Do runners past the age of fifty still run 100MPW?

tommy d,

you are just way too spot on for your (and my)

own good brother...see you at the indoors.

MF

That was sort of what I was trying to say in my original post. I can still do as many miles as I like and occasionally I decide to do a lot of them. But if it means that I'll run 19:40 for 5k rather than 20:10, or 44 minutes for 10k vs. 46, I'm not sure the extra time and effort is worth it. When I was young that sort of mileage seemed like it was propelling me to new frontiers. Now anything is a rear guard action.

But when that island is booked...

I think Henry Rono is now, if you believe his training log on his thread. He is running 2 hours or more, daily.

Once every year or so I take a month or two and build up to about 100 miles for a week, as much for psychological reasons as for any physiological benefit. It allows me to think that I can still be efficient and strong enough to run longer races (including the marathon) even though I rarely compete above 5K (or even 3K) anymore.

The rest of the year I may vary up to 70-ish, but my "sweet spot" for the mile is 45-50. For instance the last 20 weeks I have averaged 47 miles/week, with at least one quality session (track or fartlek) and a long run every 10-14 days of 15-17 miles. I feel this keeps me on an upward fitness progression (however slight) with minimal downtime for aches or pains or overtraining.

During racing season I drop to about 30-35 (long run 9-11), and then as low as 20 for the final weeks of peaking. This keeps me fresh enough to hammer the speed for the 400/800 in the final stages of the season. At this point I am thinking and training like a sprinter, and the thought of a long run or 100 mile week is extremely foreign, if not downright oppressive.

I do find that keeping the occasional stretch of 100's in makes "normal" mileage feel easier. Oddly for me, the aches and pains really crop up when I get below 70-75 and are much less problematic when I'm around 100. Makes no sense.

I did, even as much as 120 at times in my mid to late 40's. Now I need a knee replacement. It was fun while it lasted.

My gosh! Knee replacement? Did running do that to you by itself? Or were there other factors?

What? WHat?

Well nothing like the age of 50 to help increase your miles...I just hit the club and ran my first back to back 50 mile weeks in forever.

I'm 51 and I can't even stay up with high school guys anymore..my number 2 runner was real dissappointed just now as he turned around and I was hurtin'.....I guess this time had to come...it's nearly killin me trying to stay up with the guys I coach.

check the rono thread... wrote:

I think Henry Rono is now, if you believe his training log on his thread. He is running 2 hours or more, daily.

Is Rono really running 2 hours a day, now, at age 54? If so, he should be a monster on the Masters scene this year!

Anybody know if this is true?

When I run with the kids the biggest difference is my speed for the first 2 miles. This older body takes a long to warm up but just wait till some of the hills at mile 5 and 6.

I like to run the 400 and 800 just because its good to think I can still run them.

Mountain Mazungo wrote:

HRE: thanks for the info on the Kiwi greats. I've noticed that the guys who are gangbusters in their early 40's are often "done" by 50. Hard to even think of an exception. Maybe Billy R. Ten years is a very long time in the masters' world!

I was just looking over this thread again and noticed this post. That got me to thinking about the "gangbusters at 40 and done at 50" idea. I think some of what happens is that when you're running well at 40 you're actually at the fringes of national or world class performance. That attracts attention.

By 50, even if you're running well, you've slipped to below national class. Foster and Campbell were brief exceptions and Martin Rees might be as well, but mostly, guys who did well at 40 are noticably slower at 50 and they tend to slip from the horizon.

What got me to thinking about this was that I was thinking about guys who've had really log and successful careers and Chuck Smead's name came to me. He was a top notch high school runner and just stayed near the top into his early 40s. Then he seems to have vanished. But I did a bit of checking and found that he's still running pretty well. He just doesn't seem to have attracted that much attention for the last few years.

On the other hand, there are some guys who seem to make one last big push at 50, perhaps driven by the chance to win some money, who have definitely eased back by 50.

Could it be that the old theory that a marathoner usually runs well for six to twelve years and then is through, at least for a while? Also, could we be finding out that runners often can have two 6-10 year stretches of fine running with, lets say, a 6+ year break between them? How much of such situations is physical and how much is mental?

There is a counterpart to the "Early 40's Number One/Age 50 Done", and it is exemplified by runners such as Nolan Shaheed, Alston Brown, Earl Fee and our own Ed Whitlock. These are the guys who are top-tier masters guys in their forties, but who are not completely dominant (i.e., they win Nationals and world titles, but are not really world-record-setters). They are hungry and tough, and by their early-mid fifties pop up on top of the record books, and commence to a rewrite of the aging curve on the upper end. They have turned their durability into their strongest asset.

I have to think that at some point retirement becomes a factor. Derek Turnbull told me that when he was young, raising six kids and working the farm he really didn't train at all. He'd just go to races on weekends and run off of whatever fitness he had naturally. Later on, when the kids were grown and he wasn't doing as much of the farm work himself he did start to get a few runs in during the week which got his times down.

I think Ed Witlock has mentioned in interviews that he started training a lot more once he retired. Maybe that second, older wave is made up of guys who have more time for the sport than they once did.

HRE wrote:

I have to think that at some point retirement becomes a factor. Derek Turnbull told me that when he was young, raising six kids and working the farm he really didn't train at all. He'd just go to races on weekends and run off of whatever fitness he had naturally. Later on, when the kids were grown and he wasn't doing as much of the farm work himself he did start to get a few runs in during the week which got his times down.

I think Ed Witlock has mentioned in interviews that he started training a lot more once he retired. Maybe that second, older wave is made up of guys who have more time for the sport than they once did.

Obviously there are many factors involved, there are so many individual situations to take into account, one's outside commitments, family committments, location, starting physical characteristics, relative rate of natural aging, injuries and motivation. I am sure there are others.

When I was in my 40's and just starting running again, I was quite serious and committed but I concentrated on middle distance because that was what the group I was with concentrated on. I suspect I should have been concentrating on somewhat longer distances but who knows. As the group evolved I got into longer distance training doing some 100 mile weeks but the objective was still middle distance. In my 50's work pressures increased and my training committment diminished, consequently my performances fell off, I am sure that with greater committment I could have done the training. When I retired time to train was easier to find and I recovered ambition. It still needs an understanding wife!

Thought you might chime in. Thanks.

My goodfriend Gary Romesser turned 56 this past November. He was born in November 1950.

56 is not exactly "pushing 60 now". Close, but not pushing. He does however still get over the century mark in training quite often. He's a monster.