Pete MaGill - Tell us what you did to be able to run a 14:34 5k at 46.

we do wrote:

Take a nice 1980 model car and put it in the garage for ten years.

Take another 1980 model car and drive it consistently for those ten years.

The garage car will function better simply because it won't have the wear and tear of the car that drove for those ten years.

That's not empirical evidence. That's an analogy. And you're comparing the human body to a mechanical object.

Obviously a top level distance runner at the age of 28 is not going to be running that fast at age 48. That slowing is part of the normal aging process. But that doesn't mean that person can't run well into their 40s, 50s and beyond if they so choose. Sure, they'll have their injuries along the way.

If you took 1,000 top distance runners age 30, and 1,000 average Joes who have never run for fitness age 30, and trained them the same for 20 years, would more of the latter group be healthy and running at age 50?

haah wrote:

If you start late into running, you can actually maintain your ability to run well throughout your 40s. Stars who start early, however, are less likely to keep top fitness at such an age.

Off the top of my head, some masters age group record holders: Bill Rodgers, Joan Benoit Samuelson, Willie Gault, Johnny Gray, Merlene Ottey, and of course Eamon Coglan and Dave Moorcroft. And guys like Jim Sorenson who were always really good but only "elite" as masters. And in the field events: Brian Oldfield and Willie Banks.

So there really isn't a rule. Commonsense tells us that many elite open athletes will be burned out and beaten up by the time they reach 40. Others won't want to compete with diminishing skills. And others will continue to compete and set records - or not set records, depending on whether genetics has given them longevity.

And then there are other runners whose luck with genetics lies not so much with elite open potential as with longevity. Many newly successful masters runners trained just as hard as their elite counterparts when they were younger; they just weren't as good - so wear and tear isn't the issue.

And many masters runners didn't train as hard (or at all), so maybe those runners DO get that advantage.

It's interesting as a discussion.

Less so as a way of diminishing the accomplishments of older athletes.

And of little concern to most masters athletes in their own training, since no masters runner I know trains for medals and glory; we train for love of the sport and the camaradery of our peers.

Noakes has a theory, founded on his observations that at least for marathoners, there is only so much water in the well. I interpret his theory to suggest that a Master may run well at 1500-10k, but can't duplicate his marathon feats at age 40+. Of course, Gebreselasie will prove an exception to this rule as well when he runs about 2:07 at age 40.

I think the thing that interests me the most, is the workouts that someone is doing to perform at their high level. I know that a few great consecutive workouts are the key to going for it on race day without fear.

While I was trying to run a sub four mile a few years back, I knew that I would have to do a few workouts at that level to realistically have a chance ~ or it was all smoke. From 400's to 1200 time trials, you get a feel for how it will go on race day.

Getting comfortable with race pace is critical to racing fast. For XC it seems to be more about Tempo strength.

Anyways, I love to read the training blogs and watch the Weds workouts on Flotrack, as much as the races.

Always learning.

ty

I think the main reason why we continue to train and/or are interested in running is because we left something on the table as younger men/women. We had a spark sometime back that got snuffed out due to a variety of circumstances. We chose to abandon our running pursuits and journeyed on our way with silently unfulfilled dreams only to realize later in life to find ourselves in a position where we might fulfill those earlier pursuits before we get too old and die. Subsequently, we now find ourselves not in the 20 year old body anymore but in one where the heart supposedly doesn't beat as fast under stress. Yet we refuse to believe it. We want to see what's possible. We want to run faster than we ever have. That's what's remarkable about what you and TY have achieved. Most Universities and colleges across the USA don't have 5000m outdoor track records as low as 14:34. You've achieved something many young guys never have. I'm 37 and hope to eventually bust out a sub 15 5k. Keep it up man.... you're defying the science and the experts. Best Regards, Ron

another canuck wrote:

Noakes has a theory, founded on his observations that at least for marathoners, there is only so much water in the well. I interpret his theory to suggest that a Master may run well at 1500-10k, but can't duplicate his marathon feats at age 40+. Of course, Gebreselasie will prove an exception to this rule as well when he runs about 2:07 at age 40.

What master can duplicated their 1500/10k success who focused on it in their youth!?? how many masters runs better at the shorter stuff in comparison to their marathon times? Alot of masters run the longer distances because they can't handle the intensity of the shorter training, and they think they can do better in the longer events as they get older.

Also how would running a 207 be duplicating his feats!?? 3 minutes is a lot in a marathon (or more if he runs faster this year). That is hardly duplicating his marathon feats.

I believe that Noakes was saying that world class runners like Rogers and Salazar (specific examples) had run so many long hard races and runs that they were physically altered for the worse and could not run marathons any more, whereas 1500 guys can continue to train hard.

In fact, he was suggesting the opposite of what you and most of us commonly believe,that it is easier to move up as a Master rather than stay at the shorter, more intense events. Tony and So Cal Pete would be pretty good examples of Noakes theory. I did not mean to suggest that they could match peak performance, but you would win the award for all time quibbler if you wouldn't equate a 2:07 from Geb at age 40 with his current times.

noakes predicted that the first master to break 4 would be a guy who took up the sport late. however, it was coghlan. yet, he and o'sullivan did break down quickly after doing that, or at least coghlan had achilles problems. for noakes, it is a matter of muscle damage and overuse injuries that cause the limited period of excellence. At 39, I'm faster than I was when I was 19-20, but I was injured for most of the interim and didn't optimize my training at 19, getting my pr's at an average of 60 mpw and no track speed or tempo (it was winter and I didn't know about tempos). Perhaps it would settle the matter if we say that guys like myself, relatively fresh at this age, often move way up on the charts over guys still running who were much faster than I was in college. Some of those guys are still ahead, way ahead, like Paul Tergat!!, but many others are not and most of those guys aren't running close to what they did back then.

we do wrote:

Take a nice 1980 model car and put it in the garage for ten years.

Take another 1980 model car and drive it consistently for those ten years.

The garage car will function better simply because it won't have the wear and tear of the car that drove for those ten years.

Not only is this an analogy, it is wrong. If you just park a car in the garage and come back ten years later, it probably won't start and if it does, it will quickly have major problems. All the hoses will have decayed, the lubes will have decayed, etc..

"I ask because I can't train the way I used to due to family time. Running is too selfish to continue at a high level once your married with kids."

From what I see, "family time" seems to consist mostly of bored kids who would rather be on their computers, playing games or texting than with their parents, so "family time" consists of families occupying the same physical space.

Strange how people think it is just fine and normal to work in an office 50+ hours a week, but running 90 minutes a day with a 35-40 hour a week job is "selfish". It is possible, you know, to raise a family on a normal 40 hour/week job and not trade free time personal activities for family time just so you can work more to buy more stuff that is going to make your kids spoiled and apathetic anyway.

Keep in mind that the average american spends between 4-6 hours/ day with the tele or on the computer.

Yeah 60-90 min can be found there somewhere

I agree with this to an extent, but I have 4 kids in the house right now; take my day as an example;

Wake at 3:30, arrive work 4:30

Work until about 10, take a break and run

Work 12-4:30 or so, drive home

Arrive home about 5:30

5:45 or 6:00: eat dinner with family (3 hs kids return from practice about 5:30)

6:30-8:00: Clean kitchen, do odd jobs, help kids with homework (except math!)

8:30: Bed

So, I could double up runs and get myself up to 80-100mpw, but I would be skipping dinner with my family and leaving a lot of extra crap for my wife to do while out working on improving my Masters 10K time. Now, that would be selfish, in my opinion.

You have it made. It's a simple matter of finishing your 10K with a smug look, knowing that all those who finished ahead of you are selfish greedy bastards.

I know several fathers that play warcraft throughout the week and ALL of the weekends.

I know several fathers that sit in front of TV's watching their fave sitcoms thru the week and 8 hours plus watching football on the weekends- Especially this weekend!!

Somehow I dont think Magill or guys like him are diminishing the accomplishments of those in the rear.

Sounds like a serious case of penis envy if you ask me.

[quote]burlington northern wrote:

You have it made. It's a simple matter of finishing your 10K with a smug look, knowing that all those who finished ahead of you are selfish greedy bastards.[quote]

Most of the guys who finish ahead of me are just better athletes.

I agree that guys who get fat and say they can't stay in shape because of family and work are full of it. They simply don't make the effort to carve out the time to train. Like many on this board, I'd run at 3 in the morning if I had to. But there is a limit to what you can do without being seen as totally self absorbed and without impacting on your responsibilities as a husband and father, not to mention your professional responsibilities. I still haven't found the 35-hour a week job that pays well enough. Maybe I need to.

How did this thread start off with asking how does a master run a 5k in 14:34 to a LetsRun version of the Oprah Winfrey show entitled "Who's the fastest best dad master"? No wonder American runners are slowing down relative to other countries. We're getting soft people.

14:49 yesterday...and now listed as age 47.

http://teamtrax.net/files/schalfmarathon/docs/2009SCHalfMarathon-5K.pdf

35 190 St Geme, Ceci Cal Coast 17:53 45 Newport Beach CA F 5:45

That's pretty darn good too.

You guys are great. Congrats on your fantastic accomplishments.

I'm interested in the original poster's question. Does that mean male/female golfers all neglect their families, or people who shop all day without buying are neglecting their families? What about the person who works 60 hour weeks, and commutes a couple hours a day to and from work?

My parents both had, and continue to have, activities such as golf, art and music that keep them active and their minds sharp at the age of 90. I am grateful they passed that trait on to the kids.

Too bad if all one has in life is a dreary job, and resentment towards the family that 'holds them back from living'.

Might want to watch the opening of 'Joe And The Volcano'.