JK- what’s the most rational explanation for how Sara Hall runs significantly faster at age 37

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am drawing comparisons between athletes of similar levels - not just anybody. I am interested to see how someone suddenly becomes an outlier at the elite level (and at 37, when we would expect to see some normal age-related decline) when for years they were in the middle of the pack at that level.

Sara was never a mid pack marathoner. Shew as a midpack middle distance runner. The fact that she is one notch better at the marathon than she was at 1500/5000m isn't exactly some unheard of thing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yo Sara ian wrote:

If it produces that kind of improvement why aren't we seeing that with other competitors? Aren't they doing it, too? Or are they too dumb to see the benefits of that kind of training?

How do you know we're not? A person doesn't need to run a top time to show the benefits of this work.

Training does not show its worth by every person doing it running the same times. We know Lydiard type mileage was a huge training breakthrough but it doesn't mean you'll be world class just because you do it.

Do you think Malindi Elmore is doping? She was a Hall type runner as a younger woman.

I am drawing comparisons between athletes of similar levels - not just anybody. I am interested to see how someone suddenly becomes an outlier at the elite level (and at 37, when we would expect to see some normal age-related decline) when for years they were in the middle of the pack at that level.[/quote

Elmore was a similar level athlete as Hall at shorter distances. She's now 40 with a sub 2:25 after just a few Marathons.

There's likely more women like this but many opt for family after 30 and not quite reaching the top at shorter distances.

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are confusing getting older physically versus getting older in years.

Would you use your logic for the ages of 19-27? I mean we're aging from the day we are born.

You mistake aging for simply getting older. A 10 year old is not "aging" - they are gaining in physical capacity with each year. "Aging" is the term applied to the time when we begin to physically decline because of the stage of life we have arrived at. The physiologists tell us we peak physically in our late 20's. From that point we decline by degrees each year, some of us faster than others, but it is a process that affects us all. That is "aging". It can be slowed but not deferred indefinitely by training. Or drugs.

So people should make sure they don't train to improve after 30 since they can't try to get better?[/quote]

You miss the point. Your absolute physiological peak - your highest potential - is arrived at in the late 20's. But performance decline can be postponed for some years or reduced if you had trained less or poorly in your 20's. But if you were trained and competed to your absolute limit when younger there will be a decline after that point.

In some sports, where technique plays a greater role (like tennis or golf) an athlete may still improve past their physical peak because of technical and also technological improvements.

What I have also read is that while physical strength peaks in the late 20's aerobic capacity may be maintained for a few years after, although there will also be a decline in red blood cell count with age, thus reducing aerobic endurance.

Th e thing is a lot of people can't seem to train to their physical limit until they've been at it for longer.

The endurance game is not the strength and quickness game.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am drawing comparisons between athletes of similar levels - not just anybody. I am interested to see how someone suddenly becomes an outlier at the elite level (and at 37, when we would expect to see some normal age-related decline) when for years they were in the middle of the pack at that level.

Sara was never a mid pack marathoner. Shew as a midpack middle distance runner. The fact that she is one notch better at the marathon than she was at 1500/5000m isn't exactly some unheard of thing.

From what has been posted of her career performances, she wasn't anywhere amongst the top women runners until her 30's. Last year she was 8th in rhe world over the marathon. That is more than a "notch" better than her previous level in her 20's - it is a quantum leap.

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Th e thing is a lot of people can't seem to train to their physical limit until they've been at it for longer.

The endurance game is not the strength and quickness game.

A lot of athletes peaked after only a few years of training and competition - for both Elliott and Snell they were champions only 3 years after taking up the sport. Kipchoge was an Olympic medalist also at only 20. I would have thought 15 or even 20 years was more than enough for an athlete to peak.

Armstronglivs wrote:

From what has been posted of her career performances, she wasn't anywhere amongst the top women runners until her 30's. Last year she was 8th in rhe world over the marathon. That is more than a "notch" better than her previous level in her 20's - it is a quantum leap.

~70s off the 5k record in her 20s. 6 mins off the marathon WR in her 30s. That isn't much of a leap and pretty much expected if someone ends up in an event that is better for them. Bill Rodgers was like 80s off the 10k record but only like 2-3 from the marathon. Why? Cause he was a better marathoner. Going from 56th in the world to 8th (granted it was an odd year. Last year this time would have been 16th) is what being a notch better means. Things drop off quickly as you get to the top. Lots of people are 15:20/2:25 runners. Not many are 14:45/2:20 ones.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Th e thing is a lot of people can't seem to train to their physical limit until they've been at it for longer.

The endurance game is not the strength and quickness game.

A lot of athletes peaked after only a few years of training and competition - for both Elliott and Snell they were champions only 3 years after taking up the sport. Kipchoge was an Olympic medalist also at only 20. I would have thought 15 or even 20 years was more than enough for an athlete to peak.

And many others take longer. Besides Kipchoge isn't a great example. He has peaked early AND late. Elliott and Snell were at it a bit longer than you claim. You don't have to embellish your point.

The endurance game is different, as I said.

Yo Sara ian wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A lot of athletes peaked after only a few years of training and competition - for both Elliott and Snell they were champions only 3 years after taking up the sport. Kipchoge was an Olympic medalist also at only 20. I would have thought 15 or even 20 years was more than enough for an athlete to peak.

And many others take longer. Besides Kipchoge isn't a great example. He has peaked early AND late. Elliott and Snell were at it a bit longer than you claim. You don't have to embellish your point.

The endurance game is different, as I said.

Middle distance is still an endurance game. Elliott and Snell had very short careers by today's standards. They weren't professionals. But they were world beaters within 3 years of taking up the sport seriously.

Peaking late - after 15 or so years is one thing - but doing so with a dramatic spike above previous performances and at a late age is a red flag. But it is becoming increasingly common in a doped sport.

Bill Rodgers ran his fastest marathon time at age 28, nearly a decade younger than Sara Hall. He didn't keep improving in his 30's and was nowhere near his best at 37. He also didn't change events late in his career, as she has. Going by his example, if she had followed a similar career path and focused on the marathon earlier we might have expected her to be at least 5 minutes faster at 28 - as a previous poster suggested. I don't think so.

(BTW, If you think the 2.14 women's mark - or the 2.15 by Paula - is clean I have some real estate on the moon I'd like to sell you. )

Rodgers ran his best time at 31 and actually did hold his performance level pretty well but the rest of the world caught up to him or surpassed him.

At 38 he did run just a few minutes off his more typical Marathon times. He wasn't a 2:08 guy every time he raced.

Hall still has fresh Marathon legs which Bill did not.

You're correct that his best time was when he was 31 - and a few seconds faster than his AR at age 28. But he slowed in his 30's - unlike Hall - and by the time he was Hall's current age his best was 4 minutes slower. That suggests Hall might have been a 2.15 runner at age 30. If you can believe that.

I don't buy the "fresh legs" argument. Look at Kipchoge, the sub-2 man after a 20 year career.

But not 20 years of Marathoning.

You think Kipchoge was an undertrained 1:55 guy in 2010?

Marathoners tend to follow the path of around 5-7 races of progress and then start to get erratic and then crater. Regardless of the age they start them at.

Kipchoge cratered in his last race which is not surprising.

Armstronglivs wrote:

(BTW, If you think the 2.14 women's mark - or the 2.15 by Paula - is clean I have some real estate on the moon I'd like to sell you. )

I think the odds of the 2:14 being clean are about the same as 14:06. Make Sara 40s off the 5k world record and 3 mins off the marathon doesn't change any part of the argument. She is still equally far away from the world records.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

(BTW, If you think the 2.14 women's mark - or the 2.15 by Paula - is clean I have some real estate on the moon I'd like to sell you. )

I think the odds of the 2:14 being clean are about the same as 14:06. Make Sara 40s off the 5k world record and 3 mins off the marathon doesn't change any part of the argument. She is still equally far away from the world records.

The issue isn't the world marks but that at 37 she has made dramatic improvements to run the 8th fastest time in the world last year and the second fastest American time ever. As I also previously pointed out, her time would have beaten every championship winner in the last decade. As far as I am aware, none of America's other top marathon runners - male or female - made career spikes like that to run their best ever performances in their late 30's.

It is nice to finally hear you celebrate her tremendous accomplishment.

Meb ran his best time at near 40.

Wait, he was nearly 39 but he'd also improved steadily through his 30s despite running for decades.

Now you are aware.

bowly wrote:

It is nice to finally hear you celebrate her tremendous accomplishment.

You confuse "celebrate" with "question".