Sir Mo falls short of British Record while Tommy Hughes strikes again with a 71:09 age 60+ WR!

Great so there is no evidence of doping in either event. We just know that the HM record holder was a better runner so the only question is how have they have aged. Lets take a look

a) In his prime runs 14:30. Or about a 4:15 mile. At age 60 runs 4:49 or about 34s slower

b) In his prime runs a 2:14. Or about a ~64 min HM (4:54) pace. At 60 he runs 5:25 pace

So one guy is running 34s slower and the other is doing 31s. I.E close enough to say they have similar aging patterns.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you also can't answer the question, of how does a 60 year-old run the equivalent of an open 55min half-marathon?

It's not. It is equivalent to a 57:34 open half according to official age grading, which I trust more than your method of comparing mile times.

Yes, this is actually much more realistic. The 4:49 or 50 mile Age 60 that keeps getting mentioned is not the 4:45 that the M60 1500 4:24.00 is equal to. So the poster is going off of a current WR and sorry to say it but it is a little soft. The M 60 mile WR should be 4:44-4:45.

That being said add 40 seconds to elite mile and a half marathon comes out to about 57:28 at best. I'd bet 10 grand the half record will be that fast or faster in a couple years. So the 1:11:09 is an amazing time, but it only lowered the record about 25 seconds or 2 sec per mile.

I'd bet Hughes is running about 30 seconds slower than his all out mile potential. That is pretty amazing.

The owner of the 60's 1500m record also used to own the mile record before Dan King took it. I'm not sure either would agree that it was a soft mark. The 1500m record looks more like an outlier in that age group.

zxcvzcvx wrote:

The Wizard JS wrote:

I will make a try to challenge Hughes! I`m only 4 months older and have been a 14:20 / 29:51 runner at 5000/ 10000 . You never know if you can do it if you don`t try.... :)

I will soon start to register my runs at Strava manual in the beginning before I fix me a GPS watch. You find me at Strava as Coach J.S . Welcome to follow my journey.

To run faster than Tommy at the half I have to do 20 x 400m at 74 sec with about 1 min rest and LT intervals at 3:20 min/ km ( my lifetime best half is 1:06 at a difficult course in Gothenburg Half)

- Reach for the sky and beyond - :)

There is no way in the world that you are going to run 1:11 with 20x400 at 74 on 1 minute rest.

That sounds more like 1:14 to me, if that.

Who do you think is most trustable when it comes to know what`s needed for different results , a coach with 13 winners of international racesin 5 years online coaching and a big bunch of very good performances or probably an amateur saying it`s wrong?? ))

Yes, they do have similar aging patterns - but that doesn't establish anything much except they have both aged well. Perhaps a little too well. I find it difficult to believe that Hughes has only lost 14 minutes over 30 years in his marathon time to age 60.

Your saying the HM runner is a better runner contains the assumption that his times are clean; lack of evidence of doping in any athlete is not proof they are clean.

Of course, I am not claiming to offer proof about that either way - I can't. No one can - unless an athlete is caught. The question however remains - what performances do you find believable? For the reasons I gave earlier, I am inclined to accept the 1500m/mile records but am sceptical of the HM/M records. To me, they look too good to be true for a 60 year-old.

Armstronglivs, I agree with you. Of course, it's possible that he's clean, but when it looks too good to be true, it usually isn't true. We've seen this time and again in our sport at every level. Did anyone really think that Kevin Castille was clean? I certainly didn't. But for some reason people get really worked up when the issue is raised. And I'm not sure how many people on here realize how laughably easy it is to get a doctor to prescribe T to a 50 or 60 year old man. We're not talking about buying illegal T in some shady gym, but many, many doctors wouldn't think twice about prescribing it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

To me, they look too good to be true for a 60 year-old.

The owner of the 60's 1500m record also used to own the mile record before Dan King took it. I'm not sure either would agree that it was a soft mark. The 1500m record looks more like an outlier in that age group.[/quote]

Soft in comparison to 1500, is what I meant. M50 3:58 and a 53 year old running 4:19 mile, so I bet M60 mile will be closer to 4:40 in 7-8 years.

We are all still progressing- better talent, training, even shoes.

Very few masters records today will be left unimproved 15 years from now, there are only a few true outliers, like a 63 year old running 53.88 400m. Wouldn't be surprised if the M60 half will be a minute quicker in a decade.

There is no assumption that either of them is clean either now or in the past. I am just saying if you think a 4:15 miler running 4:50 is believable, it seems a bit stupid to think a 4:00 miler running 4:35 is unbelievable. You need to make the assumptions that fast guys will slow down more than slow guys which I have never seen any evidence for.

That being said running 120mpw at 7 min mile pace at age 60 is definitely an outlier ability. But I sure wouldn’t want to bet on a rich, age grouper in Boulder being clean either?

I wouldn't really disagree with much of that except to add this. We don't all age at exactly the same rate - although we all age - for the same reason we don't all live to the same age. A top runner at 25 isn't necessarily going to age as well at 60 as a runner who wasn't as good at 25. Genetics (and lifestyle) have something to do with that. The phenomenal Ed Whitlock was a talented runner in his youth but was no Viren (who isn't Whitlock - and may not have been able to be if he wished). Running seriously at any age is hard but gets much harder after 50. Masters running (and sport generally) can be less about talent than the last man standing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I wouldn't really disagree with much of that except to add this. We don't all age at exactly the same rate - although we all age - for the same reason we don't all live to the same age. A top runner at 25 isn't necessarily going to age as well at 60 as a runner who wasn't as good at 25. Genetics (and lifestyle) have something to do with that. The phenomenal Ed Whitlock was a talented runner in his youth but was no Viren (who isn't Whitlock - and may not have been able to be if he wished). Running seriously at any age is hard but gets much harder after 50. Masters running (and sport generally) can be less about talent than the last man standing.

Nobody disputes that. But there is zero evidence that being faster at an early age means you slow down more as you age. Aging is sort of an independant factor. It is just a matter of time til we get a Viren level running talent with an Ed Whitlock aging profile. Granted that time might be 500 years.:) We are dealing with pretty shallow talent pools compared to the open records especially in track.

It's injury history and size (weight) for older runners. If you're a bigger runner with a significant injury history you're not racing let alone running in your mid-50s on up. I played college football in the late 70s/early 80s and then did about 10 yrs of competitive powerlifting before transitioning to running & duathlon (I was 5-7, 195+ when I played footbal & powerlifted and was able to get down 170 for running).

I ran about 40 mpw and raced often (5 & 10ks mainly) joining a running club from my 30s on up to my early 50s when the roof caved in. Big time injuries - ruptured tendons & ligaments, torn muscles, etc., resulting in significant down time measured in months. Now at the short side of 60 with post-traumatic osteoarthritis, I'm toast barely able to run a pathetic 12 mpw over 3 days with no racing anymore. I have friends and acquaintances over the years who are also bigger runners and they're all toast in their 50s & 60s as well. Most have taken up cycling or just work out in the gym for general fitness.

You mentioned Whitlock: he was all skin & bones! - very light impact forces which allowed training consistently with little or no downtime. Being able to train consistently is the key and will give you results at any age. It's all weight and the impact forces that determine the risk of injuries and the toll that these injuries will take out on you as aging sets in.

I don't know the size of Hughes - but he looks small & light. If that's the case, he can train consistent & hard and not get injured getting good race results. I knew cats from my old masters running club that were my height (5-7-) but yet weighed a ridiculous 125 to 130 lbs! - they were doing mega mileage training like madmen and getting fabulous results. There's even some dude posting here on the Grandmasters thread who says he's "5-4, 127." That's dimutitive and the size of some HS female CC runners. At that size you virtually have very little impact forces and can train like a madman with a very low risk of injury.

If Hughes is a small dude there's nothing, IMO, to see here as far as any suspicion for PEDs. Now find a big, huge, muscular middle-aged cat running very fast and now you've got some legitimate suspicion.

Well, there is not quite "zero evidence " that being faster at a young age might mean you slow down more. Most of the age records are set by athletes who were not necessarily elite in their youth or even competed then. You have to ask why virtually no top open athletes go on to hold those records. It can't all be that they got bored or injured.

But, yes, aging is a kind of independent factor so you can't predict how a 25 year old will be at 60 and so on.

You make a fair point about body type. But I think you are underestimating how much we all will lose in terms of strength and stamina as we age. I was intrigued to see that Shaheed's 60's world mark for the 800 was the same as I could run at 14-15. Same for the mile. And I was just an ok schoolboy athlete. Of course, at Shaheed's age of 60 I would get nowhere near that - simply not in the same class. I doubt I could beat myself at 10.

But when I see 60 year-olds running (and training) as well as young men - good young men - I don't really buy it. The years aren't that kind to us - even for the gifted.

Is T -anti aging?

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Is T -anti aging?

Testosterone is a performance enhancing drug and banned for that reason. As we age we lose testosterone. That's why we lose so much strength. For an older athlete to take testosterone supplements is therefore to roll back the years, so to speak- so in that sense you might say it is "anti-aging". But reducing the effects of aging isn't automatically banned or even unfair - nutrition, training, good sleep, not smoking, reducing alcohol intake etc. can all help do that. What is banned is doping - the taking of specific proscribed drugs that of themselves are believed to boost performance. T undoubtedly does that.

Maybe his T levels are staying high. Not at all impossible.

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Maybe his T levels are staying high. Not at all impossible.

That's like saying he's 30 when he is 60. Only drugs can do that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dope Hardstrong wrote:

Maybe his T levels are staying high. Not at all impossible.

That's like saying he's 30 when he is 60. Only drugs can do that.

So you think T levels can't remain higher for some guys? Or what if something like Stemtech could trigger your balls again. Would that be OK?

If he was 30 at 60 he'd still be running 2:14.

T is probably like hair, Most guys at 60 have very little but some still have it all.

Of course you'd say those guys were just using drugs for hair.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Your wrong wrote:

For a start the over 60s 10k world record is 32:48.

Post a link to where a 60 year old has run 32:48 on the track. I will be waiting......

Here you go