Running anything faster than 80sec 400m still feels ungainly. I'm still trying to quantify my 2 weekly "workouts", and perhaps midweek will be very 800/1500, and weekend will be very 3000/5000. I dunno.