What is the peak age for the mile? the 5000?

It's individual.

theres no certain age.

obviously, everyones systems are different physiologically; and yours will be at a different time than others.

unless you already have acknowledged that you have some sort of additional longevity compared to the average runner, why dont you set the age on what the scientific average is for males.

please research this and see, for others on letsrun, what a broad average is for peak performance.

im guessing its between 30-35, but this all depends how long you;ve been running and youre rate of improvement.

also, are you speaking of the age when you start to deteriorate and stop running fast, or the point in your career that is the TOP of your game. you can hold the top of your game for more than 1 year; but yes, eventually you will slow down, as i started a thread on this exact subject a few months ago. good luck in your research, start training and stop worrying about it because it is MANY years away from your current age and stage in life.

30-35... you're an idiot. It's more like 26-30 but there is no exact age

Hey poster of the year 30-35 for a miler? Please stick with what you know.

For the430miler, it was his age when he last PRed.

Age and mileage are your limiting factors. In the US, we think of peak 5k age as being closer to 30 because most of our most talented runners don't run shit for mileage until they're in college or even later; they're playing catch up to 19 year old Africans with more miles behind them than our best 30 year olds.

Take the speed and recovery of a late teen/early 20-something and combine it with 10+ years of solid aerobic foundation and conditioning and you've got a world beater.

That said, I would wager you'd need 20,000-30,000 miles behind you to run to your potential at 5000m.

According to Malmo, it could be 20.

mobile9 wrote:

Age and mileage are your limiting factors. In the US, we think of peak 5k age as being closer to 30 because most of our most talented runners don't run shit for mileage until they're in college or even later; they're playing catch up to 19 year old Africans with more miles behind them than our best 30 year olds.

Take the speed and recovery of a late teen/early 20-something and combine it with 10+ years of solid aerobic foundation and conditioning and you've got a world beater.

That said, I would wager you'd need 20,000-30,000 miles behind you to run to your potential at 5000m.

more like 50 if you count all of that youth running. remember they run 100mpw for 6years before they get really really good. then they usually give up, the few that stay keep running 100-120mpw for another 3 years before giving up and then they really start hitting those 12:45/3:47/26:40/7:27. but also, don't forget this is ontop of another 10 years as children when they were putting in 50mpw just to go to school, get water, and do kid shyt.

25,000 before they even start. (most U.S kids might have 5000 and that seems like a lot)

30,000 in their build up years.

and another 18,000 or so before they really reach that WR level the korirs, tergats, komens, ngeny.

so, I would say 50k before you start reaching your real potential.

otter, i said 30-35 when you start to deteriorate.

theres also a very likely chance that some milers also peak at 30. as i said, there are many physiological factors than influence the outcome of ones physical peak.

seeing as though nobody else has accumulated any broad age number; i am currently researching the topic myself.

then maybe i can post a broad fact instead of my best hypothesis.

Living in the Past wrote:

According to Malmo, it could be 20.

Yes, and it could be 19, or 21, or 30 or 27, or 34. It will vary.

But that wasn't the point of your post, was it? The point was another deliberate attempt by you to distort something I've said in another thread. Your act is getting really stale.

i think if you actually look at the date instead of speculate, the majority of the time the peak age for elites is between 24-28. that range would be close to the 95% confidence interval.

un chat wrote:

i think if you actually look at the date instead of speculate, the majority of the time the peak age for elites is between 24-28. that range would be close to the 95% confidence interval.

No kidding.

No, my intent wasn't to distort what you said. My intent was to point out that you are treating two separate issues as though they were one.

1) There's the physiological potential of the athlete, which on average is around the age of 26 for an event like the 5,000. (Just look at the mean age of the fastest 5,000 meter runners of all time when they set their PRs.)

2) Then there's the potential based on external circumstances, like the quality of the coaching or the need to make a living or the athlete's susceptibility to injury or the runner's persistence. Dave Merrick was one of the greatest high school runners of all time, who probably could have set an American record in the 5,000 at around the age of 26 had financial pressures and injuries and perhaps inappropriate coaching not caused him to peak at around the age 20 (you can probably help me out with the precise age here).

But I don't think anyone would really argue that Merrick achieved his potential. So while I might have gotten the facts slightly wrong in using Merrick in this example, I'm not distorting anything that you have said. I'm merely pointing out your flawed premise in using the term "potential" to treat two separate subjects as though they were one.

I think most people on this forum understand that there's a difference between biological potential and the potential of life events to cut a career short before the biological potential was achieved.

It's funny how an honest debate with you can result in your taking a dismissive attitude and impugning the other guy's motives. I never was world class, so maybe I have no business debating with you at all. But as a runner of modest accomplishments, I'm a fan of anyone who competed at your level. I admire the fact that you know so many people who really mattered in this sport in the 70s and 80s. I'm just a former wannabe and you're the real thing. But even the mediocrities can see that there's a greater biological potential (on average and all else being equal) for an athlete in the 5,000 at 26 than at 19. All you have to do is look at the statistics.

For me 74 as long as i can get into the stadium and learn how to count.

If you look up the word irascible, surprise, there's George's pic!

He does not suffer fools gladly, which is fine, except he seems to consider anyone who hasn't run world-class times a fool.

What do all your goddamned statistics have to do with me or any other individual? How do they really answer 'milers left out's question?

Just because the Nike Pegasus sells better than any other running shoe doesn't mean that I should be running in it.

Malmo and I are both foolish for posting on here several times on most days. (Does anyone who is CURRENTLY a world class runner post on here with any regularity?)

Living in the Past wrote:

(Does anyone who is CURRENTLY a world class runner post on here with any regularity?)

Thankfully, no.

How do you know?