My ambition is to run till I’m an old man.
At the moment I’m 37 and in 38min 10k shape.
I thought it would be neat to set a lifetime target that my 10k time in minutes matches my age in years. So 40mins when I’m 40, 50 mins when I’m 50 up to 80 mins when I’m 80.
Is 1 minute per year a good decay rate? When do you think the target would be hardest?
Just look up an "age adjusted running table".
26 at 26 would be the toughest (assuming wr is the starting point)
But seriously, if you can run 38 at 38, you should be able to hit your age as long as you keep running.
10k with age wrote:
My ambition is to run till I’m an old man.
At the moment I’m 37 and in 38min 10k shape.
I thought it would be neat to set a lifetime target that my 10k time in minutes matches my age in years. So 40mins when I’m 40, 50 mins when I’m 50 up to 80 mins when I’m 80.
Is 1 minute per year a good decay rate? When do you think the target would be hardest?
You can run pretty well into your 50s.. it's the injuries that get you. A blown out meniscus here, an achy Achilles there, a hamstring injury that just will not go away... While you can often train through some of that stuff, you have to train at a diminished rate, not as fast, not as much, and eventually your performance will reflect the reduced training.
So yes, you are slower but it's because you can't put in the training load that it takes to be "fast."
decay is much less than 1 minute per year from 37 to 50. I would think you could keep your 10k close to 40 for that long.
How long have you been running? If you are fairly new, the decay could be even less over the next 10 years, with possible improvements still to come.
There's a statement in one of the running books that if you're on the upside of your career at 17, peaking at about 29, you match your 17-year-old self at age 65.
If you want to know what's possible ... take a look at this ...
Note that Ed Whitlock was running sub-38min 10K at age 73
Uhh wrote:
Note that Ed Whitlock was running sub-38min 10K at age 73
C'mon...the guy was skin & bones (something like 117 lbs/5-7) with incredible genetics! That's the issue with these fast runners over 60 - they're all very skinny and lightweight...no suprises there.
They have the perfect body type for old age competitive running. You won't find these guys in the weight room pumping iron and bulking up. These guys run like the wind because they have the perfect body type. Heavier runners who did okay in their younger years and stayed the same weight when they get older will be constantly injured and eventually end up in the trash heap. That's what happen to me at 5-9/175 - decent in my 30s...completely broken down in my early 60s with OA. ?
Thin & light is the name of game for older competitive runners.
Uhh wrote:
Note that Ed Whitlock was running sub-38min 10K at age 73
There are some outliers and I believe it's different for everyone. David Ortiz had one of his best years ever, at age 40 while other great hitters will have a drop off in their early 30s. Brady has been playing well into his 40s, but other QBs start to suck in their mid-30s.
Coghlan ran 3:58 at age 41, but I believe if Webb had stayed with it, he wouldn't break 4:10 when he turns 40. Carlos Lopes ran his 10000 PR and won a gold medal at age 37 which would be impossible for about 99% of professional runners.
What is your best and what kind of training did you do, and what (miles or hours a week) are you doing now?
Losing a minute per year is probably what you might expect at a light to moderate level of training (say 10-20 mpw on average, maybe picking it up for a couple months for your big effort), while maintaining overall health and keeping weight gain at bay (say <1 lb gain a year on average). However, a runner that maintains weight and keeps exercising regularly should easily keep going and not slow down as much. And if you keep training at a good level (say close to your best), and can keep healthy you might only slow within 10-15 seconds a year on average. That's what I've done, now early 60s.
high school xc coach wrote:
decay is much less than 1 minute per year from 37 to 50. I would think you could keep your 10k close to 40 for that long.
How long have you been running? If you are fairly new, the decay could be even less over the next 10 years, with possible improvements still to come.
^ This. I don't train for a lot of 10k's, but in 2012, when I was 36, I ran a 38 minute 10k. Just this past year, off a bit more intense training I ran 36:55. I'd say you should at least be able go under 45 until 50. Assuming you stay health of course.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Uhh wrote:
Note that Ed Whitlock was running sub-38min 10K at age 73
There are some outliers and I believe it's different for everyone.
Of course it's different for everyone.
And no-one should expect to be as fast as Whitlock at age 73 - after all that is the age group WR
Yet it's quite possible there will be runners who follow will be surpassing him due to improvements in understanding of how to train and recover that weren't understood when he was in his 50s/60s.
The underlying point is that decline is far from as steep as people want to believe. OP is talking about hoping to be able to do 1hr10 at age 70 - far too pessimistic.
Uhh wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
There are some outliers and I believe it's different for everyone.
Of course it's different for everyone.
And no-one should expect to be as fast as Whitlock at age 73 - after all that is the age group WR
Yet it's quite possible there will be runners who follow will be surpassing him due to improvements in understanding of how to train and recover that weren't understood when he was in his 50s/60s.
The underlying point is that decline is far from as steep as people want to believe. OP is talking about hoping to be able to do 1hr10 at age 70 - far too pessimistic.
If I could have a dollar for each time someone brings up Ed Whitlock in a discussion of masters running I'd be fairly rich. And it's well and good, he broke the barriers and set the standards that have held up well. But that said the context is generally Ed ran 38 at 73 (or 2:54)--if you can't do that, give it chump! Stop at 50, if you're only running 2:54 at that age.
I was running about min for 10k in my mid 30s and got down to 36 flat in my early 40s. I was back up to @38-39 in my mid 40s and then gave up. I am almost 50 and will do a moderate 6 mi tempo every now and then. I am usually able to get under 50 min without really having to push that hard. I would guess that with some training, I would be able to run a 10k in the low 40s. The guys I used to race against who are still at it can still get under 40 min for 10k.
Biggest problem is that life eventually gets in the way. Work and kids broke up my training. And then I would try to make up for missed workouts and really trash myself. I ended up with pretty bad patellar tendinitis and had to stop running for almost two years.
So, generally speaking, up through your early 40s, you can run pretty darn fast. Mid 40s will see an end to PRs as you will probably slip a minute or two. 50s is when you will really slow down. You have to be very smart about your training to keep from getting hurt and to be able to do quality workouts without going down in flames. Once you hit 60, just be glad to be out there and healthy.
I am 59 and I currently do a 10k in under 45 minutes. And I am a hobby jogger who rarely trains for 10k's.