How do these masters runners do it at Boston?

Did you really just say "the main reason people slow down when they get older is that they stop training as seriously"? Really - that's the main reason?

800 Dude, how old are you? Are you an old runner who never slowed down because he didn't get injured and didn't stop training seriously? If not, get outta here.

If what you say is true, there should be at least some runners, out of all the millions of runners out there, who kept training seriously from age 20 to age 50 or 60 and barely slowed down at all. But there aren't any. Yes, you get the occasional Lagat or Willis who still run fairly well into their early 40s. That's as far as it goes. Nobody runs world-class times at age 50. There are literally no 50-year-old runners in Grand Prix meets.

I think you have it backwards. Sure, some runners lose interest, move on to other things, etc. But there are plenty of runners for whom running is their life - they don't actually lose their desire to run well, or their willingness to train as hard. They stop training as hard because they can't train as hard. It's that simple! That's aging for ya! It's not like we (and all other forms of life) deteriorate with age because we just can't be bothered any more...Aging is a real thing, unfortunately.

(for the record, I'm just another guy in his 50s who is healthy, never stopped training, never lost enthusiasm, weigh the same as I always did, never quit doing track workouts...and could maybe run 1 mile at marathon PR pace.)

I second this.

I think there is some validity to his statement too.
There are A LOT of sub 2:19 men out there. 260 ran that time in the last Olympic cycle, and most are in their late 20s or early 30s. Of those 260, it seems reasonable that many could still run 10-15 minutes slower 10-15 years later. But most don’t. Almost none do.
It’s not just the aging process that eliminates them from the top masters rankings, it’s the desire to continue training at an elite level that gets many of them. They simply move on. It would be interesting to see how many trials qualifiers even run a marathon ever again after turning 45.

I’m not taking anything away from these great masters performances, but I think the scarcity of great masters performances can be attributed to some degree to attrition, not just the aging process.

The numbers in my previous post refer to Americans. Globally, I’m sure the number of 2:19 men is many times higher.

My wording was a little sloppy. I shouldn't have said "the main reason." What I meant was that if you look at the average 45 year, most of the slowdown he has experienced since the age of 30 is going to be attributable to less training, rather than the aging process itself. Of course, even if you continue to train seriously, you will still experience some decline in your 40s, so obviously that's going to be age-related. And as I clarified in a subsequent post, I was talking primarily about early masters, not people in their 60s.

My view is based on my own personal experience running PRs as an early master, my observation of elites, my observation of most of the serious masters runners I've trained with and coached, and the sports science research, which has consistently shown that age related strength decline is heavily mitigated by training.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. I think two big parts of it for the young masters runners are (1) not wanting to kill yourself training once PRs are probably out of reach, even if just barely, and (2) competing family and professional responsibilities.

Also, I think the attrition starts a lot sooner. Very few collegiate runners continue to compete after college. A 15:30 5k is roughly equivalent to a 2:30 marathon, but 15:30 guys are a dime-a-dozen in college, whereas only a very small percentage of those guys will go on to run a sub 2:30 marathon. Not because they lack the talent; because they won't put in the training after they graduate.

Ya think?

How old are you?

Early 40s is a completely different animal than the 50s. Speed is lost rapidly once you hit the mid 40s, but for the marathon, many people can still run within a few minutes of our best times in their mid 40s.

I don't think he decline has anything to do with less training, though. I know tons of master runners in their 40s and 50s that have a lot more money, experience and free time to optimize their training and recovery much better than they did in their 30s. Yet, they slow down, quite dramatically after 50.

This is probably more the case than anything where life happens during the late 20s and into the 30s and people just fall away from running. It’s a huge commitment, when kids/family take priority… and doing it at an age when things aren’t working as well as they used to, makes it frustrating. Trust me, I am a masters age group runner. I just feel blessed to be able to run everyday for the most part still and compete every so often with some of the younger guys.

I do believe though that once you stop at my age, it’s over. It’s very hard to come back and be competitive. I’m not saying running in general or for fun, I am talking competitively.

1st. Weight gain is a matter of discipline, or rather lack of thereof. Yes, your metabolism is slowing down due to age and you're not burning calories so fast, but the basic laws of physics still apply to you: you will not gain weight if you're at caloric deficit.

2nd. You need to train MORE as you age, not less. When you're young, your T levels are elevated just by being young. When you're older, you need to work for your T! Unless you're fine with muscle wasting, that is. Heavy lifting, sprints, etc. Yes, injuries are a thing. Try to be smarter.

3rd. TRT (if it's truly a replacement, not boosting in disguise) is about as much of a doping as running on a replaced hip. It makes your quality of life much better, and it is not unfair to anyone. It should NOT be stigmatized. I am lucky to not need it yet at 45, but if one day my T drops below the low normal range, I will be sure to supplement.

Ageing. It's real, and it's spectacular.

When I was in my early 50's I ran in the low 2:50's for the marathon. Now, at 60, I wouldn't even contemplate running a marathon. Used to run one or two every year, for about 20 years. I still train with my club, doing interval workouts at the track on Thursday's and a club workout on Sat yet I would struggle to run a mile at <6:30. 10K? Maybe 44min. My mileage is lower than I used to run back then but only because I just can't sustain that mileage without falling behind the recovery curve. If I could, I would.

Exactly my point. This is how some masters runners improve in their 50s and why masters records should not be recorded. If you want to take a substance proven to enhance recovery and allow you to train like a 30 year old, no problem. but when people are setting age records or PRs while on it, the integrity of the sport is gone.

Like a previous poster said, the desire is still there for many runners. But you physically cannot train like you used to or you want to because you will be chronically injured or you get overtrained doing what used to be considered an easy week. Nobody thinks it's going to happen to them! We all think that "when i get to be that age, i'm going to to xxx".

I'm a runner in my 40s who started in my 30s. I'm decent but still a looong way behind the best masters runners in my area. For example, I can run sub 16 for 5k but know guys running sub 15 at 40.

Here's my take: people age differently. That's it! When we were all 20, we were all peaking in terms of our natural ability, recovery rates, testosterone production, etc. But, 20+ years later, we are all different. Some of us have aged a lot slower than others. I bet there are a ton of guys my age who are much slower than me now but would have destroyed me at age 20 simply because I've aged better than them. So, I would have been average at 20, but now I'm slightly above average at 40 b/c I am fortunate to age well. I'm sure this is just down to genetics around aging b/c god knows my lifestyle isn't slowing down my aging!

On the other hand, I bet there are also simply people who were world class ability their whole lives and thus are still world class as masters athletes. Like Lagat now or soon Bekele/Kipchoge etc

Maybe some people are both world class and aging well. Like Lagat, I suppose?

I think the point you aren't fully understanding - but will in a few short years! - is that less training is the direct result of the aging process. After 50 or so, it takes more days to recover from a serious workout, and sometimes more days to recover from just a normal medium-length run. Running when you're more fatigued means your form is sloppier and injury risks are higher. Get injured, and you need more time off. Take time off, and it takes a lot longer to get back to base fitness. All of this means more restrained workouts and fewer workout sessions per week, and some weeks just getting in a solid run every day is a success. And you can't just do more workouts to turn things around, because the penalty for overambition is a lot higher. You can definitely gain fitness, but it's a longer, slower, and more cautious process. The successful runners you know aren't necessarily successful because they're serious and train more - they're able to train more and remain serious about running because they won the aging genetics lottery.

Humans are generally healthier and more active in later life now than they were 25, 50, and 100 years ago. With a few exceptions life expectancies are increasing, in the US and many westernized countries people over 50 are way more active than they were a generation ago. My parents who are in their 70s do things my grandparents stopped doing in their 50s. My dad still works 6 days a week in construction at age 75, that used to be super rare. There are more American's working into their 70s and 80s than at any other time in US history.

I also see way more runners coming back to the sport after long hiatuses than I used to. I think part of the key of staying injury free is not running continuously from age 14 to 40 or even 50 and expecting you can keep it up into your 60s and not get injured. Running is hard on joints and mileage adds up for most people who aren't genetically blessed.

My uncle was a state champion in the intermediate hurdles and cross country, competed for University of Rhode Island in the late 60s, and kept running after graduation running 10Ks in the low 30s into his early 30s and sub 40 into his early 40s when his knees just crapped out. He switched to cycling, eventually had a double knee replacement. He ran 50+ mpw for 25 to 30 years and eventually it caught up to him. Those who stop and come back to the sport usually have fresher knees and are less prone to injury allowing them to train and perform at a high level for longer.

Weight gain is not just about discipline, or as you implied, being overweight is not just because lack of discipline.

For some, the effort to slim down or even to stay away from overweight requires so much restriction, put so much strain on everyday life, it considerably affect the quality of life.

I can say this because I'm personally blessed in this respect and can stay lean with minimal "discipline". So I can safely say discipline is not involved in my keeping my weight healthy.

Eat no more calories than you use. It works. It just requires discipline. Yeah not eating when and how much you want to eat might suck. If food means so much to you, by all means go for it. Just don't say it's impossible. It's all relative. For obese people not eating all that junk is also a big sacrifice, when all they have in life to stimulate those pleasure centers in brain is food. But if you are disciplined you just get the same amount of pleasure from less food and your body feels better for it.

Two more points.

1. Sorry, I didn't mean this directed personally at you. I was saying in general.
2. I missed the hint in your handle. Yeah, leptin resistance is a thing. I was talking about generally healthy people of course. And still, it can be managed.