Simply put......You're pretty much born fast. You are not necessarily born with endurance. Hard to change genetics once conception occurs.
Simply put......You're pretty much born fast. You are not necessarily born with endurance. Hard to change genetics once conception occurs.
ray wrote:
Simply put......You're pretty much born fast. You are not necessarily born with endurance. Hard to change genetics once conception occurs.
Disagree about not being born with endurance. At least your genetic makeup may predispose you to be an endurance athlete. Same re: sprinting.
I see Tony running a 12.3/100 meters, with a flying start.
ADP wrote:
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?
Maybe a 12.8/100 meters with a fast run up!
ray wrote:
Simply put......You're pretty much born fast. You are not necessarily born with endurance.
Is that true? How can it be tested? If you somehow recruited a bunch of fit college kids who had never run seriously before, what would their improvement potential be?
What could a 10-second 100-metre runner do without training? 11.0 (10%)? 12.0 (20%)? Bear in mind that they may well have played football (either kind), rugby, basketball or whatever before starting to specialise so are likely to be partly trained.
Now how about a 13:00 5000 runner. Is the 'natural talent' level 14:20 (10%), 15:40 (20%) ?
My gut feel that the improvement potential in both cases is 10% to 20% - not obvious to me that there is more potential at one end that the other.
Use it or lose it. Top masters sprinters may lose less because they train speed more. But there is a tendency to lose muscle mass as you age. As you age you have to concentrate on strength training and speed (sprints) more to avoid larger losses. Research that has been done shows that with proper training most of your muscle mass and 1/IIa/IIx profile can be maintained into your 70's.
Avoiding what's known about muscle loss to concentrate on a sub-3 hour marathon past 40 is long term stupid.
This is a great thread and is counter intuitive. You can't really picture a 70 yr. old saying, "I can still sprint fast but just lost my 1/2 marathon speed.
The findings are more remarkable because as some pointed out the pool of runners for distance is so much larger.
The only caveat I have is that this might be true for the high end runners but is it true for the average competitive runner. They seem to lose sprinting ability faster.
J.R. wrote:
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.
I just wanted to let you know that sprinters think you are lazy too. They look at you and think, man that's easy - they just jog all the time! Of course they are also wrong.
too lazy to do math, but i'll throw out some #s/estimates for you:
at 28-29 i could do a 49.9 400, and a 3:55.42 for a mile.
at 43 i think i can do a 53-54, and a 4:12-15 for a mile.
if anecdotal evidence counts for anything: i don't "feel" any slower, as far as top end goes, though i don't think i have anywhere near the ability to shift as quickly, so a lot of the time-loss might be just an inability to accelerate as rapidly...
Almost all older runners can effectively train and test their endurance.
Haven't we lost top end speed if training to achieve it past a certain age will almost certainly result in injury?
Or put another way; If most cannot train for it, haven't most effectively lost it?
Skuj wrote:
I have found that Stamina is more of a problem.
Discuss.
What you are saying goes against the conventional wisdom and even what I have always thought, but on refelction, I think there is perhaps some truth to it. When I was young, I use to live in an area that had a very active all comer winter and summer track series and there were lots of 40+ guys running sprint times for ribbons that would place in the big masters meets of today. As road racing became more popular, a lot of the local track meets died off and guys switched to running 5ks. What was interesting was that some of the meets would be on Friday evening and you would see guys who were doctors, lawyers and business professionals switching out of their work clothes into their running gear.
Btw, although I was a kid at the time, I know the types of times these guys were running because sometimes we all ran in the same race. When I was 12, I remember competing several times in the 400 against this 50 something guy who had children twice my age. I was very fast for a 12 year old and this guy beat me most of the time.
I was at the USATF Club XC Championship and the masters race looked like the NCAA XC Championship; large and comptitive. I don't think their is anything that compares to that for masters sprinters.
...this is a long story, but you get the point I am making.
Most adult-onset runners, even if they were speedy as youngsters, are more oriented towards distance rather than speed, so they are losing top-end due to relative neglect. How many fitness runners express "I want to run a half-marathon/marathon" vs. "I want to run a sub-13 100"? in my case my top-end speed was better in my 40s than my 20s (better training and strength) without near as much work. My speed was relatively undeveloped as a youth, and that was the "mine"that produced the most "nuggets later in life. I wasn't going to run another 2:38 marathon at age 44 (20 lbs more muscle mass), but 55 in the 400 was attainable.
my sprint speed has dropped off a lot and my distance speed has not dropped off at all (it has improved). Too bad about the sprint speed!
pre-nuptial turnon wrote:
My speed was relatively undeveloped as a youth, and that was the "mine"that produced the most "nuggets later in life. I wasn't going to run another 2:38 marathon at age 44 (20 lbs more muscle mass), but 55 in the 400 was attainable.
That's encouraging. I know that I'll never get within 7% of my youthful mid-distance times, but I love the idea of getting genuine PBs at something in my 40s.
There's always Pole Vault, I suppose...
jjjjjjjjjjj wrote:
my sprint speed has dropped off a lot and my distance speed has not dropped off at all (it has improved). Too bad about the sprint speed!
What is distance speed?
A new master and ex 2/4 guy... Training for sprints/top end speed, I almost always pull/strain a hammy at some point in the all comers season. Part of it is the flexibility required for optimal sprint form which gets harder to achieve every year.
Whereas training for a 5k road race is a lot "safer". The running form requires less flexibility. I could still get some beneficial training in even if I feel "stiff and achy" (LSD, chi running/old man shuffle intervals).
Recently ran within 4 seconds of my 400 all time PR, but I'm 40 seconds off my mile PR and around 3 minutes off my 5k PR (ran XC in high school). So all things being equal IF I'm able to train for it, there has not been a big drop off in speed. The endurance is a little skewed since I only put in 30 miles a week.
Since high school I have slowed 29% in the 400, 23% in the 800, and 19% in the mile. In high school I was a 400-800 guy (actually 440-880) who did almost no intervals longer than 400.
Not sure if my fast twitch motor units have died, or if I'm training my aerobic system much better than I did in high school, or a combination.
By the way, I am trying to figure out how much I have slowed in the 5000. Can anyone suggest a conversion for Van Cortlandt 2.5 miles to flat 2.5 miles? I could plug that into the McMillan calculator as a 4000 meter time and see what 5000 is predicted.
Good morning ~
Top end speed probably goes away faster as we age for more than the obvious reason (we age), & because we stop working those muscles for fear of the dreaded injury bug or if I only have an hour, then I might as well shoot for 8 - 10 mile run?!
I really have no idea what I could run an All-Out 100, 200 or even 400 now. These are more-or-less controlled strides or pick-up distances.
Track workouts today (almost 49) usually start out with some warm-up 400's to find the rhythm for the workout - not to blast them. After 800's or 1000's or Mile's, it might end with some 200 striders in 28-30 (not all out).
For my events (which have always been the events that I have enjoyed since HS - 800, 1500, mile, 3k) - speed endurance workouts are the norm.
Last night while I was warming up for an Indoor workout, I asked one of the local Masters Sprinters what his workout was for the night. He said he would be working on his starts (10x out of the blocks). As I continued my warm-up, I was thinking that my "starts" would = doing some 400's.
Use it or lose it - I guess?!
Train safe
yNoT