I'm 60, been running since I was 12, including in college. The only difference I've found is that recovery from a hard effort takes a bit longer. And eating clean makes a difference in said recovery, unlike when I was young and could eat anything and feel great. Lots of veggies/antioxidants and enough protein.
Im 59, weight train, have walked 10 miles to work on several occasions. I feel some soreness sometimes, but imagine not working out. I want to live to be 500 yrs old!!!
There are also studies showing a hockey stick trend for endurance activity level vs. all cause mortality. Focusing on sub-4 milers is a very select group ripe with confounding factors for longevity.
Modest exercise suffices. Running much more than three hours a week has diminishing returns for health snd longevity.
Mid to late 60s here and there was definitely a change that occurred for me around 62. I've navigated my way through it and one thing in particular is really making a difference, so I will throw it out there.
For background, I work out twice a day at least 6 days per week, and one workout each day is a run. The other daily workout is either lifting at the gym or a bodywieght cross-training workout at home, and more often the latter.
The one thing that really seems to make a difference is the bodyweight workouts, and they rotate around quite a bit but include a fair amount of stretching, range of motion exercises, push-ups, core (leg lifts, crunches, bridges), pull-ups, calf raises, light lifting with dumbells, squats, light deadlifting, etc - you get the picture. But always a lot of this is the stretching, heels to butt, high knees, etc.
And I am finding that this stuff pays dividends in keeping mobility and recovery in a very good place. In fact, I very much believe that it delays the onset of shortened strides, stiffness, loss of range of motion, etc.
Maybe I just used to overtrain when I was younger, but I don't feel beat up all the time anymore.
If you really consider what might minimize all those age related aches and pains and tottering and an awful gait, you may reasonably turn to what I am proposing, and it has been a game changer for me.
WIth that said, it's boring as hell so I always do it while watching something on the tube. But I do it, it seems to help a lot, so maybe it might work for others...
Like I asked "fisky," do you use TRT, HRT, DHEA or anything like that? What about nutrition - any special diet you adhere to? And how about dietary supplements?
How do you work out twice a day at your age? As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm 65 with orthopedic issues & can barely work out once a day! 😖
There was a time back in my twenties when I worked out before my work day (office job) and then 3 evenings a week I was taking Tae Kwon Do classes. In fact, was beating me up & I had to eventually stop after one year falling short of obtaining my goal of achieving a black belt.
So, I can't imagine a 60 plus person - subject to the consequences of the age spurt study - doing two-a-day workouts?
Seattle Prattle seems to be on a similar mindset as I am. I also do a lot of bodyweight exercises. The surprising thing about lifting is that while it might hinder your running for several months until you get to the maintenance level, you can then taper off your lifting and get a noticeable improvement in running. That was my experience when I I ran the 400m faster at age 69 than at 68.
I've thought about the questions on TRT, HRT, etc. Here are my thoughts. I don't do TRT, HRT, or any anabolic drugs. They trick the body, in my opinion, so the natural production of T and hGH shut down. DHEA works differently. I'm going to be up front with this. I've tested it. In my opinion, it may work for older distance runners with low T because it improves the body's ability to make its own T, but I didn't see any benefit, probably because my T levels are extremely high for my age so my T was pretty much optimized already.
These substances are banned by WADA for all runners. That's unfortunate for older athletes, some of whose quality of life might be improved by those drugs, but that's the rules we have to live with.
Fortunately, there are several non-drug steps that competitive aging runners can take to slow the aging process, and by slowing aging, they can slow the decline in running performance.
Slowing aging is really the holy grail of masters running. I do so many things to slow aging, it's hard to determine which are actually providing a benefit. My guess is that some of the things I do provide no benefit, while others provide incremental benefits. Over time (years), the incremental benefits add up.
Here are some things I'm doing that I think have the highest probability of slowing the age-related decline of energy and running performance
One workout I've done for nearly 20 years is a variation of the Sprint 8. Its focus is not on running, but on dramatically boosting T and hGH levels temporarily after the workout. Often, in fact most of the time, I do these short very high intensity intervals in the gym. Very high intensity short duration (30 seconds or less) lifting/running intervals followed by recovery of no less than 90 seconds and no more than 120 seconds. Sprint 8 might not help runners this week, this month, or even this year, but looking back over the past 20 years, I believe this approach has paid great dividends for me.
My focus on anti-aging is admittedly obsessive. I take probably 30 supplements a day focusing on anti-aging, lowering inflammation, recovery, and lowering cortisol. I also occasionally do twice daily workouts... running followed by weights, never the reverse order. However... and this is my second bit of advice for older runners.
I think many aging runners are too doggedly focused on maintaining a training schedule.
I don't follow a weekly training or any "schedule" at all. I alternate between five categories of workouts depending on the race season and my next major race. I choose my next hard workout based on what my previous 4-5 hard workouts have been. Next, I follow a strict warm-up protocol that usually lasts longer than the workout itself. If I don't hit my pre-set markers for recovery/performance in the drills or if I feel a twinge of injury during the warm-up, I abort the workout. This sounds simple, but it takes a lot of discipline to get up, get dressed, fuel up with pre-workout nutrition, drive to the track, jog a mile, do 20-45 minutes of rehab/warm-up drills, strides... and then after committing two hours of my day, to abort the workout if I don't hit my pre-set marks or if I feel a twinge of an old injury. This happens 2-4 times a month.
Finally, pre- and post-workout fueling, active recovery, and most important, sleep. As you get older, a good night's sleep becomes increasingly elusive. Two years ago when I first started tracking sleep with a wearable and testing various sleep protocols... red lights, TV off, set bedtime, sleep supplements, cool room, grounding pillow, magnesium foot spray, commercial grade air filter, tablet set in night mode with a cozy murder mystery or similar light reading before going to sleep... before all that, I was typically getting 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 hours of sleep a night. I'm now averaging 7 1/2 hours. Sleep probably deserves its own thread. If you're not optimizing sleep, you're losing valuable recovery points that will adversely affect your next quality workout.
... I work out twice a day at least 6 days per week, and one workout each day is a run. ...
I'm 62 and do similar. I've had to reframe running as my 'hobby' (~45-50 mpw) and make sure I get regular 'exercise.' For me that's 3x40 minutes of rowing, two total body strength workouts (e.g., deadlift, presses, lunges, squats, sled push/pull, etc.) and as much mobility work as I can squeeze in. I've also increased protein percentage in my diet and try to supplement smart (e.g., Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM Joint Support and Thirdzy Collagen Sleep both seem to make a significant difference in aches and pains).
Never sore never hurt always fit at 69. No drugs. No freak of nature. Nothing complicated. adapt, think, experiment but quit complaining
Sometimes I randomly worry about whether David Goggins will be mentally strong enough and have suffcient discipline to take more.time off and train less as he gets older. Imagine him in an old age home at 90 shouting profanities and barking orders at others while walking up and down the stairs to his room for 24 hours straight.
Anyone achieve 60 Vo2 max at age 60? I have just over 3 years to go. Sounds doable. A calculator I used showed about a 2:18 800m. Just 2 laps, can't be that hard. = 60.7
The other distances will take to much work. 16:52 5k, 35:01 10k, 1:17:21 half marathon
I just saw Men 60 half world record is 1:11:09. That's incredible. 67 vo2
Men's 65 10 mile record 53:15 which is also 67 vo2 max. I wonder if this is highest ever 65+
I'm now 50 and while pushing myself in training still feels good, for some reason the post workout high will turn into a severly depressive state that linger for quite a few hours afterwards. Also my motivation to do mental tasks is just gone. When I was younger the latter only happened after my long runs over 2 hours. Not sure if post exertional malaise, or if I have an underlying condition triggering it. I do eat enough and well, refuel immediately, sleep enough, take every second day off, run and do weights, etc. I do.suffer from depression but running always used to leave me feeling better. I've been on antidepressants for decades and that does not seem to be part of the problem. Is this an age related thing or something else? Any thoughts on this?
It’s just aging, IMHO. You’ve only got so much energy to spend in a day plus what you value changes as you get older. I still enjoy running but I like bike riding and hiking more these days. I do fewer races each year because I don’t need the ego stroke and I would rather spend that $60 entry fee on a tank of gas or a really nice bottle of wine to share with my wife.
I wouldn’t fret too much. Do what makes you happy. No one besides you cares about your latest performance or your VO2 number. Stay fit, don’t be afraid to try new things, and live. Tomorrow isn’t guaranteed.
There are also studies showing a hockey stick trend for endurance activity level vs. all cause mortality. Focusing on sub-4 milers is a very select group ripe with confounding factors for longevity.
Modest exercise suffices. Running much more than three hours a week has diminishing returns for health snd longevity.
I just turned 60 and I completely understand. However, what I have found over the years is that I just have to take 3 things more seriously and it changes everything. 1-Recovery takes WAY more time. I have to spend a lot more time taking it easy in between hard efforts. 2-Sleep is everything. The difference in soreness and pain levels on 6 hours sleep is MILES different from how I feel with 7.5 hours sleep. Get better sleep and it will be a game changer. 3-Food is directly related to inflammation. Eat good natural foods and inflammation will subside (at least some).
I have run every day, except one, for the past 14 years. I tend to run up stairs and have more energy than most 40 year olds. I don't know how you are doing on those 3 items I outlined, but if you are not doing them well, I suggest you try it. What have you got to lose?
It’s just aging, IMHO. You’ve only got so much energy to spend in a day plus what you value changes as you get older. I still enjoy running but I like bike riding and hiking more these days. I do fewer races each year because I don’t need the ego stroke and I would rather spend that $60 entry fee on a tank of gas or a really nice bottle of wine to share with my wife.
I wouldn’t fret too much. Do what makes you happy. No one besides you cares about your latest performance or your VO2 number. Stay fit, don’t be afraid to try new things, and live. Tomorrow isn’t guaranteed.
This. As runners we are numbers driven but at one point in life aging takes over and you better get away from that number thinking at that point.
As a lifelong runner, I noticed a steep decline after 55. Now I can't run properly 3 miles anymore but I refuse to be the grumpy old runner. I show up at my running group, enjoy the successes of my running buddies and the cold beer after the run.
Ive been a runner all my life and even after 50 I continued to work out, to lift, to bike, yoga, all the stuff you are told to do. While I have been able to keep from gaining weight like most of my peers, when I get out of bed, I ache! I have terribly arthritic knees, I've been dealing with sciatica for over a year, shoulder pains.. it sucks.
But... I went on vacation for 2 full weeks and all I did was eat, drink, and walk around doing tourist stuff... I feel GREAT. Almost all my pains are gone, I actually quickly jogged up some steps yesterday.. I haven't done that in years!
I think the sedentary lifestyle my be the key to pain free living. It's like my body was saying, at 60 you need to just walk some every day, and drink beer every night.
I had this discussion with a fellow doc the other day. Philosophically, if you work out, you intend to induce adaptations and that requires small amounts of "damage" and one would expect inflammation, then adaptation. Staying in shape clearly decreases CV risk among other things, but you really are walking around with low grade inflammation every day! On some level that aint good, and you feel it after 50. IDK, maybe there is a boring middle ground where we are better off doing hot yoga, a little lifting and long walks or swims? But yes, now that im late 50s, not working out feels way better! But im smart enough to know that after month or so ill feel overall worse, more depressed or whatever if I go couch potato?
Elite level endurance athletes really don't gain much life expectancy. It's very unfortunate. It's about life quality I guess.
I'm 66 and I've noticed that I feel better if I run 2 miles easy and mix it with a couple miles elliptical and some other core and plyo work.
I'd love to run 60 miles a week and do more, hard workouts but I've about given up on it.
There are also studies showing a hockey stick trend for endurance activity level vs. all cause mortality. Focusing on sub-4 milers is a very select group ripe with confounding factors for longevity.
Modest exercise suffices. Running much more than three hours a week has diminishing returns for health snd longevity.
There are also studies showing a hockey stick trend for endurance activity level vs. all cause mortality. Focusing on sub-4 milers is a very select group ripe with confounding factors for longevity.
Modest exercise suffices. Running much more than three hours a week has diminishing returns for health snd longevity.
Can you show me one that hasn't been debunked?
Sure. I asked ChatGPT Plus to give me some studies. Here is the list. Note that it omitted the original study by Dr Kenneth Cooper back in the 1990s that found that running conveyed significant health/mortality benefits up to the sweet spot of 12-30 mpw. Above that volume, overall risk increased very slightly. The result was a risk curve that looked like a ski jump... very high risk for sedentary that decreased steadily to a bottom at 12-30 mpw and then turned slightly up, like a ski jump. Bottom line: Extreme running was much healthier than being sedentary, but the sweet spot to optimally reduce risk was 12-30mpw.
ChatGPT wrote:
can you show me a study that has not been debunked that shows that running more than 3 hours per week or more than roughly 12 to 30 Mi results in diminishing health and Longevity returns ChatGPT said:
This is a great question — as with much in exercise epidemiology, the evidence is somewhat mixed, and “diminishing returns” is often inferred rather than definitively proven. But yes — there are credible studies that suggest a “sweet spot” in weekly running (or jogging) beyond which additional time or mileage yields smaller incremental mortality / longevity benefit, or possibly borderline risk. And I did not find a definitive, “un-debunked” study that proves running more than ~12–30 mi/week reduces longevity outright (in healthy people), but several lines of evidence point toward diminishing marginal returns beyond a certain point.
Here are some of the more relevant studies / reviews, and caveats:
Key Studies / Reviews Suggesting Diminishing or Limited Marginal Benefit 1. Copenhagen City Heart Study / “Dose of Jogging and Long-Term Mortality” (JACC, 2014)
This is one of the most-cited studies in this domain. It examined jogging frequency, duration, and mortality in the Copenhagen City Heart Study cohort. The key finding: moderate jogging — up to about 1 to 2.4 hours per week, in ≤3 sessions per week — was associated with the lowest mortality. JACC +1
Beyond this moderate range, the additional benefit plateaued (i.e. further increases in dose did not appear to confer proportionally lower mortality) rather than showing a clear increase in risk. JACC +1
This is often cited as evidence for a “sweet spot” of jogging.
2. “Training for Longevity: The Reverse J-Curve for Exercise” (Review / Perspective, PMC)
A review article discussing the shape of the dose-response between physical activity and longevity. The authors note that while 2.5 to 5 hours per week of moderate or vigorous activity appear to yield maximal benefit, in some studies going beyond ~10 hours per week may reduce the (marginal) health benefits. PMC
This doesn’t necessarily mean high-volume running is harmful, but rather that gains may taper off (i.e. diminishing returns).
3. “Running or walking progressively decreased CVD mortality risk at most exercise levels, but this benefit was attenuated at the highest exercise levels of >50 (units)”
In the review “Running as a Key Lifestyle Medicine for Longevity” (and its extended version) the authors note that reductions in cardiovascular mortality risk are attenuated at the highest exercise levels beyond a certain threshold. Iowa State University Digital Repository +1
In other words, gains flatten out at high exercise intensities or volumes.
4. Meta-analyses and observational compilations
Some meta-analyses and large-scale observational studies show that much of the mortality benefit of running is captured with low to moderate doses, and that further increases produce smaller incremental risk reductions.
For instance, a commentary in Observatoire de la prévention notes: “the decrease in risk is directly proportional to the amount of exercise up to about 2 hours of running per week. More than 4 hours of running per week or the equivalent do little to further reduce risk.” observatoireprevention.org
Also, some reports (e.g. in ACSM summaries) describe that hazard ratios for all-cause mortality are significantly reduced for runners running 0.1–19.9 miles/week, but that “higher mileage, faster paces, and more frequent running were not associated with better survival.” Empr
These suggest that going from zero to moderate running gives a big benefit, but going from moderate to very high has a shallower slope of return.
5. Other suggestive observations / “soft signals”
Some analyses of runners who have had a heart attack found that those running more than ~30 miles per week had higher mortality than those running less (in that high-risk subgroup). Runner's World
Some popular summaries (less rigorous) mention that runners averaging more than ~20 mi/week in certain cohorts had mortality rates approaching non-runners, though these need cautious interpretation. Gunksrunner.com +1
Caveats & Limitations — Why It’s Hard to Prove “Harm” or a Clear Cutpoint
Confounding & self-selection: People who run very high mileage might differ in diet, genetics, injury history, medical background, etc. Observational designs can’t fully control for all confounders.
Survivor bias and healthy runner bias: Those who sustain high mileage over time tend to be the ones whose bodies tolerated it; those who don’t drop out early.
Nonlinear dose–response: The more plausible pattern is a curve of diminishing returns rather than an inverted U or negative slope (i.e. modest benefit plateauing, rather than clear harm).
Measurement error: Self-reported running volume / intensity is noisy, and many studies group very high volumes into “top quantile” rather than finely modeling extremely high mileage.
Endpoint misalignment: Most studies look at mortality, especially all-cause mortality, in relatively healthy adults. They are less able to detect subtle harms or organ-level stress.
Population differences: Effects may differ by age, gender, underlying cardiovascular risk, etc.
Conclusion & My Assessment
I did not find a “smoking-gun” study that definitively shows that running >12–30 mi/week reduces longevity in healthy adults.
However, multiple well-respected studies and reviews strongly suggest diminishing marginal returns after moderate volumes (e.g. ~1–3 hours/week or certain mileage thresholds).
The Copenhagen City Heart Study / JACC “dose of jogging” paper is among the strongest and most frequently cited in this domain (favoring ~1–2.4 h/week jogging as optimal). JACC +1
The “Reverse J-Curve” review is also a useful synthesis pointing out how benefit flattens or possibly slightly wanes at very high volumes. PMC
If you like, I can dig further (to see if any more recent randomized-or quasi-experimental data or large prospective cohorts have sharpened these estimates) and see whether any study more cleanly demonstrates a decline in longevity at very high running volumes. Do you want me to search further (e.g. up to 2025)?
M66 here: Started running in ‘75. If someone tells you a certain diet or exercise routine is “THE” answer they forget that they are unique and that their opinions are highly influenced by their own very specific circumstances.
The BEST we can do is try different things, keep what works, discard what does not. Do this knowing full-well that there is no frigging reason that what works for you will translate to everyone!
I’ve found running easy 4 times a week works. Personally, I was very competitive until I hit a brick wall at 53. Then….later...got competitive again until 63, when, disturbingly, I hit my second brick wall.
Will this work for you? Fu*k no. Find your own way.
Like I asked "fisky," do you use TRT, HRT, DHEA or anything like that? What about nutrition - any special diet you adhere to? And how about dietary supplements?
How do you work out twice a day at your age? As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm 65 with orthopedic issues & can barely work out once a day! 😖
There was a time back in my twenties when I worked out before my work day (office job) and then 3 evenings a week I was taking Tae Kwon Do classes. In fact, was beating me up & I had to eventually stop after one year falling short of obtaining my goal of achieving a black belt.
So, I can't imagine a 60 plus person - subject to the consequences of the age spurt study - doing two-a-day workouts?
Seattle Prattle seems to be on a similar mindset as I am. I also do a lot of bodyweight exercises. The surprising thing about lifting is that while it might hinder your running for several months until you get to the maintenance level, you can then taper off your lifting and get a noticeable improvement in running. That was my experience when I I ran the 400m faster at age 69 than at 68.
I've thought about the questions on TRT, HRT, etc. Here are my thoughts. I don't do TRT, HRT, or any anabolic drugs. They trick the body, in my opinion, so the natural production of T and hGH shut down. DHEA works differently. I'm going to be up front with this. I've tested it. In my opinion, it may work for older distance runners with low T because it improves the body's ability to make its own T, but I didn't see any benefit, probably because my T levels are extremely high for my age so my T was pretty much optimized already.
These substances are banned by WADA for all runners. That's unfortunate for older athletes, some of whose quality of life might be improved by those drugs, but that's the rules we have to live with.
Fortunately, there are several non-drug steps that competitive aging runners can take to slow the aging process, and by slowing aging, they can slow the decline in running performance.
Slowing aging is really the holy grail of masters running. I do so many things to slow aging, it's hard to determine which are actually providing a benefit. My guess is that some of the things I do provide no benefit, while others provide incremental benefits. Over time (years), the incremental benefits add up.
Here are some things I'm doing that I think have the highest probability of slowing the age-related decline of energy and running performance
One workout I've done for nearly 20 years is a variation of the Sprint 8. Its focus is not on running, but on dramatically boosting T and hGH levels temporarily after the workout. Often, in fact most of the time, I do these short very high intensity intervals in the gym. Very high intensity short duration (30 seconds or less) lifting/running intervals followed by recovery of no less than 90 seconds and no more than 120 seconds. Sprint 8 might not help runners this week, this month, or even this year, but looking back over the past 20 years, I believe this approach has paid great dividends for me.
My focus on anti-aging is admittedly obsessive. I take probably 30 supplements a day focusing on anti-aging, lowering inflammation, recovery, and lowering cortisol. I also occasionally do twice daily workouts... running followed by weights, never the reverse order. However... and this is my second bit of advice for older runners.
I think many aging runners are too doggedly focused on maintaining a training schedule.
I don't follow a weekly training or any "schedule" at all. I alternate between five categories of workouts depending on the race season and my next major race. I choose my next hard workout based on what my previous 4-5 hard workouts have been. Next, I follow a strict warm-up protocol that usually lasts longer than the workout itself. If I don't hit my pre-set markers for recovery/performance in the drills or if I feel a twinge of injury during the warm-up, I abort the workout. This sounds simple, but it takes a lot of discipline to get up, get dressed, fuel up with pre-workout nutrition, drive to the track, jog a mile, do 20-45 minutes of rehab/warm-up drills, strides... and then after committing two hours of my day, to abort the workout if I don't hit my pre-set marks or if I feel a twinge of an old injury. This happens 2-4 times a month.
Finally, pre- and post-workout fueling, active recovery, and most important, sleep. As you get older, a good night's sleep becomes increasingly elusive. Two years ago when I first started tracking sleep with a wearable and testing various sleep protocols... red lights, TV off, set bedtime, sleep supplements, cool room, grounding pillow, magnesium foot spray, commercial grade air filter, tablet set in night mode with a cozy murder mystery or similar light reading before going to sleep... before all that, I was typically getting 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 hours of sleep a night. I'm now averaging 7 1/2 hours. Sleep probably deserves its own thread. If you're not optimizing sleep, you're losing valuable recovery points that will adversely affect your next quality workout.
You say your T levels are "extremely high" for your age...so what are they then?
Also, are you aware of any graph(s) that show what the normal testosterone levels should be for older age groups? I've tried searching "normal testosterone levels for a 65 yr old male" & I keep getting a general broad scale that goes from hypogonadal (> 300 ng/dL to higher youth levels (900 ng/dL).
Every year with my annual PSA test & I get my T levels checked. The results come back from the lab in a broad range scale used by my HMO of 300 ng/dL to 870 ng/dL. It tells me nothing where I stand in the 65 yr old age demographics. And since I'm above 300 ng/dL, it just tells me that I'm not hypogonadal.