Use it or loose it

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

The statistics on the master runners is quite clear and is a proof that the training master sprinters do is better at maintaining the speed and power than long distance training. The problem with this for master long distance runners is how does some of this training translate to endurance?

I don't think the training of a sprinter relates to training of a long distance runner at all.

But I do think, that nobody questions the benefits of speed work.

Longdistancerunnerinhis50ies wrote:

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

The statistics on the master runners is quite clear and is a proof that the training master sprinters do is better at maintaining the speed and power than long distance training. The problem with this for master long distance runners is how does some of this training translate to endurance?

I don't think the training of a sprinter relates to training of a long distance runner at all.

But I do think, that nobody questions the benefits of speed work.

It may be that the longer sprinting of sprinters is relevant for long distance runners to maintain the anaerobic (lactate) power. Maybe also the strength work?

The main point is that they are best able to maintain fast muscle volume and maybe just maintaining fast muscle volume is key to NOT loosing longer distance speed?

Longdistancerunnerinhis50ies wrote:

I don't think the training of a sprinter relates to training of a long distance runner at all.

But I do think, that nobody questions the benefits of speed work.

A second thought is that, sure speedwork is key, but not any speedwork is efficient at maintaining fast muscles. It depends on what speedwork is. 5k pace is not activating all muscle mass and is targeting the medium fast and slow muscle fibre ability to work primarily aerobically, but 30-60s fast reps target much more. SO i discuss specific speedwork.

I also start to believe that master runners should focus differently than younger runners in the training. Younger runners come from a faster base and need to improve the aerobic qualities, whereas a well trained master might need to focus much more on the speed to not loose it

I am 52, still running sub 5' 1500m on 30 miles per week, on a lot of high intensity VO2, fully anaerobic specific work in the run-up to races, and speedwork (no more than 1k total volume in 100/150/200m) all year round or equivalent hill sprints. Mileage is over-rated as you get older, and pretty sure I would be smoking few guys outhere if I were going up the distance.

KAV wrote:

I am 52, still running sub 5' 1500m on 30 miles per week, on a lot of high intensity VO2, fully anaerobic specific work in the run-up to races, and speedwork (no more than 1k total volume in 100/150/200m) all year round or equivalent hill sprints. Mileage is over-rated as you get older, and pretty sure I would be smoking few guys outhere if I were going up the distance.

That has to be seen. Just because you are good at short distances does not mean you will be good at longer ones.

I don't think "loose" means what you think it means. If you were going for phonetical spelling, "looz" would have been better.

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

Since I am soon 50, it makes me focus on how to improve fast and how to reduce the effects of aging on running and health in general. The more I read the more it points to the title of the thread. If we do not use the power and speed, we loose it.

watching the online world collectively forget how to spell the word "lose" has been wild. we live in a society.

Hill reps with fully recovery are your friend.

57. Yes, use it or lose it. Need to consistently work pure strength (e.g., 1RM) and pure speed (e.g., 8-10" hill sprints, flat 60m). Also, range or motion.

Agree w/ KAV: year-round speed work and that mileage is overrated as you get older (I sustain 50mpw).

Agree w/ little of everything: hill reps with full recovery are your friend.

Diet matters more <<sigh>>

Quality of life versus performance balance starts to tilt.

Mindset is critical. My 'sprint' is slower than my HS mile; my mile is slower than college XC. I get slower every year even though I train better; it's easy to get frustrated.

KAV wrote:

I am 52, still running sub 5' 1500m on 30 miles per week, on a lot of high intensity VO2, fully anaerobic specific work in the run-up to races, and speedwork (no more than 1k total volume in 100/150/200m) all year round or equivalent hill sprints. Mileage is over-rated as you get older, and pretty sure I would be smoking few guys outhere if I were going up the distance.

Is high mileage less beneficial as we age, or beneficial but possibly not worth the increasing risk of injury, as we age?

Because I hear a lot of masters runners saying, "I don't need to run high mileage, I can run _____ fast on lower mileage and here's how." But I don't see any saying, "Running high mileage won't benefit me, even if I can do it and not get injured."

Thoughts?

You make some very good points.

Follow Sean Wade on strava and take a look at his workouts. At 55, he's setting multiple age group world records. Lot's of brutally high intensity interval workouts, hills, weights and aqua jogging for recovery, on about 50 miles per week. He's been a pro for decades, though. So he does have a high mileage base underneath it all, which helps.

From the study: What is the cause of the ageing atrophy? by Lexell et al

"The results show that the ageing atrophy of this muscle begins around 25 years of age and thereafter accelerates. This is caused mainly by a loss of fibers, with no predominant effect on any fiber type, and to a lesser extent by a reduction in fiber size, mostly of type 2 fibers."

From the study: The muscle fiber type–fiber size paradox: hypertrophy or oxidative metabolism?

"An inverse relationship exists between striated muscle fiber size and its oxidative capacity. This relation- ship implies that muscle fibers, which are triggered to simultaneously increase their mass/strength (hypertrophy) and fatigue resistance (oxidative capacity), increase these properties (strength or fatigue resistance) to a lesser extent compared to fibers increasing either of these alone."

I agree with a lot of what you said (with the obvious caveat of recovery), but I do strongly disagree, however, with the assertion that Masters sprinters decline less than mid/long when comparing race times, but it's probably just how we each interpret the data that's available.

Case study:

Ed Whitlock. Ran for 3 hours every day around a small circle in a graveyard for decades and signed up for races. That's it. He didn't do any of this other $h*t they tell us to do. No hills, weights, intervals, no gps watch. Nothing. Didn't count laps or calculate his pace. Just ran his skeletal as$ off, with volume, volume and more volume. And broke every world record in the books during the last 1/3 of his life.

I'm not saying it's the best plan in the world or that would work for everyone or even most. But it's interesting to be aware that it could work. He even came here and told us about it:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3405270#ixzz37RIWIuyz

interesting stuff...

i went big on the base a few years ago (and ignored any speed training for a while) and definitely lost it in the short term. but it did come back (to some degree). i was able to run pretty fast mile reps and 800's...but got hurt before getting down to 200-400's.

interesting for me is that my injuries come not from running high mileage or speed (but from other things - like slipping on ice and some muscle strains from lifting). Probably caused by weak muscle groups.

i still think the mileage is very important as we age...so as my injury heals i will be trying to get it back up (to over 100 mpw). currently ranging from 40-60...with track workouts. some days i can run fast for some 200's but other days things are tight and it just doesn't loosen up. i think staying flexible = maintaining the stride power and length may be the key to maintaining masters speed. that and just doing it.

The bolded part is interesting. It seems to indicate you're better off training your muscles to either get stronger or gain aerobic (oxidative) ability, but not both. That's the opposite of conventional wisdom, which currently is, "Focus more on strength as you get older."

I'm not sure which is right, but if you look at the men and women who've popped big performances late in their careers, the sure as heck don't look "strong." If anything, they look as thin as they always did. Do they look the same because they've increased strength work to keep muscle mass the same? Or do they look the same (very thin, low muscle mass) because they haven't changed anything and just continue to crank out high mileage and the usual workouts? I don't know. It's fun to think about, though.

There are several factors if we get older:

1) we lose VO2max per life decade (max heart rate goes down)

2) we gain in weight (the cells are less active)

3) we need a longer rest time as younger ones. This is very important as we can not train so hard any more.

4) For me muscle training is (much) overrated. Because i believe if you run correctly, you use all muscles necesarry to run properly in a right way. Use it or lose it. So having a good running form is the real holy grail at all ages.

5) High volume is still important

6) Tempo runs and intervals are still important

7) If we are injuried it takes longer to recover and come back

Go to the 50s thread on Sunday.,you will see both sides of this argument. My observation is with age one needs to be more aware of one's physical nature (what works for you.) Certainly the closer you model a traditional training program, if you can handle it, the better you will perform. As mentioned by you, maintaining strength is improtant, along with rest, and healthy athletic weight. Maintaing the desire to continue the discipline is key, few can do it.

Larry David wrote:

I don't think "loose" means what you think it means. If you were going for phonetical spelling, "looz" would have been better.

For some reason people using loose instead of lose is the most annoying misspelling of them all to me. I immediately think of the person that does this as less intelligent, even though they may actually be fairly smart. It is just two very simple spellings that mean different things and it should not be that hard to know the difference between lose and loose. And then to have it right in his headline to further emphasis the comical misspelling.