Why are post-college casual runners still so fast?

I was one of those people running low 18 on 50 mpw (and 36 high).

Recently improved somewhat to 17:30s on 30 mpw by training smarter and having more recovery.

The college runners simply have more talent but I bet they do some fast training.

I think recovery is underrated by many.

Most hobby joggers have no speed to start with. There are people training their butt off to run 6 min pace 5K.

I doubt many guys who ran in HS and did 17-18 5k then could do sub-17 in their 20s-30s on just 25 mpw unless they just did the HS times on poor training. But if you’re talking about those who were sub-16 or even close to it, I could see that.

I’d be surprised to see hardly anybody other than very talented guys do sub-2:45 for a marathon on 25 mpw. Among guys I know who were around mid 15s to low 16s when younger, one did a little above 3:00 on around 25-30 mpw and got below 2:40 on 60-65 mpw. A couple of similar guys didn’t do a marathon at low mileage like that but were 2:35-2:45 in the 60-80 mpw range. I know one of them could still do pretty fast 5ks when he was working a lot and not training that much, then got faster at 5k as well when he upped his mileage and added in a half marathon and marathon each year.

It’s talent and having a training base from competing in school. It’s actually kind of frustrating for most of these runners, as they are running nowhere near the PRs they set in college.

Its called talent...when you have it you have it

It’s also called a bank account 4 years of high school at 20 to 50 per week then college 4 to 5 years of 50 to 100 per week and you can train mildly for 3 to 5 years and still race respectably

My take:

On the ex-athlete side: your training base sticks around for a very long time. Mild to moderate volume is all it takes to keep a decent amount of aerobic and muscular resilience for a long time. It's basically a controlled landing from your peak

On the later in life side:

1. They are not very good at engaging VO2 max principles to the extent or regularity they need to. Most do not do the "sharpening" type workouts you would see in a collegiate or HS program come October or November. On top of this, they often leave larger gaps between their training blocks due to no obligation to be a three season athlete. The most difficult aspects of training are left on the table leaving less room for steady, quick improvement and more room for plateauing. Just a lot of people training like it's September year round.

2. Greater removal from their childhood years leading to unexpected deficiencies and injuries. The childhood years are an underrated aspect of going from childhood->HS runner->collegiate runner. Lots of kids will try out tons of different sports, hang with their friends, go to gym class, etc. and at least have some form of semi-robust all-body activity going on. This lets them get over the hump of early training injuries and deficiencies more easily (and they recover quicker from injury to boot). Meanwhile your average adult spends hours upon hours sitting in front of a computer and doing nothing once home. Even if running causes no lower body injuries there's still all sorts of endurance related issues that can cause form to fall apart (tired shoulders, tired neck, etc.). Without an organic way to train these deficiencies away they become more of an obstacle.

I will remind you that there are the "masters stars" who sometimes appear at age 40 out of nowhere.

They had talent but for some reason they didn't run in college, worked in their 20s, had kids in their 30s, and then at 40 burst onto the scene.

A lot of us former college runners and "never quitters" are exhausted and broken down by our 40s, slogging out mileage, getting slower each year; while these "fresh" master runners finally unleash their talent and run really well.

Personally, I like to see this happen (good for them!), but it isn't really reproducible if you are already beaten down from doing track/XC/marathon on repeat for 30 years. Being fresh has some advantages too.

Combination of talent and a higher lifetime base of mileage are the big two. I would also add more training knowledge and racing skills. They know how to get more out of training with the time they have. They also know how to race, they know their bodies and can pace themselves better and have likely gotten past a lot of the mental hurdles that plague beginning runners when they start racing.

If you run fairly big volume and develop your cardiovascular system it stays developed for a long time. I talked about this with Peter Snell once and he told me he'd researched this. "Unless you become almost completely sedentary your cardiovascular fitness will be good even decades later." What deteriorates and leads to performance decline, he told me, is your muscular fitness.

So let's compare your late adult runner, one who takes the sport up but who never ran in school to a post collegiate runner who's still racing but not training as much as he once did. Let's say he was doing around 70 a week in school and maybe half that now. And let's say the "adult onset runner" has also gotten up to around 70 a week and is still doing that much running.

What's probably different for the adult onset guy is that he most likely has spent little to no time racing seriously at and training for things like the 800, mile, and 3,000. The 5,000, 5 km if you prefer, is probably the shortest and fastest distance he runs. So he never develops his neuromuscular system nearly as much as the now casual but once serious scholastic or collegiate runner did. So his 70 mile weeks could have given him cardiovascular fitness comparable to the post college runner, who can live off his collegiate volume in terms of cardiovascular fitness, but has never developed his muscles to run as fast as the post college runner did.

I think the biggest issue is that from their experience they know how to train. People taking up running late in life that read articles on the internet or runners world only learn how to hobby jog.

I think as you get older, that gap closes, especially at longer distances. I never broke 17 in HS but I did in my mid 40s. The former D1 guys my age can still beat me, but I can at least hope to get close.

I don’t think most people realize the talent gap between anyone who was good enough to run in college at any level and the average hobby jogger. Even someone with relatively modest PRs like 4:30 is probably faster than 99.9% of the population.

Because they consume a ton of spinach.

I think you can still do well as a master after a long career.

I'm 67, and have competed and trained since I was 15 with no extended breaks. I only did two marathons (in my late 30s), but have been an all year round competitor, although these days only race targeted races around four times a year.

In competitive terms I had my best year two years ago, and was on the World Masters rankings.

I think that's a good point.

My experience is that I was still racing 800m on occasion my mid-30s (English Club runner, running in their Club League system) and continued 1500m, mile and 3000m in various US Masters Championships.

I think you still retain that muscle memory (more accurately neuromuscular system) of that intense training, and even in my mid-60s, I will do three or four full out short sprints before a track session, and still do 16x200m at mile pace.

It's a vastly different background to most who have never done that training until they turn 40.

I ran way to many miles in high school and yet was undefeated my senior year when I was not hurt. Then in college I was injured for three years with something that in the 1970s few knew how to treat. I had my best year after my ONE SEASON of college eligibility. I trained about 50% of what I did in high school, yet ran twice as fast. Go figure...

Or you are simply fast which is more likely the case.

Talent and lifetime milage