Evidence? He was an Olympian as a younger man and still puts in 100 miles a week. I am certain that there is some doping going on in the older age-groups but Tommy seems to be following in Ed Whitlock's footsteps - a talented runner that just keeps at it and trains more than just about anyone his age.
...and super shoes.
This age grades to 2:00:29. Right.
From a runner whose best was 2.13. So he's effectively another Kipchoge - or even better? Really?
Evidence? He was an Olympian as a younger man and still puts in 100 miles a week. I am certain that there is some doping going on in the older age-groups but Tommy seems to be following in Ed Whitlock's footsteps - a talented runner that just keeps at it and trains more than just about anyone his age.
...and super shoes.
This age grades to 2:00:29. Right.
With respect, I think his current performance is incredible but entirely believable.
The shoes help undoubtedly; not only in his times but also with his consistency - but this is true for every other runner.
It is important not to be thrown off by age grades as they don't add up.
His latest performance does not equal 2:00:29 at any age regardless of what some table says.
You can't criticize the man for running the time he ran. I personally think he can run faster at Berlin, for example.
It's wrong and a little naïve to be suspicious of an equivalent graded time.
If I really had to do my own bro-science equivalent time I would say somewhere between 2:08 and 2:14.
Then it becomes a lot less suspicious and wholly plausible.
Kudos to him for his performances, but I'm sure with time others at that age will eventually achieve similar results.
From what I know of his training he does a lot of doubles so thats how the mileage gets done. I think its also frequently over 100. He does quite a few 5k and 10k races, and doesnt seem to taper that much when doing them. Also I don't believe he is working full time so he doesn't have to balance that in with training.
Terrific results to be able to run 2:30 consistently at 62, and like every runner he will be going for the 2:29 so probably disappointed!
With respect, I think his current performance is incredible but entirely believable.
The shoes help undoubtedly; not only in his times but also with his consistency - but this is true for every other runner.
It is important not to be thrown off by age grades as they don't add up.
His latest performance does not equal 2:00:29 at any age regardless of what some table says.
You can't criticize the man for running the time he ran. I personally think he can run faster at Berlin, for example.
It's wrong and a little naïve to be suspicious of an equivalent graded time.
If I really had to do my own bro-science equivalent time I would say somewhere between 2:08 and 2:14.
Then it becomes a lot less suspicious and wholly plausible.
Kudos to him for his performances, but I'm sure with time others at that age will eventually achieve similar results.
Age grading is science. It is based on objective data. The fact is: this guy is far outperforming his younger self.
It's not linear with every person. In my n of 1, my personal bests for half marathon in my 20s was 1:10 (and maybe with better training and coaching could have gone 1:08 or so, but can't see being faster than that). Since my mid-50s (so several years) have been age grading at >90% (1:02-1:04, with or without super shoes). Definitely not in Tommy Hughes's league but at least fast enough to win my age group here and there. Some fall off the curve faster than others. And some leap ahead of the curve because everyone ages somewhat differently.
Age grading is science. It is based on objective data. The fact is: this guy is far outperforming his younger self.
It's not linear with every person. In my n of 1, my personal bests for half marathon in my 20s was 1:10 (and maybe with better training and coaching could have gone 1:08 or so, but can't see being faster than that). Since my mid-50s (so several years) have been age grading at >90% (1:02-1:04, with or without super shoes). Definitely not in Tommy Hughes's league but at least fast enough to win my age group here and there. Some fall off the curve faster than others. And some leap ahead of the curve because everyone ages somewhat differently.
Fair point. And good for you, those are very impressive AG times. It is indeed possible that this guy ages freakishly slowly and can thus "leap ahead" of the AG curve to a 1:59-2:00 marathon. One would love to know why.
been hurt for 4 years from slipping on ice and pulling groin. Have definitely gotten slower over these 4 years...not sure how much of it is just not able to do the mileage, the speed work, or the injury holding me back...or maybe aging.
Don't plan on using super shoes, so it will be interesting to compare times once i start racing.
last race was around 1:12-1:13 for a 1/2 marathon - best mile rep now is only 5:39, so that me be way out of my range now. (before injury i would expect to do 6 X mile in 5:10-5:20) Some days i can't break 6:00. so having low goals on each workout is the key. for example:
going into each workout with no/low expectations helps. Every time i get too set on a time or number of reps, it does not go well. last workout was 15x400 ave 82 on 40 second rest. I take short rest because it makes it more of an effort since i can't seem to go fast. I always have to start really slow - like 100, 93, 88, 84 then down to 77. always have to get through the shock of being so slow early on before the effort actually gets easier. on 200's i can get down to 33. but again i start at 50. i am only running 30-50 miles per week now...taking days off for injury and running by feel means some days i just don't feel it.
It's not linear with every person. In my n of 1, my personal bests for half marathon in my 20s was 1:10 (and maybe with better training and coaching could have gone 1:08 or so, but can't see being faster than that). Since my mid-50s (so several years) have been age grading at >90% (1:02-1:04, with or without super shoes). Definitely not in Tommy Hughes's league but at least fast enough to win my age group here and there. Some fall off the curve faster than others. And some leap ahead of the curve because everyone ages somewhat differently.
Fair point. And good for you, those are very impressive AG times. It is indeed possible that this guy ages freakishly slowly and can thus "leap ahead" of the AG curve to a 1:59-2:00 marathon. One would love to know why.
He is way ahead of Ed Whitlock in his 60's, and was Ed not "freakish" also?
He has been very consistent for 30 years, that's why he races so well at his age.
You know nothing about aging if you think there is anything credible about a marathon runner who slows only 10% from his absolute peak at age 32 to age 62.
He has been very consistent for 30 years, that's why he races so well at his age.
You know nothing about aging if you think there is anything credible about a marathon runner who slows only 10% from his absolute peak at age 32 to age 62.
We already know you are old, with hip replacements, and you can't run.
No need to be so bitter about those who age better than you.
Aging is associated with a gradual physiological decline, including an imbalance in hormone profile, increased adiposity, and reduced anti-inflammatory cytokines. However, lifelong physical exercise mitigates aging, as observ...
In the last decades, the participation of elderly trained people in endurance events such as marathon running has dramatically increased. Previous studies suggested that the performance of master runners (>40 years) during ma...
This guy is pretty awesome and you will continue to see Age Group records fall all over the place. Yes, you do slow down as you age but 1.) with speed work you an compete 2.) You learn a lot with experience on race well 3.) with weight lifting and diet you can still put on significant mileage. I "viewed running as secondary sport" and I was a sub 31 10K guy and 1.11 half guy back in the day, pretty good but not Olympic level by any means. At 55, I did some national age group races (1500 (ran 4.49 which go only 6th, 5k (won my age group) and 10K (second in my age group) and I can confirm their are some fast old guys out there. Last 5 years I focused Triathlon (I am 61 now). Won my age group at the Ironman 70.3 Worlds last year...my PR for the 70.3 distance is 4 hours and 15 minutes thanks to a 2.07 bike split (56.5 miles at 25.5 mph) and then 1.29 Half Marathon. You do not slow down too much on the bike, I beat many folks half my age in these races overall and I pick off a few pros on the bike. I did a 3.30 marathon on hilly course after a 2.4 mile swim and 112 mile bike with 6,200 feet of climbs in full Ironman last fall to earn a spot at Kona. There are 1-2 others in my age on Ironman circuit with similar times and dozen about 10-20 minutes back. Remember at our age, the kids are gone, work is steady (some are retired) and you have 20-25 hours a week to focus on this stuff. I don't do a lot of stand alone running races anymore, no way I could do a 2.30, though. That is sick. But I can see how a former Olympic runner could.
I just watched this interview with Tommy from October 2020, for anyone interested in learning more about Tommy, I don't think you will be disappointed:
Tommy discusses a career in running and the drive which has seen him potentially run sub 2 hour and 30 minute marathons in 4 different decades.One word - ins...
He gives some insight into his training, nutrition and goals.
Breaking 2:30 again sounds like a big priority for him and it's amazing how close he's come since turning 60. I think he has run 2:30:02 and 2:30:05 within the last 2 years, so he's right on the edge, maybe he'll have another shot. He mentioned that he's run under 2:30 in 4 decades (1980's through 2010's) and believes he would be the first to do it in 5 decades if he's able to pull it off.
He also believes marathon training is easier on the body at his age compared to training for shorter distances.
