50+ Masters Training and Racing Open Forum

Good job. Tough to run when you are alone and in nowheres land. Glad you “bounced” back.

AG was designed to compare apples-with-apples. Comparing completely amateur 60-year olds with pro 20-somethings has no validity whatsoever. And that goes both ways. There is no way that Ed Whitlock would have ever run a 2:03 marathon and he would have been the first to say so (in fact I' pretty sure he did when it was brought up).

When I'm in Cheney this summer I will make point of telling the guy who runs 3rd or 4th place in 52-53.xx seconds that "you know, that's OK, but not really National Class, maybe you should train a little harder?" I'm sure that will go over well :)

1.

Khalid Mulazim

51 - Southwest Sprinters Track Club

51.13 # 1 8

^^^^ "National Class" (95% or better)

Also rans:

2.

Lee Bridges

50 - Explosion Track Club

52.13 1 6

3.

Christopher Brack

51 - Unattached

53.52 1

4.

Francois Boda

53 - Southwest Sprinters Track Club

53.81 1 4

5.

John Cormier

50 - Southwest Sprinters Track Club

54.14 1 3

6.

John Curtis

51 - Greater Philadelphia TC

54.34 1 2

7.

Marcus Shute Sr

54 - Southwest Sprinters Track Club

55.05 1 1

8.

Serge Faucher

53 - Unattached

56.28 1

??Why would you say that to anyone? Maybe they don't' even care. By the way 53 for 400 at age 50 is 93.45% so way above national class. 95% and up is World class - that is what is being presented. Those are great times and kudos to them all. Doesn't change the fact that at about 90% one becomes very competitive at a certain level in Masters. Really didn't meant to make you so angry. Even 80 or 85% are really good performances, just not on the same level as 90-95%.

It doesn't matter if they would have run that time when they were younger or not. I'm not saying that for myself either.

It is just a percentage. I do agree in the older age groups 80+ it is skewed because the overall data isn't there yet.

Now we are talking about marathons though and I was talking about track and sprints/middle distances. There will always be outliers- even Bolt is in the open- elite category.

Rtyype- I am thankful to Alan Jones and Howard Grubb !!

Another way to use the calculator is to look at your times at age 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, etc. and see if you are running comparable %'s or better. So in reality just comparing it to yourself. I have no problem with slowing down, totally fine with it, just want to slow down as little as possible if I can.

Assessor wrote:

AG was designed to compare apples-with-apples. Comparing completely amateur 60-year olds with pro 20-somethings has no validity whatsoever. And that goes both ways. There is no way that Ed Whitlock would have ever run a 2:03 marathon and he would have been the first to say so (in fact I' pretty sure he did when it was brought up).

Allright then...what time do you think Whitlock would have done in his prime? Maybe not 2:03 but perhaps sub 2:10 or so. ? The guy had freakish genetics to run the times he did as an old buck - why wouldn't those genetics kick in when he's younger. Genetics just don't suddenly appear with older runners who are running sizzling times and training like they're 25 yr old elites. A lot of these genetic specimens may not have ran in their earlier years or didn't train correctly nor hard enough to reach their potential. Some of them may have all together quit running for decades after HS or college resurrecting their running in their middle-age. But the genetics were always there.

And why not compare "60 year olds with pro 20-somthings?" In this new era of masters/grandmasters performance-based running, there are middle-agers training like they're a 25 yr old elite going to the Olympics. I know one cat in the masters club I belong to who is in his late 50s and running ~90 mpw, training virtually everyday with twice-weekly speed sessions and literally no downtime due to injuries! This defies all scientific logic on how an aging middle-aged body can withstand this type of physical demand without injury. Incredible!...this guy, as well as many other anti-aging wonders, should be studied in the lab.

My apologies, I have so much difficulty adopting your incredible standards that I made a mistake. So USA Championships had one world-class 400 runner over age 50 last year using your system. Got it now...I think.

The standards I have been using are from page 3 of the original publication of "WAVA Age-Graded Tables:

"Achievement Levels- Over 90% = World Class; Over 80% = National Class; Over 70% = Regional Class; Over 60% = Local Class

BTW the other part was a "joke", which I realize is not a common occurrence in the masters "elite" community. My bad.

RF reader wrote:

You may find it comforting that at least one member of this thread is not "intimidating." My best AG was 71.9% (19:47 5k @ age 45). Ironically, I never thought of 5k as my best distance. But that's what the age grade calculator says. Two years ago, I had climbed to 68.5% in marathon, thinking that I could top 70% in a few years. Well, unfortunately things haven't turned that way.

Sounds like you had kind of a tough race, but nice job pushing though to the end.

For what it's worth, I am currently running around 76-77% age graded in my "best" event, the half-marathon (at age 59). My very best times from age 33 age-grade to 83% for both the marathon and the half-marathon. So I've clearly lost quite a lot even relative to my age since I was at my best. Twelve extra pounds and cumulative injuries, I guess.

Thank you for air-quoting elite. If only they did that on Fox News.

amkelley wrote:

For what it's worth, I am currently running around 76-77% age graded in my "best" event, the half-marathon (at age 59). My very best times from age 33 age-grade to 83% for both the marathon and the half-marathon.

My age-grade percentages, 5K to marathon, are pretty consistent from lifetime PRs at age 23, to masters PRs at age 43, to most recently at age 58. By a small margin, my recent races scored the highest percentages. Still hoping to see some numbers like Coyote Montane, though!

amkelley, I hope you can find some relief for your achilles. I am barely managing through with mine. It's scarier than my ongoing sore knees. Easy to imagine it completely derailing my training.

RF reader -- Congrats on the marathon. You kept it going very well during those last few miles, all considered. Sounds like a tough day to get stranded in no-man's land.

Regarding falling, in a recent training run I fell hard THREE times. It was the strangest thing, out of the blue each time. Then it happened again on another run. I guess I'm not used to running at a shuffle pace, and even the smallest pebble is now a tripping hazard?

Clumsiness was one of the first symptoms before my brother died from brain cancer, so that's kind of on my mind, too.

Allen1959 wrote:

Regarding falling, in a recent training run I fell hard THREE times. It was the strangest thing, out of the blue each time. Then it happened again on another run. I guess I'm not used to running at a shuffle pace, and even the smallest pebble is now a tripping hazard?

Clumsiness was one of the first symptoms before my brother died from brain cancer, so that's kind of on my mind, too.

Funny you should say that. I used to fall from time to time on runs but I haven't done so in about five years, ever since I moved away from a rural area where all my winter running was done on completely dark roads with irregular shoulders. When I can see where I'm going and the road is reasonably smooth I seem to be able to stay vertical quite consistently. However, I usually manage to crater once or twice every summer when hiking on rugged trails in the mountains, and I need to pay a lot of attention to where I'm putting my feet. My husband laughs at my clumsiness. I can drop him on a long hard climb if the trail is reasonably smooth, but he leaves me in the dust descending a trail with lots of loose rocks and tripping hazards.

Two years ago I went to see an orthopedist about my Achilles problems. He immediately started putting me through all sorts of balance tests, most of which I failed miserably. He told me that I really should be using a cane to walk, because I was in major danger of falling and fracturing something. Having just finished hiking all over the Sierras during the past few months with exactly one minor fall, and having won my age group at several half-marathons the previous spring, I just laughed at him. I don't know whether I'm clumsier than I used to be, but I'm not about to initiate some endless round of neurological tests to chase down the source of my clumsiness.

skate- first of all, don't convert M50+ percentages to college/open age standards. It isn't what the system was designed for and it is by far the LEAST valid application of it. That system is subsidized by free tuition and professional $$$. Masters is the closest thing to true amateurism that still exists. Don't compare apples and oranges.

Second- you seem fixated on the medals podium as a measure of "National/World Class". Is Abel Kiprop not world class because he didn't make the podium in London '17? Is Bekele not World Class because he was out of the top three in the London Marathon? The word "class" has a much broader definition than you think it does. I will reiterate one more time: 90% WMA AG rating is WORLD CLASS. End of story.

i'm a little confused by this now too--i thought it WAS designed to compare, though i don't think it's meant to be the direct comparison some make it out to be, though maybe i'm wrong about that too. by the way, compare does not mean to say it's an attempt to draw an exact equivalence too--maybe it's just me, but i like the percentage because it at least gives me a framework to measure a performance, but i've never been fond of the "age graded result" time, which seems ridiculous to even try to extrapolate. especially when my best age graded result does NOT meet up with what i ran as a professional, and i enjoyed a relatively long professional career (though with a couple fewer $ signs than what assessor has above) where i had ample opportunity to explore and achieve my limits (which i know does not necessarily mean i met my limits, but that's something i can live with).

anyway, i can agree with the sentiment, but not the tone (or logic for that matter) of the above argument--i think 90% is a fair measure at our age for world class just because of the lack of depth in our field, but i don't think 90% is world class at professional ages. ultimately, "world class" is a fairly arbitrary and ambiguous term, left to the eye of the beholder (and, i suppose, their audience).

to that point, and without trying to sound to arrogant, i've run some world class percentages where i would happily and proudly accept the world class label, and some i wouldn't. i've been too busy to post regularly with the closing of the high school track season upon me (i will have attended 6 meets and 1 road race between my own racing and coaching from saturday to saturday), but i did manage a 4:15.19 1500m at the steve scott invite at uc irvine this past saturday. i can never figure out which calculator to use, but it looks like that comes out to 92.2 % on grubbs but 94.45 on the mastersathletics site--truth be told, i don't care: it didn't feel like world class to me when i know 50y y/o brad barton ran 14 seconds faster a couple of years back (crushing me when i was 48!), and there's a 50 y/o british dude who's run sub-4 for 1500. even if i were ranked 3rd in the world with this time, the fact that i'm over 15 seconds back in a 1500, against guys who i think are fully human and in the ranges of my abilities, makes me feel less than world class--and i don't care what anyone else says or whatever any other masters website proclaims.

so keep chasing 95 % skate-or 94.087, or 97.00003. you've been at this long enough to know when and where you'll be satisfied with it, with or without the "world class" label...

that's my story and i'm sticking to it,

cush

Cush- That "Age-graded result" is exactly what I take strong issue with. It is like saying that a college kid running 3:58 today is the equivalent to Roger Bannister in status. Each represents a completely different situation with regard to training,knowledge racing opportunities, compensation, etc.. Over050 athletes are in a completely different competitive situation in training and racing, as well as economic. I think we agree substantively on the limitations of the AG system.

As for your 4:15.19: it would have been the third fastest 1500 for all of 2017 M50-54. If, as you imply, what you consider world class would be under say, 4:10, there was only ONE world class runner in the M50 last year. He ran 4:07.

I guess I am a bit more inclusive than those who are including only one or two athletes each year in the world-class designation. Either that or humanity is failing miserably in some peoples' estimations.

A question for the coaches that frequent this forum.

What are the key sessions you would prescribe to naturally increase your max HR.

I know I'm not getting any younger and to a certain degree declining max HR comes with age.

I train and race relatively hard and while I'm generally happy with my results my HR kinda sucks, example last week's 5k, I gave the race a good spanking, particular in the 2nd half and reached a max of 172, a few guys I train with, who are 5 years younger and only 20-30 seconds faster are getting in the 190's.

I also seem to have a narrow HR spread, a recovery run (5k pace + 2min45) is 130, so only 40 blips.

I run very regularly, on average 18/19 days out of 20 for the last 5 years, averaging 3,000+ miles per year.

Spent a few years focusing on my endurance as that was a weakness and ran a couple of sub 3's as an M45 and paced a handful of marathons in the 3:20 - 3:30 range, hit my half goal of sub 80 and my sub 60 10 mile.

Focus now is 3k track and 5k road, with 9:45 and sub 17 as the time targets.

I ran 9:54 indoors and 17:07 outdoors earlier this year off 3 key sessions, a 16 mile steady state run every 2 weeks (sub 7 pace), a tempo session (6min pace), which progressed from 3 x 2M to 1 x 6M over 5-6 weeks and a form session, 30-60 secs strides, drills and short high knee hills.

Any thoughts welcome or do I just suck it up?

SP

The three determinants of VO2max/endurance capacity is max HR, stroke volume & O2 extraction. Your max HR is determined by genetics and can't be improved. The other two can be improved by training stimulus. Max HR starts declining at around 40 - 45 yrs of age and can't be stopped no matter what. It's inevitable us middle-agers start losing that horsepower due to aging.

However, stroke volume & O2 extraction can be maintained through proper training as we age. Notice how so many aging endurance athletes still have very low resting HRs - a strong, powerful stroke volume from years of hard cardiovascular training (I'm 58 and my resting HR is mid-40s...about the same as it was in my younger years). So, as with other aspects of the body, we can do some things to slow down the aging process while we have no control over others.

Tell It Like It Is wrote:

Coyote Montane wrote:

Agree. From an aging hack hobby jogger here, who only had less than modest results as an open and masters runner until as of late, it's more about the process than the top finishes. Work your strengths, address the weaknesses, and simply enjoy being out there and being healthy.

Hobby jogger? C'mon man...you've got some serious speed for your age. You've posted some of your race results and I believe you're a 90 percenter in some distances (?). Unless those fast times you run are just mere pleasure jogging, you're far from a "hobby jogger" in my book. The gap between the fast and the slow in the middle-ages can be huge, hence the categories of "hobby joggers" and the masters/grandmasters "elite."

First, thing this IS Letsrun.com! Anyone slower than low 2:13 marathon or equivalent (say 28:30 10K, 13:50 5K) is non-professional therefore a hobbyjogger! (at least that's the scowlly consensus, along with the million dollar home, $400K income, retirement at 35 etc.)

And what I meant was my college times would be considered almost laughable on the main board--I did not break 4:30 in the mile as an undergrad. Post college got into the mid-80s for age grading. What I've managed to do, however is not slow down in 8K and up for the the past 15 years. That's part better training (cutting back on xc skiing and running year-round after 2014), better diet, less stress, etc.

Anyway, great discussion and I agree with a lot's that's been said. One thing is sprint times tend to have higher age grade percentages. So a 90% for 100-400 m doesn't stand out as much as with the distance. Maybe mid-d is somewhere in between. For 45 and up 90% usually will get you on the podium at USATF track races, and definitely on the roads for 5K and up.

As far as the limits of age grading, that's been pretty well covered in this conversation--nevertheless, USATF is recognizing age grading at its road championships there is incentive to go after it.

I am offering my fairly simple view of the age grading debate. I paid only limited attention to the age grading charts age a younger mid-50s masters trackster. As a mid-60s trackster I have found it motivating in navigating the inevitible aging process. The gaps between performance and decline increase exponentially with age. At least that is true with a larger sample of individuals. Right?

Igy

I started using a heart rate monitor again this winter, after about a decade without one. The reason I started wearing one again is that I was doing the Orange Theory gym workouts -- it's a fitness chain that extolls the "orange zone" (as they define it) of 84%-92% of max heart rate as the target intensity for workouts (which are a combination of treadmill running, indoor rowing, and weight training).

The experience became a little frustrating because they only use standardized charts based on age and weight to calculate heart rate zones—and my values don't match the charts. These days my max is 170, along with a fairly low resting rate of 40, or sometimes a bit lower. The charts had pegged me as having a 180 max heart rate.

So there were many workouts at the gym where I never got into the target "orange zone" but was still running and rowing (former competitive rower) at a faster pace than anyone around me.

Anyway, the whole thing was interesting. I even contacted a former rowing partner who is now a heart surgeon to get his take. He said that my low max heart didn't seem unusual for an aging athlete with decades of aerobic training, and that I should be encouraged that the output (running/rowing pace) was still strong.

Great job on the 4:15.19.

Your 3:55.09 at age 45 is 96.22%. (World class in my book). Looking ahead t o age 55 this is the equivalent of a 4:14.72 (96.22%). I think used in this manner the AG calculator can give us certain goals or times to shoot for based on past performances.

Thank you for that, yes perhaps when I do hit 95% some day, if ever, I will be satisfied or maybe I will just have to reevaluate my goals. I do think I will hit 93% next year in the 800. I do like you story, by the way.

I'll tell you a little story about Jim Sorensen at the end of this post about "National vs World".

I personally don't believe that everyone achieves their 100% potential and it sounds like you feel the same. I think you feel you could have gone even faster in your pro days given certain circumstances. Maybe not by a lot, but still a possibility.

Question: When we talk about comparing an equivalent age graded time to an open/elite time, how is that any different then comparing a M75 time, as example to an age M40 time? A 2:40 by a 75 year old male in the 800 is 93.56%, that same % for a 40 year old would be a 1:53.70. I don't see folks up in arms screaming "but I doubt very much you could have run that when you were 40!" Who cares if they could of or not. AG is just meant to show how strong a particular performance is for a certain age group.

Assessor continues to draw comparisons to rankings. I’m sorry, but that is confusing to me. Like you said regardless of where you are ranked right now with your 4:15- it doesn't feel "World class".

Every year some events have more depth than others and one year a #5 could be a #15 the next. I don’t see what rankings have to do with being labeled national or world class. I feel we are kidding ourselves if one year we are ranked 6th in the men’s 60-64 steeple chase with a decent, but perhaps only 82% age graded mark and then tell folks we are “world class”. Ok, I guess if that is what you want to think. For me the numbers don’t lie. For me it is based on a percentage of the record performance, whatever it is- and I don’t care if there are one off outliers are not. I still believe that 90% is National class and 95% and up is a World class performance. Nothing has swayed me from that argument, but perhaps I just keep looking for more evidence or supporting data in order to continue to believe that.

Jim Sorensen ran a 1:50.34 at age 40 for a Masters WR in the 800m. 96.41%.

His 800m PR was 1:47.24 and his 1500 and mile PR’s were 3:38.65 and 3:59.16.

His 3:44.06 1500 Masters WR = 97.21%

When other masters runners started coming up and breaking his records like Shabunin and Whiteman we had a discussion abut where the potential of these records may end up. He was quick to point out to me that he was a National class runner in his day and not a World class runner and that other World class runners who eventually move into the master’s arena will continue to lower those records as they were more talented in their day.

So even Sorensen was hesitant to adopt the “world class” title. That really gave me some perspective.

Just wanted to say that Ed had such amazing running form. Elegant power at any distance he ran. He was to senior marathoners what Bill Collins still is to senior sprinters: