50+ Masters Training and Racing Open Forum

41 miles of moderate effort for me this week. My legs felt dead from last weekend's race all week long, but this is an increase in mileage for me and none of the connective tissue is protesting so this is progress.

Nice quality runs lucKY. Maybe the crazy schedule somehow provides benefits due to its eccentricity?

My week was decent. I’m starting to see those tempo’s drop a little. Planned 6 today and felt lucky to make 5 as my left calf tightened up in the very cold steady rain. Hope it loosens up as I have a busy week next week myself.

Mon = 3, easy, road and trail

Tue = 1, hard, thunderstorm

Wed = 4, hard, greenway 5K@7:44 pace

Thr = 3, easy road and trail

Fri = 2, easy road

Sat = 4, hard, track 5K@7:28 pace

Sun = 5, easy road in cold steady rain

Total = 22

Have a good one everyone!

I am still letting my toe heal after its trauma in Las Vegas. The good news is that it doesn't seem to be broken, just badly jammed. The bruising is mostly gone. This was my "rest week" after the final meet of the season so I did not run, lift, or do much of anything in the way of training. I did, however, eat. I'm good at that. I'll start back up tomorrow and next Sunday be an active contributor to this thread instead of reveling in my slugness. Have a great week!

Light week, felt very good when I did run, I alternated running/rest days, which helped the calf and got my legs fresh. Stretching & strength exercises helped the calf a lot too.

Have a good week all!

Week 175: 40 minutes in 2 runs, both at 5K effort. (Same for previous weeks' 20-minute runs, I neglected to mention that.)

Since recovery from the running is measured in tens of hours now, rather than multiple days like before, I was planning to progress to 3 runs this week (Wed-Fri-Sun). But apparently the left leg was a little miffed at not being consulted first. The protest started on Wednesday night with a loud snap in a calf tendon as I was harmlessly preparing to turn in for the night. To emphasize just who is boss, ordinary walking on Thursday resulted in stabbing pain in my heel. So except for a bit of yoga, I took Thu-Fri-Sat completely off. Having somewhat mollified the left leg, I managed a run today. Will have to ask for permission to try 3 runs next week.

I ran my first XC race in over 30 years today. Ironically, on the same course I ran then. I enjoyed it and I felt fine except for an asthma problem that flaired up about 1/2 mile in and lasted the whole race.

Hey, it made me tougher and my team won.

Welcome back to cross country Runn. Nothing like the brutally honest terrain of XC.

Getting fitter and feeling faster. As us 50+ folks know this does not equate to faster. But I'll take tate 18:17 for 5k XC yesterday.

Be strong.

KP

Rtype wrote:

Nice quality runs lucKY. Maybe the crazy schedule somehow provides benefits due to its eccentricity?

Thanks, Rtype...certainly a down week momentarily puts more pep in the stride. I'm still never quite sure of the optimal prescription for the run-to-recovery ratio. Feels like a moving target.

Back to the age-grade standards. I'll just put this up there and see what people think. I took the WMA2010 road age-grade tables (

) and made some ratios. I think these look goofy.

For the first analysis, I compared women's to men's age-grading benchmark times (in seconds) as a function of age for several distances.

I thought it was very odd how there weird squiggle for all the distances up to half-marathon. A slight squiggle at 30K, but no obvious squiggle for the marathon.

I thought I'd try to see where that squiggle was coming from, so I figured I'd compare the ratio of age-grade factors to the 5k age-grade factor for each age (for example, at age 60, the men's 5k age-grade factor is 0.8043, while their HM age-grade factor is 0.8090 for a ratio of 1.0058):

For Men, the ratio of age-grade factors to 5k factors were all unity up to 10k, then they start deviating. For Women, the ratio stays unity all the way through HM, then there's deviations. So here's the odd disparity. For longer distances, the men's long-distance/5k factors get dramatically better as one approaches 40 (because the 5k factors start declining at 32, while the marathon doesn't kick in until 36), then they catch back up with the 5k factors around age 60, then *oddly reverse course* and start improving again (Ed Whitlock effect?). Meanwhile the women's stay flat up to HM, but immediately start getting worse for the longer distances from age 35 (all distances have declining age-grade factors starting around age 31 for women) with a leveling off for a while, then a sharp *decline* in the 70's. The opposite trend as for the men.

So, like I said, seems goofy to me. And I realize that the tables are historical-performance-based, but clearly some averaging/smoothing takes place, since they use the same factors across many distances and ages. Anybody want to take a crack at deciphering this?

Also, most the men's single-age world records for ages 18-39 have been set in the past 4 years, so I think that the age-grade factors for men's 40-yo and up will likely come down a bit with the next compilation.

Everybody sounding a bit out of sorts this past week (except for KP's cross country jaunt)...remember that gaining fitness is not linear and so those of you whom wisely pulled back last week are likely to rebound to a higher and better place this coming week...at least that is my hope for you.

I too was in need of a break at the tail end of this past week and so recorded 2 zeros in 3 days...this was the result of traveling and competing in 4 track races the preceding five days...raced a 400 meters for the first time in 42 years last weekend and blitzed a "scintillating" 70.69...yes it was from a standing start in racing flats and I managed my piano carrying well over the final 70 meters, but man, that thing wiped me out...I did manage to come back and run a respectable second place 800 meters later that day under the hot Las Vegas sun...barely. Both performances were second in the 55-59 and as this was a Seniors State Championships, qualified for next summer's National Senior Games in Minneapolis...YEA...I think.

Came back on Tuesday to run a seasonal best 800 (3rd place) and a 4th in the 1500 a day later at the Huntsman World Senior Games in UT...more qualifiers for Senior Nationals...but, shoot, as a sea level guy, theat paltry 3000 ft altitude kicked my rear end...whoa...thirty minutes after the 1500 I was in my rental car driving across UT, AZ and through NV to catch a flight to CA and yet another 2 1/2 hour drive in rush hour trafficto reach the homestead..can you spell bushwhacked??

So, after a 3 day mini break, I hesitatingly was back on the track yesterday doing another intense middle distance training session...5 x 300 with immediate 200 meter 'run' not jog between...a 60/60 session...300 in 60, 200 in 60... Plus 4 x cruise 200 meters for post workout flushing purposes. Picked up a 20lb bag of party ice on the way home and promptly filled the bath tub with it and myself and bit of cold water...some damn party!

Hoping all you geezers (myself included) attain progress this coming week...train don't strain...oh, and Go SF Giants!

your pal,

MF

Sorry. The labels on the first plot aren't correct. What I put in the text is correct, these are ratios of time standards, not age-grade factors. They're inversely related to the factors. It's where I'd started, then switched to looking at the factors later on....forgot to change that when I went back and added labels to the plots I'd created earlier.

Mike F I am so jacked reading your track tales. Damn I miss the "rounds" of middle distance racing. I know this cross-country sh*t is important but someone please beam me up a few months to 2015 track season. I'm getting fired up from Mike.

BTW I too was blindsided by that mere 3000 feet of St George when I ran a slow enough 800 I thought the clock was off. But had no argument nor a ligit complaint 'cause I didn't even win the damn 2-lapper. Anyone think 3000 feet for age 50+ is same as 5000 feet for young whipper snappers?

KP

Check my understanding of the first chart: Say the male open standard is 2:03 and the female open standard is 2:15. Then at 35-yo, 1.1 time standard ratio means that a male 3-hr marathon is equivalent to a female 3:37 1.1*(135*180/123). Did I get that right? And at 60-yo, 1.2x means that a male 3-hr marathon is equivalent to a female 3:57 1.2*(135*180/123).

Anyway that's how I thought age-grading worked, but my calculated female times seem way too slow. Let me know where I went wrong.

Offhand I would say the "squiggle" we see at the right -- and I still detect a faint squiggle in the marathon curve -- is due to mortality. E.g., looking at the trough of the squiggle, an 82-yo female is on life support, whereas an 82-yo male has been pushing up daisies for five years or so. (I'm only partly joking here.) As for the shape of the curve at the far left, it pains my feminist sensibilities to speculate. Perhaps childbirth can account for some of it?! Yeah, that's it, childbirth!

The second chart is a little more abstract to me. But the fact that all the curves converge on "unity" at about the historical male life expectancy seems to signify ... um, hang on, I had a thought there somewhere ... Nope, that one's gone. But I have another one, maybe we should look around for some fool 70-yo individual runner who is mucking up the charts.

I can't access your third chart, google says no permissions.

One fascinating factoid on the first chart is that after 45-yo, the marathon has the worst ratios for the women, the half-marathon has the best. Except for the squiggle, the 2nd worst ratios are at 5K. NOT logical. Logical would be for intermediate distances to have intermediate ratios. My interpretation is that men are going for it at the marathon and 5K, women love the half marathon, and if the distances were equally popular with both sexes at all ages then all the curves would be different. As for the marathon ratios below 40-yo, I attribute that to prize money.

Mon. 1 hour paddle.

Tue. 10 km run in 48 mins. on the railtrail.

Wed. 1 h 50 m mtn bike ride.

Thu. 17.4 km run with 490 metres of elevation gain, 1 h 53 m.

Fri. 45 min. paddle.

Sat. Some hilly hiking with my wife then a 35 min paddle and a 45 min spin.

Sun. 18 km run with 480 metres of elevation gain.

Ticking along okay. Tuesday's run after a night shift was a battle. I planned to do a solid session on the railtrail, it is marked out with old mile markers. The plan was to run 6 miles alternating 8 and 7 min. Legs just would't go so it just ended up being a steady run.

Thursday was a steep trail run, one climb always forces me into fellwalking mode. 4 good steep climbs with some good technical terrain.

Sunday was some good solid running before work. I would have liked a few more kms and another 150 or so metres of elevation but time was running out. Knocked out the last 2 kms in 9.00.

So many people rely on these numbers I can understand why a little examination can’t hurt if something seems off a bit. Can we clarify exactly where the source numbers come from? Are they the single-age records for individual years or for the groupings of 5 years? Do provisional’s count or only the ratified records? It looks like a few very extraordinary folks can tear through the records and set standards that mere mortals can only aspire to. But at least those standards apply to everyone.

Re. Age grading.

50 year old Jack Foster casually rolling around the Rotorua hills 3 or 4 days per week then doing a month of 110 to 130 kms weeks popped out a 2.20 dodgy hamstring and all. Derek Turnbull 42 years into his running career, a 4.23 miler in his hayday, cranks out a 2.41 marathon at 65 off a few days per week of running around a busy farming schedule.

I think we are very much guessing what older runners are capable of.

Catching up since my last post of 9/15, had several 30+ mile weeks, except for last week's 25. This Sunday is the 1/2 marathon I've been aiming for and so went to the track for a final sharpening session, feeling like I'd be able to do a couple 1 mile repeats in 8:00 or so. First one was in 7:32, the second (after a 400 recov) in 7:20. So maybe there's some speed there? Did finish with 4 x 200 in 50. Had not run longer than 12 miles in the last month, and wanted more long runs, but the energy for that wasn't there. Cool weather sure makes this body feel peppy right now! Plus, my wife is feeling better and getting back into her running w/o hamstring pain, so that makes life good, too.

Lucky2b, in case you are interested, I keep the Missouri state age group records at

www.mararunning.org

and the single age records at

www.staterunningrecords.com

so there's some raw data for you to ponder, if you'd like.

Glad to see others here are feeling pretty good in the fall weather, too!

I think my 1/2 will be in LunaRacers, the lightweight HOKA Cliftons will stay as trainers.

Ah! I knew that I'd pique AlanB's interest...sorry about the last plot; it is now open for viewing.

I think I wasn’t entirely accurate in how I portrayed the comparison of time standards. Let me be clear on what I did: for graph 1, I took the ratio of the time standards (these are the times WMA consider to be equivalent to 100% world class for that age). So for 60-year-olds, the marathon standard times against which 60-year-olds are being compared is 11085 seconds (3:04:45) for women vs. 9191 seconds (2:33:11) for men. The ratio of these standards is 11085/9191 = 1.206, which is what is plotted.

The age-grade factors are for these two points above are 0.7330 (women) vs. 0.8155 (men); these are the ratio of the time-standard to the current open-standard. So the ratio of women to men age grade factors at age 60 is 0.7330/0.8155 = 0.899, meaning that given current best times, the men’s best time has maintained its marathon speed at age 60 relative to world class about 11% closer than has the women’s best time. Here’s a plot of the ratio of those age-grade factors:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1XVuQqQBlcwQ0RFZC1JTkpJd00&authuser=0

It looks roughly inverted to the previous plot of ratio of times, but not exactly, since the two factors are comparing against different open standards.

Incidentally, the 2010 standards still use 2:04:55 as the male open standard. But otherwise, AlanB, this latter graph should more accurately correlate with what you were trying to compare.

Hope that clarifies.

Rtype wrote:

So many people rely on these numbers I can understand why a little examination can’t hurt if something seems off a bit. Can we clarify exactly where the source numbers come from? Are they the single-age records for individual years or for the groupings of 5 years? Do provisional’s count or only the ratified records? It looks like a few very extraordinary folks can tear through the records and set standards that mere mortals can only aspire to. But at least those standards apply to everyone.

Good questions, Rtype. I think it is true that the times need to be certified, ratified and verified to be considered. But I don't know how the averaging is done (and it's clear that there is some averaging, otherwise they wouldn't use the same factors across many distances) to set those numbers specifically. I think that one could generate a mathematical expression that takes out the wiggles by looking at the full plane of results to create a surface that matches all the best times across the spectrum of both distance and age with only the minimal presumption of smoothness.

mo'pak wrote:

I think we are very much guessing what older runners are capable of.

That is most certainly a most accurate statement.