Use it or loose it

We should keep in mind that though the language of this forum is English, we are a multilingual bunch.

Maximus wrote:

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.

For some reason people using emphasis instead of emphasize 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 emphasis and emphasize. And then to do it in a post criticizing someone else's spelling to further emphasize the comical misspelling.

Looser!

GettingFasterDude wrote:

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?

It is beneficial for marathon runners if you can handle it. Mariko Yugeta, age 60 world record in the marathon of 2:52, runs up to 200 km per week.

You are right. Following the board now for about 15 years I could see masters showing great long distance or marathon performances for some time based on traditional training models and then dissapear with bad injuries. Often, the injured needs several years to come back to regular training but usually on significant lower level.

Lhotse wrote:

Yoose it or loose it! Yooseful advice!

OK, I am Norwegian and do not always bother to check spelling. I was unsure about lose or loose. Since I like to activate the glutes I generally do not want loose muscles, so I will prefer not to lose.

GettingFasterDude wrote:

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?

It's an excuse fer gittn lazy. I never found that less mileage reduces injury risk below a certian number.

KAV would smoke the slow n olds... but the fast 60 year olds would lurn him some respect in a 5k. He's got a big mouth.

Hello. Is this you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cap9rr3vYCg

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

Lhotse wrote:

Yoose it or loose it! Yooseful advice!

OK, I am Norwegian and do not always bother to check spelling. I was unsure about lose or loose. Since I like to activate the glutes I generally do not want loose muscles, so I will prefer not to lose.

If you’re trying to run fast(ish) as an oldie, one of the most relevant factors is staying as light as possible. Stop waxing so much, train right, stay light.

ole timer wrote:

GettingFasterDude wrote:

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?

It's an excuse fer gittn lazy. I never found that less mileage reduces injury risk below a certian number.

KAV would smoke the slow n olds... but the fast 60 year olds would lurn him some respect in a 5k. He's got a big mouth.

Well since you called me out.... As an average guy you are wasting your time with mileage when you turn 40 as you are losing aerobic capacity like a clockwork every year (as high as 1% according to some studies. Check Joe Friel if you dont believe me). Of course you can still run a fast 5k or even a 10k but you need to really very close to what the body can handle and then here it comes the biggest elephant in the room.... which is how you can handle wear and tear when you get old. Try to do high mileage with sessions, and then report back on how your recoveries are, how often you get dinged, and at what point you break down completely. My toungue in cheek comment was actually referred to smoking younger guys, but you can still run a fast 5k out of low mileage and mile work.

Dude, shut up!

i think we (older runners) lose aerobic capacity not because we simply lose it (due to age) but because the people who are included in the studies are simply running less than when they were younger.

I call it a myth that we lose 1% of Vo2 max a per year over 40 as i have been told. This probably comes not from a study but from an analysis of world record times as age group goes up. And these are two different things.

I don' think this has ever been proven. not with real runners, running the same amount of mileage that they did when younger.

i would like to see the study (and even participate in it if anyone out there is interested) in taking a few fit lifetime runners and have us Vo2 measured every year while maintaining the same basic mileage. Even for me, if i were a participant, it would be difficult to be highly precise because my mileage goes up and down with the seasons, and injuries etc. and that is more likely what is causing the decline: training less, less speedwork, less consistency.

My own experience is that high mileage as a master (if you can handle it) will definitely help.

But how will it affect your speed. If you continue doing speed work, it should not in any way hurt your speed. I had one summer where i got away from the speed and just did miles and yes, i lost the speed in a big way. it did come back, but only after focusing on it for some time.

just out of curiosity, what kind of speed are we talking about anyway.

say for 200m - _____.

what are people able to run at what age? any one care to share.

i mostly watched, occassionaly joined Bob Lida the 84 year old world record holder (who passed away with the past year) do speed workouts all the time. He could still run - probably 31 at his age. Like all of us, he has times where he was hurting and couldn't train the way he wanted, but when on his game he would usually do relaxed 75-150 meter intervals. Probably about 6-8 of them. at 80-90% effort maybe higher - it just didn't look like he was pushing too hard most of the time

i know for myself i like to ease into speed workout. This is very different from how i ran 200's as a youngster. Now i intentionally like to start super slow and just get a little faster on each subsequent interval. this helps get more volume and reduce strain.

Newbi wrote:

You are right. Following the board now for about 15 years I could see masters showing great long distance or marathon performances for some time based on traditional training models and then dissapear with bad injuries. Often, the injured needs several years to come back to regular training but usually on significant lower level.

Also one should consider risk of training regimens that may lead to chronic health problems like A-Fib. Three close friends are now having to address heart issues in mid-50s and early 60s directly related to exercise practices. I was not immune having been diagnosed with lymphoma, a similar athletic and disease history to marathon greats Ken Martin and Mark Conover.

Ha, ha, Touché. It will still bother me when people use loose instead of lose or mix-up advice and advise or their, there, they're or two, to, too. Now I will have to add emphasis and emphasize to that list and realize that I appear to not be very intelligent to others.

Maximus wrote:

calling the kettle cattle wrote:

For some reason people using emphasis instead of emphasize 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 emphasis and emphasize. And then to do it in a post criticizing someone else's spelling to further emphasize the comical misspelling.

Looser!

Ha, ha, Touché. It will still bother me when people use loose instead of lose or mix-up advice and advise or their, there, they're or two, to, too. Now I will have to add emphasis and emphasize to that list and realize that I appear to not be very intelligent to others.

I'm glad you could see I was just having fun with you.

But as one of the other posters noted, many people here use English as a second language. Getting ideas across in a second language is challenging and "mistakes" are inevitable, but the OP got his idea across. The fact that we knew he meant "lose" attests to that.

Anyway, you're a good sport. 🤝