No woman at age 40 has been able to run as fast as Sinead has now run at age 45. For you the “take home” is that the 40 year olds just didn’t try hard enough. Some of us know better.
What is a 45 year old woman doing that makes her as fast as many elite and international 100mpw male runners, 20 years younger than her, from the 60's and 70's?
I don't buy the argument that because she started running late in life, her body is just doing what it would've done at a younger age. That's not how physiology works. With the same training and technology, would a 33yo Diver have beaten prime Paula? Maybe, but the scrutiny of doping looms large over the women running sub- 2:18.
The bigger issue for most people is that after 20 years of running they are done. Not many elite people keep on going with the same level of desire as the people who never did it when they are younger.
Age group records have randomness of people aging at slightly different rates. It is obvious at the younger ages when puberty makes it very obvious but the same thing happens at the other end where some 45 year olds have the hormones of a 40 year old.
And the random shoe factor making comparisons of pre ~2018 times with the recent stuff.
And then nobody also doubts that doping helps masters athletes more. We have had the same doping worries for like 40 years now about any record.
No woman at age 40 has been able to run as fast as Sinead has now run at age 45. For you the “take home” is that the 40 year olds just didn’t try hard enough. Some of us know better.
What is a 45 year old woman doing that makes her as fast as many elite and international 100mpw male runners, 20 years younger than her, from the 60's and 70's?
Your question doesn't make sense. Elite men in 1960's & 1970's were much faster than 2:21. A man racing 2:21 Marathon on 100 miles per week never was a true Marathon talent. You have to go back to E Zatopek era. Women Marathoners today have more efficient running form than Zatopek 's running form.
Sinead Diver ( shin-AYD-dih-ver, shin-AYD-DY-ver born 17 February 1977) is an Australian long-distance runner. Biography Diver was born and raised in County Mayo in Belmullet on the western coast of Ireland. She attended a co...
I don't think you can look at one specific period in time and say 'doper'. When you first start seriously training, there are big dividends. I once knocked 20 mins off of a marathon, then another 17, then 10, then 5, then 2 then nothing. But the PR came 10 years after seriously training.
What we need to see is her progression. If she ran a 2:45 when she was 35, i would be highly suspicious that after another 8 years, she only knocked off 4 minutes. But if she ran 3:00 early in her career, it's very plausible she could run 20 mins faster over the course of 10 years.
What is a 45 year old woman doing that makes her as fast as many elite and international 100mpw male runners, 20 years younger than her, from the 60's and 70's?
Your question doesn't make sense. Elite men in 1960's & 1970's were much faster than 2:21. A man racing 2:21 Marathon on 100 miles per week never was a true Marathon talent. You have to go back to E Zatopek era. Women Marathoners today have more efficient running form than Zatopek 's running form.
totally agree. And to be fair to Emil - he didn't train for the Marathon, didn't pace/race one to get a top time, and would have been way faster in it if he had. Give him today's shoes and training and focus on Marathon and... he would have been scary.
Your question doesn't make sense. Elite men in 1960's & 1970's were much faster than 2:21. A man racing 2:21 Marathon on 100 miles per week never was a true Marathon talent. You have to go back to E Zatopek era. Women Marathoners today have more efficient running form than Zatopek 's running form.
totally agree. And to be fair to Emil - he didn't train for the Marathon, didn't pace/race one to get a top time, and would have been way faster in it if he had. Give him today's shoes and training and focus on Marathon and... he would have been scary.
I don't buy the argument that because she started running late in life, her body is just doing what it would've done at a younger age. That's not how physiology works. With the same training and technology, would a 33yo Diver have beaten prime Paula? Maybe, but the scrutiny of doping looms large over the women running sub- 2:18.
The bigger issue for most people is that after 20 years of running they are done. Not many elite people keep on going with the same level of desire as the people who never did it when they are younger.
Age group records have randomness of people aging at slightly different rates. It is obvious at the younger ages when puberty makes it very obvious but the same thing happens at the other end where some 45 year olds have the hormones of a 40 year old.
And the random shoe factor making comparisons of pre ~2018 times with the recent stuff.
And then nobody also doubts that doping helps masters athletes more. We have had the same doping worries for like 40 years now about any record.
Yeah, I think there's some nuance here. If Diver had started training seriously for distance running in her late teens (as is the norm), she probably would have been faster than 2:21 in her 30s all other things (shoes etc.) being equal. But we don't live in hypothetical land. It's not like starting at 33 is the optimal strategy, it's more that starting at 33 doesn't rule you out necessarily.
There is also that women's hormone levels decline more gradually as they age compared to men. So a 40-45 year old woman who has not hit menopause is less different than a 25 or 30 year old. There aren't zero age-related effects, but they are less drastic. This means that older pre-menopausal women are quite capable of elite performances, where men that age tend not to be. The testosterone levels for even a 30 year old man are quite different from a 20 year old. Once menopause hits there does seem to be a more drastic drop-off in performance though.
Another point is that having kids and the timing of that might have a positive impact. Pregnancy gives you a big hormone bump. If you can avoid getting injured upon return (often a result of the hormones, which increase joint laxity) you can do quite well. There might be some longer term effects too.
The bigger issue for most people is that after 20 years of running they are done. Not many elite people keep on going with the same level of desire as the people who never did it when they are younger.
Age group records have randomness of people aging at slightly different rates. It is obvious at the younger ages when puberty makes it very obvious but the same thing happens at the other end where some 45 year olds have the hormones of a 40 year old.
And the random shoe factor making comparisons of pre ~2018 times with the recent stuff.
And then nobody also doubts that doping helps masters athletes more. We have had the same doping worries for like 40 years now about any record.
Yeah, I think there's some nuance here. If Diver had started training seriously for distance running in her late teens (as is the norm), she probably would have been faster than 2:21 in her 30s all other things (shoes etc.) being equal. But we don't live in hypothetical land. It's not like starting at 33 is the optimal strategy, it's more that starting at 33 doesn't rule you out necessarily.
There is also that women's hormone levels decline more gradually as they age compared to men. So a 40-45 year old woman who has not hit menopause is less different than a 25 or 30 year old. There aren't zero age-related effects, but they are less drastic. This means that older pre-menopausal women are quite capable of elite performances, where men that age tend not to be. The testosterone levels for even a 30 year old man are quite different from a 20 year old. Once menopause hits there does seem to be a more drastic drop-off in performance though.
Another point is that having kids and the timing of that might have a positive impact. Pregnancy gives you a big hormone bump. If you can avoid getting injured upon return (often a result of the hormones, which increase joint laxity) you can do quite well. There might be some longer term effects too.
So she ran 2:25 around 40. You would need to Google what shoes, how the Melbourne course differs, and what weather and the like. But that could very well be a similiar level of performance (2-3 mins for shoes, 1-2 mins for the course, 1-2 mins for weather). Now doing it 5 years later makes it harder.
If you showed me her progression and told me it was like 20-30, I wouldn't see anything crazy. Lots of nice improvements with occasionally regressions. Most people stall out but there are always a few that keep getting better. The only shocking part is the continuing to improve post 40. Some of that is getting more training (and opportunity. Some of years are hot weather marathons).
It always feels weird to think she was clean from say 33-42 and then started doping. It is possible of course. And if she was doping earlier why didn't she run faster then?
In the end we will never know. We are left guessing if the top 10 in a distance race are as dirty as a 90s your de France, or if the doper is the exception (the guys like ramzi 3:39 to 3:30 in your mid 20s...). I hope for the former. I fear it is the later...
What is a 45 year old woman doing that makes her as fast as many elite and international 100mpw male runners, 20 years younger than her, from the 60's and 70's?
Your question doesn't make sense. Elite men in 1960's & 1970's were much faster than 2:21. A man racing 2:21 Marathon on 100 miles per week never was a true Marathon talent. You have to go back to E Zatopek era. Women Marathoners today have more efficient running form than Zatopek 's running form.
A lot of good men years younger than her were running 2.20 on the '60's and 60's - even if they weren't the fastest at that time. They were also training 100-150mpw. But now a middle-aged woman is running as fast. So what is she doing they weren't?
Your question doesn't make sense. Elite men in 1960's & 1970's were much faster than 2:21. A man racing 2:21 Marathon on 100 miles per week never was a true Marathon talent. You have to go back to E Zatopek era. Women Marathoners today have more efficient running form than Zatopek 's running form.
totally agree. And to be fair to Emil - he didn't train for the Marathon, didn't pace/race one to get a top time, and would have been way faster in it if he had. Give him today's shoes and training and focus on Marathon and... he would have been scary.
If Emil's form was so bad how is it he utterly dominated his era?
It always feels weird to think she was clean from say 33-42 and then started doping. It is possible of course. And if she was doping earlier why didn't she run faster then?
This.
Why would she suddenly have this incentive to take PEDS for less reward. Think.
You are incorrect and way over your head in this discussion. When I stated her performance is the greatest nonAfrican female performance I did not feel the need to explain why. Your knowledge about aging, physiology and athletic performance is woefully inadequate. NOBODY is capable of running a marathon as fast at 45 as at 28, for example, all else being equal. Surely you can grasp this?
I can easily grasp why. She never competed at age 28. Doofus
The bigger issue for most people is that after 20 years of running they are done. Not many elite people keep on going with the same level of desire as the people who never did it when they are younger.
Age group records have randomness of people aging at slightly different rates. It is obvious at the younger ages when puberty makes it very obvious but the same thing happens at the other end where some 45 year olds have the hormones of a 40 year old.
And the random shoe factor making comparisons of pre ~2018 times with the recent stuff.
And then nobody also doubts that doping helps masters athletes more. We have had the same doping worries for like 40 years now about any record.
Yeah, I think there's some nuance here. If Diver had started training seriously for distance running in her late teens (as is the norm), she probably would have been faster than 2:21 in her 30s all other things (shoes etc.) being equal. But we don't live in hypothetical land. It's not like starting at 33 is the optimal strategy, it's more that starting at 33 doesn't rule you out necessarily.
There is also that women's hormone levels decline more gradually as they age compared to men. So a 40-45 year old woman who has not hit menopause is less different than a 25 or 30 year old. There aren't zero age-related effects, but they are less drastic. This means that older pre-menopausal women are quite capable of elite performances, where men that age tend not to be. The testosterone levels for even a 30 year old man are quite different from a 20 year old. Once menopause hits there does seem to be a more drastic drop-off in performance though.
Another point is that having kids and the timing of that might have a positive impact. Pregnancy gives you a big hormone bump. If you can avoid getting injured upon return (often a result of the hormones, which increase joint laxity) you can do quite well. There might be some longer term effects too.
Don’t post about something you don’t know about. Your take on women and hormones is incorrect.
Your question doesn't make sense. Elite men in 1960's & 1970's were much faster than 2:21. A man racing 2:21 Marathon on 100 miles per week never was a true Marathon talent. You have to go back to E Zatopek era. Women Marathoners today have more efficient running form than Zatopek 's running form.
totally agree. And to be fair to Emil - he didn't train for the Marathon, didn't pace/race one to get a top time, and would have been way faster in it if he had. Give him today's shoes and training and focus on Marathon and... he would have been scary.
E Zatopek would have been somewhat faster, he had awful running form. E Zatopek may have not been bothered with competitive running past his early twenties. I'm not sure if cinder and heavy shoes and then a change to modern shoes and modern tracks would take E Zatopek from 13:5x.xx 5000m to 12:4x.xx 5000m today. Five-thousand meters was E Zatopek's best event.
_edited.jpg){kind=link}