When did age start slowing you down?

Racerdb wrote:

stay away from marathons...

This seems to be a recurring theme. I heard many years ago that the body only has so many good marathons in it (whatever defines "good" for you). As a young man, I didn't want to believe it; I thought I'd be racing marathons for the rest of my life. Well, guess what? Recurring knee injuries have ended my marathon days. At this point, my only goal is to run consistently for health. I really don't have any serious competitive goals left.

I am 76. I started to run and race year round at age 22. I felt the beginnings of slowing down at about age 38. After 41, I kept running but lost the interest racing seriously. I have felt that the rate of slowing down accelerated as I aged. At present, I only walk but I hope to jog again.[/quote]

Mr. Atkins, you are in inspiration for us all. Thank you for sharing.[quote]Orville Atkins wrote:

A friend of mine, who is a respected, long-time runner (since late '60s) and coach (since mid '70s), made the following astute observation: Most runners will see improvements for 5 to 6 years after they begin running (assuming adulthood). If they stick with it, they will then plateau for another 5-6 years. After this, their times will drop off for any number of reasons---age, injury, motivation. The kicker is that it doesn't matter much when they start (up to a point). Obviously, this is not a strict rule (there are plenty of exceptions), but represents a general pattern he's observed over the past 40+ years of continuous running and coaching.

Many of us, who ran in our teen/college years---took our middle years off---then picked it back up as masters, may repeat this pattern.

So maybe the answer is: something (whether it's age or something else) will probably start slowing you down 10-12 years after you started.

And if you are lucky enough to be able to continue to run into your 50's and 60's (and beyond), you can be grateful that you are able to experience the gradual slowdown that age inevitably brings---many don't have that luxury.

This is a great observation and is generally true.

Also, to the old runners complaining about slowing down, I want to slap you. I can't run at all now due to knee injuries. I would LOVE to run as slow as you.

This morning, I think.

At 28 I started battling hip problems, I was still able to race rather quickly. Now I'm 32 and both hips and knees ache and I can run relatively pain free, but the aches are there all the time.

I know Dick Beardsley still runs 70-80 miles a week on both total knee replacements, if you are willing to go through that recovery period. Nothing is worse than hip surgery though, takes over a year to recover from.

Well, my best PR's are at ages 24 and 25.

25 was my last year of high level training and I felt things breaking down. My feet hurt all of the time.

I stopped after that year and felt I didn't have much more to give in the 800 and 1500.

I probably could have improved my 5K and 10K PR's after that, but mostly because I didn't train to peak for those distances.

I didn't run much in my late 20's so I was certainly slower.

Ages 32-34 I made a bit of an attempt at regualr training and I brought my 5K down to where it was still more than a minute slower than my PR.

My mile time came down to 30 seconds slower.

Still not comparable training time so that has to be factored in.

Didn't run for 2-3 years after that becasue of an achilles strain.

Late 30's I was slower. But felt that real drop off after hitting 40. Quarter speed was gone and that affected everying on up.

I am 62 and started running at age 29 and soon after ran a 4 mile race at a 6:53 pace and then didn't run another race until I was 49 and that was a Marathon (4:16) and then ran 2 at age 50 and one at age 51 and then didn't run any more marathons. I ran a half in 04 and then 07 and then 15 more since then with my fastest being last month (1:50:55, 8:28 pace). Now I am happy when I can run a mile in less than 9 minutes so I have slowed down a couple minutes per mile over the years; I guess it has been gradual but luckily I can still run. I raced 9 halfs last year and one so far this year and signed up for one the end of the month.

frets wrote:

I don't think so. I'm 54, started running at 40, and have done a little over 30,000 miles. I'm not fat, about 5'9 150 lbs, maybe I'd be faster if I were smaller and around 135-140, not going to happen with my frame. Anyway, I've trained about as hard as I can and can't get past certain limits...lucky to get under 20 in a 5K now and only got under 19 twice...I too started running marathons right away and wish I'd focused on the 5K, but I know I could have trained a lot harder (more fast miles) when the body was younger. My best years came when I was 48 and 50...I was about as good in the 10K at 53 as at 48 and 45 but I'm beginning to think I can't handle marathon mileage anymore.

Heh. Are you me? Exact same story, cept I started running at 36. Started with marathons and little else until I was about 48. Then met a few 'real' runners and now at 51 I run faster at every distance from mile to 26.2 than I ever have. At 48, I ran my first 5K in years in 19:41 and this past summer I ran a 5,000 in under 18min for the first time ever. I'm lucky in that my whole running career has been injury-free. That I think is my only running 'talent' (durability) because it certainly isn't speed. My training is going really well this year and I can see more PRs coming this year when I turn 52.

If I could go back to 36 I wouldn't run all those ridiculous marathons I did and I'd run more and on grass and trails rather than the roads.

For me it was 42. I ran some of my fastest times all year until I entered 3 marathons within a short time frame. Ran like a crazy idiot in the first one at dropped out at 15 ran another one a week later on the other side of the globe and never hurt so much but finished. Then I decided to run another marathon two weeks after that. I haven't been the same since. It's my own fault lots of stupid running decisions.

Have to agree that too many marathons will destroy your running. For me I simply ran too many of them in a short period of time. I still run one every once in a while but my times suck.

To be honest the slower I get the less motivated I am.

Wow guys, this thread is depressing, though I'll take heart in the fact that I only started running seriously a few years ago. Currently almost 39, marathon PR 2:58 in my 4th attempt, still improving, feeling great, but only really interested in marathons.

Training for Boston and then Chicago, and occasionally running other marathons slower as "training runs." Ultimately want to be a 50 stater, but get them all in sub-3:30. Am I insane? I just love the marathon distance and hate racing short distances, even though I'm not bad at them (did a 5:12 mile last year.)

I don't mind the prospect of slowing down. Please tell me I'll be able to do 50-70 mpw with a weekly tempo for a long, long time! Thanks to everyone for the honest feedback.

This matches my experience. I started running seriously around age 20. I maxed out around age 27, held pretty steady until 32, and now I'm starting to drop off.

I've been pretty much injury free the whole time. I think my issue is that I don't have the same motivation to keep training hard. I'm running Boston, but after reading through this thread, I feel pretty lucky that I got through injury free.

Maybe I should be like Barry Sanders and get out before the big injury comes and become a 5-mile per day runner?

Edgemont Dave wrote:

Wow guys, this thread is depressing, though I'll take heart in the fact that I only started running seriously a few years ago. Currently almost 39, marathon PR 2:58 in my 4th attempt, still improving, feeling great, but only really interested in marathons.

Training for Boston and then Chicago, and occasionally running other marathons slower as "training runs." Ultimately want to be a 50 stater, but get them all in sub-3:30. Am I insane? I just love the marathon distance and hate racing short distances, even though I'm not bad at them (did a 5:12 mile last year.)

I don't mind the prospect of slowing down. Please tell me I'll be able to do 50-70 mpw with a weekly tempo for a long, long time! Thanks to everyone for the honest feedback.

You might. It's possible that you're genetically blessed and you'll miss the fate that has beset so many of us. But that will put you in the minority.

For the majority of us though, if you run hard enough, long enough, some injury is eventually going to bring you down.

56 here, quit racing but not running six years ago due to a persistent achilles bursitis which is now healed. Been running pain free and mostly watch free for the last year. Most days feel good to great and at least one day a month I feel like I am flying. Probably slower but who cares when you feel and look good. My overall fitness and athletic level is the highest it's ever been, due to tons of cross training, ancillary work and pursuing other sports.

I'll race again this year, shooting for a sub 5:00 mile, 40 years after my first.

Mick Lovin wrote:

When I was 52, I tried to break 17 in a flat 5k. My time was 16:57, the official time was 17:01. Oh well.

that's still very impressive.. look at the age-grading calculators, for example RunnersWorld

rates that as a 107% ag score, equivalent to 14:38 for a young'un.

I was running high 15s in my 20s, now at 52 can't break 21 anymore. At 50 I tried a couple of months' training at similar volume/intensity to that shown in training logs from thirty years ago, but it did not make any significant difference - dropped 20 seconds is all.

some more statistical digging with extra ranting here,

The age grade tables are a good indicator of where performance declines. They are based on actual data (fastest time for that age, but adjusted a bit for linearity). Of course the tables do not account for attrition. A large percentage get injured, lose motivation, get fat, etc. and become a non factor in masters running. Bob Kennedy is my age and would probably have the AG record if he bothered to try.

As others have said, lots of factors play into a decline. My observation has been that past 40, many get injured, lose fitness and can never quite get back where they were. The key is to not get injured, but the decline still happens gradually.

Some say "when I had kids". I'm running better with a 2yr old at home, but have a very encouraging wife. I have been a good age group runner for almost 30yrs, so it's not like I just started. I attribute that partly to running more from home, on trails, and doing tempo instead of going to the Tuesday night track workout (aka the club race night). Mostly, I run how I feel now. I save my 100% efforts for race day and I race less than I did 10yrs ago. This also keeps my motivation up. With less races and not being constantly aware of my 400 splits, I often under estimate my fitness and am pleasantly surprised at races. That said, I'm holding steady, not getting faster at almost 43.

ronner wrote:

"When did age start slowing you down?"

When my first child turned one day old.

Hehe. And your wife started slowing down nine months before that. :)

Really though, as a female who just turned 26, I'd love to hear more about what running is like for aging women. Seems like hormones, childbirth, and pregnancy can really throw a monkeywrench into that stuff for the girls.

My dad was a runner but now just hikes, lifts weights, yardwork/gardening and runs 3-4 miles every now and then. His knees and ankles can't take any kind of "training" anymore, and I'm assuming it's an osteoarthritis thing. I am guessing I have similar genetics coming down the pipe... and I've also had a bunion on one foot since I was in eighth grade (genetic, but I don't think running has been good for it, and it's starting to hurt). I've been running pretty high mileage (80 mpw or so, though I've hit quite a few 100s) but easy most of the time. Just ran my fourth marathon in 3:02 and hope to break 3:00 in my next one. I honestly don't understand how people can or would train seriously for more than one marathon a year.

I occasionally run with a group of mostly master's aged men, and one guy is 74 and still out there going strong. Is he as fast as he was at age 35? Of course not, but at least he's out there. At any given road race, I don't observe nearly as many female as male runners in the 60+ range, and I wonder how much of that is related to biology as opposed to culture (e.g., maybe the women in their 60s and 70s right now just didn't grow up caring about running when they were younger, so why would they start caring now...)

It would be great if there was some sort of world wide website where you could compare exactly where you stood amongst all the other runners in your age group.

For example, below are my lifetime PRs and what I ran for those same distances in my current 50-54 AG. Am I better than average, average or less than average amongst runners in my age group today?

5k -> PR = 16:04, avg. 50-54 AG time = 18:17-18:30

8k -> PR = 26:45, avg. 50-54 AG time = 30:20-30:50

HM -> PR = 1:14, avg. 50-54 time = 1:24-1:26

MAR -> PR = 2:41, avg. 50-54 AG time = 3:00:30-3:04

I still knock out 50mpw over 6 days per week with speedwork on Tuesdays & Fridays and a 12-13 mile long run on Sundays. Maybe I'm running too much for my age? Maybe I'd actually be faster if I reduced my mileage and only did ONE hard workout per week???

Thoughts?