50+ Masters Training and Racing Open Forum

Age-Grading or % of WR... It's a motivator for me to continue to toe the line, aging year over year, with something consistent to aim for. My banner years were not collegiate performances; if I eye-ball the Age-Grade 'could-ah-should-ah-would-ah' Calculator. They were a fun 5-year stretch from 43 through 47. I did manage a matching 94%-ter year in the 1500 & 800 but most years I am always higher in the 800 vs the 1500 vs the Mile, and really drop from 3000 to 5k. Feel free to call my names.

KP

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.

to reply on both of the above: i think i actually did reach my potential (though i certainly wished i could have run faster, and felt that maybe some of my training would have indicated that possibility--but isn't that the lot of every athlete, to think they could've run faster/jumped higher/thrown farther?), as much as you can measure such a term--outside of maybe two outlying performances, my age graded data would support that i ran pretty much what i should have run from about 16 years old until now. to that point, i ran my exact open PR twice in two separate years (92 and 93) down to the hundredth of a second; in 94 i ran within a tenth of a second of my PR; in 95, i ran my mile PR which translates to within hundredths of my 1500 PRs from 92 and 93. apparently there was a limit that i seemingly couldn't surpass, though not for lack of trying (and dreaming). my performances post-40 match up pretty well with my open age grades.

so, i am one of a few who can say that extrapolating the performance (not the percentage) to a certain time can actually be proven right or wrong at least to some degree, but i think it's still foolhardy to do so since i had every opportunity to run whatever my 96% age grade at 45 translates to. i doubt coghlan would look at his 3:58 indoor mile at age 41 and it's translation a 3:43.4 and think "wow, that's what i could have run as an open runner!" or "i guess i under-achieved with my 3:49 mile PR at age 31!" i'd imagine he'd say "who cares?" on the other hand, i bet he'd look at the 99.6% age grade and at least recognize the enormity of the feat, and maybe even recognize it as one of his greatest racing efforts, and maybe even recognize it as THE greatest racing effort of his career, but comparing times seems silly--and i'd imagine whitlock would think it's silly to ruminate on what he could have done "in his prime." clearly his prime was exactly when it was--in his 70s...

i don't know if that explains why i'm ok with the percentages for comparison's sake, but not the times. and, at the end of the day, the best part of this sport, especially as masters, is that we can set our own standards of success (and i don't think anyone here was trying to impose their standards on others), appreciate the relativity of it all, and respect the fact that none of us escape the pain this sport (and father time) exacts upon us, which is why it has value in the first place. if it were easy, everyone would be doing it...

carpe crepusculem,

cush

Was just having a play with the Howard Grubb calculator using one of my target distances, 3,000m.

It's about a 5 seconds loss per year to hang on to 90%, approx 0.88% decline.

50 | 09:18 | 90.14%

51 | 09:23 | 90.07%

52 | 09:28 | 90.02%

53 | 09:32 | 90.12%

54 | 09:37 | 90. 09%

55 | 09:42 | 90.05%

My 09:54 puts me at 85.37%, I just need to hold that for 7 years to hit the 90's :o), simples.

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.

Yeah, even if I called myself a sub-elite masters I'd probably get slammed on the main board. So that's why old hobby jogger does give some safe space for this aging snowflake.

I like cush's follow-up assessment (this page) on age grade times--they are fun to look at but not 1:1. The percentages are useful for comparing how you are doing within your age group and how well, or not, you are aging as a runner. But we have to remember that due to aging and attrition the competition level (and percents) get weaker as we get older. That is not to say that it's going to stay that way forever; this whole masters thing is fairly new and we are still in the first wave although not the pioneers.

And skate that's kind of what I've been able to do. From mid 80s age grade percents in my early 40s to the scrap heap of injury into my mid-40s, but since then been holding fairly steady timewise (short distances times have fallen off and marathons are increasingly tough), but in that mid-range at 60 hanging pretty close to to where I was in my late 40s and early 50s. Hope to keep it up for a few more years. But the real reward is just getting out the door and being able to train for an hour or more a day.

Assessor wrote:

Ed's pic

https://www.runnersworld.com/sites/runnersworld.com/files/styles/article_main_custom_user_desktop_1x/public/whitlock_sidebar.jpg?itok=CfW-dOD7&timestamp=1461617579

Holy Moly...he looks emaciated! - pure skin & bones. Definitely built for distance running...no surprises there. His impact forces must be miniscule with a frame like that (I recall reading somewhere that his running weight was ~112 lbs?) Funny thing though; this is the genetic body type that I believed to be perfect for running fast marathons into your older years. Then along comes this middle-aged fellow Green who runs a fast marathon built like a body builder turning everything upside down as far as big, muscular, powerful middle-aged guys not being capable of running fast marathons:

Talk about a paradox! Can you imagine lining up these two guys side by side? It would be like lining up a gazelle & lion. Lol.

My age-graded times from last year are bit faster than my open PRs. But I like to think they reasonably indicate my potential had I trained as consistently in my 20s as I have for the last couple years.

Last year:

15:47 AG 5K versus PR of 16:04

2:36:16 AG marathon versus PR of 2:40:30

Next year I would like to improve that marathon AG time to 2:27, which admittedly seems like a huge stretch.

That's an 83.5% age grade. I managed 82% for 5K and 15K last year, so maybe a couple more years of consistent training can make it happen? Despite 45 years of running, that level of consistency is uncharted territory.

Here’s one for you. Talk about decline, I can now run 200 meters at the pace I once ran a marathon.

Oh well.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I can now run 200 meters at the pace I once ran a marathon.

Ouch. But, hey, that's one of the consequences of being so darn fast in your younger days!

Last year, I lamented that my youthful marathon pace was now EXACTLY my 5K pace.

Interestingly, my marathon pace last year was exactly a minute slower per mile than both my age 23 marathon pace and my geezer 5K pace. One minute was also the same differential, 5K to marathon pace, in my youth.

Igy, been thinking of you. Sounds like things are going reasonably well, yes? Hang in there. A lifetime of strength and resiliency is no doubt paying dividends now.

Thanks Allen1959. Doing well. Catching up with some projects around the house this week. A better use of time post infusion. Thirty-five days until my last chemo treatment.

Igy

So in regards to age graded performances, my wife and I ran the 4 mile Trolley Run last weekend. It's point to point, net downhill, but she has run it for 25 of the last 30 years. There has been one slight course change in that time, but it's still basically the same course, same finish area in KC MO.

As a 60 year old, she ran 29:50 this year, age graded 81.4%, worth a 23:35. Three times in her 30's (ages 32, 35, 37) she ran under 24. At age 37 she ran 23:41, which age graded to 82.2% and 23:22. I have not looked at the weather from that year (a tailwind on this race can certainly affect a performance) or her competition. I have NOT looked into age graded her times in her age 40's or 50's as yet, but I do know that when she pins a number on, LOOK OUT, it's game on for that competitive spirit.

So my point? There is certainly a nice consistency in the new age graded tables, at least for one woman, with this one distance. And, yes, I am bragging on my wife. Her mileage for the MONTH of April was a TOTAL of 95 miles! Wish I could bottle and sell that kind of effort. Anyhow, she finished 2nd in 60-64 this year (a 61 year old ran 29:03, pretty awesome, too) and my wife was 5th among all women over age 50. Even with sleep deprivation, stresses about her Mom's health, etc., she can race well, oh, and she took 2nd by one second! Oh, and 2nd out of 111 in 60-64.

I ran 31:21 as a near 67 year old for 11th of 68 in 65-69.

Coyote Montane wrote:

But we have to remember that due to aging and attrition the competition level (and percents) get weaker as we get older. That is not to say that it's going to stay that way forever; this whole masters thing is fairly new and we are still in the first wave although not the pioneers.

Matt Fitzgerald, in one of his books, suggests there may be a third factor beyond aging and attrition, though it's related to both -- namely that we have a lifetime reserve of "bounce" and that competitive runners eventually run out of it. That is, a fast younger racer might become less competitive in masters than their earlier times would suggest, because of the sheer beating her body has taken over the years. I haven't paid attention to golf in years, but I recall this was something that happened when the senior circuit began, guys who had struggled to keep their PGA cards were suddenly winning Senior events.

Needless to say this is a theory I'm clinging to, since I've barely tapped my lifetime supply of whatever ...

Interesting. Perhaps. One thing that can be done by masters runners though is to sort of cycle through the years. Competitive at the beginning of a 5 year age group age 60-61, take time off and cross train/lower mileage age 62-64 before ramping it back up for age 65. I have seen some athletes do that seems to work for them. One more note on rankings- those are mostly self reported. I have a 51 year team mate with a 2:30 800 and 4:12 1500 so far this year and you won't find it on the mastersranking website. #1 in the World. Maybe at the end of the season he may post one of his times if he feels good about it. I think Power of 10 will allow you to post for someone though, but not the US Rankings.

KCgeezer wrote:

Matt Fitzgerald, in one of his books, suggests there may be a third factor beyond aging and attrition, though it's related to both -- namely that we have a lifetime reserve of "bounce" and that competitive runners eventually run out of it. That is, a fast younger racer might become less competitive in masters than their earlier times would suggest, because of the sheer beating her body has taken over the years. I haven't paid attention to golf in years, but I recall this was something that happened when the senior circuit began, guys who had struggled to keep their PGA cards were suddenly winning Senior events.

Needless to say this is a theory I'm clinging to, since I've barely tapped my lifetime supply of whatever ...

It is really hard to pin down. I’ve seen it both ways. There are some SoCal guys and Michigan guys who were sub 4 and they still running extremely well. I hate to name names, but Mike Blackmore comes to mind. Heck, the whole Bowerman Track club is loaded with talented folks who have been running fast times forever. Right KP? You and your teammates kick butt! Maybe someone can take the time to lookup how many sub 4 people from the 70’s are still competitive?

I was a good regional runner in HS, never national. My faster-than-me teammates, a few who were national, can no longer run. And a few folks who moved here and made OLY qualifying times in college have had multiple knee surgeries and no longer run. I ran a lot of miles in the summers of 77, 78, and 79. Did I do some sort of damage that persists even now? I am currently working under a theory that my statin interfered with my ability to heal my skeletal muscles and tendons. Knock-on-wood, I’ve had sore spots actually fix themselves and get better that previously would almost never heal when I was on the statin. Or have I ran so many low miles for so long my long-term damage is gradually healing? I really don’t know.

4:12 is hauling it @ 51 for 1500, was the 800 a warm up?

*Week 360*

Greetings, 50+ers! Last post for this tumultuous semester! Good Riddance! Only 19+ miles on 4 days of "not overtraining" (as Rtype put it); log reads as such:

Sun: Off

Mon: 4.0 (8:11 avg) variable pace

Tue: 4.1 w/4x*(2:00 on, 1:00 off) failed Fartlek, overheated

Wed: Off

Thu: Off

Fri: 4.1 Moderate (7:41/mi w/breaks) talked w/neighbors en route

Sat: 7.0 Easy to Moderate (8:14/mi avg)

Highly variable pacing this week, some progression, some Fartlek, some stop and start running....basically continued maintenance running, but no advancement.

With final grading and graduation ceremonies, there's too much to do today to comment much on last week's posts. Good discussion on age-grading. I just use it as a guide post. Unfortunately, these days I've slipped way off my peak age-grade from back in my early 50's. I seem to have lost a sense of urgency that propelled me back then; hopefully, as I approach 60, that inner urgency will be reignited.

Running continues in fits and starts. Hopefully we'll get it together in May. How are things shaping up for you? Any good racing to report? Props to Galen Rupp in victory in Prague.

All the Best!

Mon. 25 km mountain bike ride with 510 metres elevation gain, 1 hr 24 min.

31 min. river kayak.

Tue. 21.5 km mountain bike ride with 300 metres elevation gain 1 hr 17 min.

35 min lake kayak.

Wed. 6.7 km hilly hike with weighted vest and poles. 350 metres elevation gain. 1 hr 27 min.

Thu. 31 min river kayak

Fri. 26 km mountain bike ride with 320 metres elevation gain. 1 hr 27 min.

Sat. 5.4 km hilly hike with weighted vest and poles. 340 metres elevation gain. 1 hr 17 mins.

Sun. 40 km mountain bike ride with 950 metres elevation gain. 2 hr 20 min.

Also managed to get in another 20 or so kms of walking in for the week.

A solid week of activity although still not running.

Another mostly positive week is in the books. I do have a little calf soreness/tightness that showed up after yesterday's jog. It may be a product of Wednesday's lengthy walk along some uneven beach. Hopefully that will feel better in time for tomorrow’s jog. I also got back onto the golf course, playing an executive course that was new to me. Lots of pars, but two disastrous holes.

Sun: 55' jog, body wt ex

Mon: off

Tues: ~52’ jog (dead Garmin), body wt ex, med ball routine

Wed: 2 hr beach walk with the bride

Thu: 52’ jog, body wt ex, med ball routine

Fri: golf, 67 (par 57)

Sat: 51’ jog, body wt ex

Best to all.

Greetings from Historic Hayward Field. 800m later this morning. OR Twilight Masters 400 was way harder than I had imagined Friday. In fact, it was my first ever Open 4. Drew Lane 7. No blocks. Scared Shitless. Blackmore says I went out in 28. Felt great. Hit the Bowerman Curve with a stride-shifting twang in my left hammy/glute. From there I wondered if I was defining a new meaning to Nike's slogan "there is no finish line". The Jumbotron stated that I managed to run 60.90 for 5th. I think it's a mere AGraded 85%. But it felt like 100%. So be it.

KP

good job! i hope your hamstring holds up ok.

fun week coming off race last sunday, including:

M 50:00 easy

Tu 1:10

W 30:00

Th 1:45 double

F 1:15 + 60:00 cycle class

Sa 1:40

Su 1:15 with 5 X 3:45 (2:15 recovery) at 5k pace -- more or less 5 X 1000 [crossed 1000 at average of 3:42]

have a great week. i'm envious of lucky2B being done with semester. we have finals this coming week and the traditional (and annoying) Mother's Day commencement at American U.

--Dave