Are there any credible scientific studies that can predict with some precision the effect of aging on distance running?

kdkdkk wrote:

Older is a meaningless word.

LOL that Mr. "Show me scientific proof" is throwing around stupid platitudes like "older is a meaningless word."

"Older" has a very precise meaning. Look it up.

And if you want scientific studies on how our bodies deteriorate as we get older, there's plenty of that out there. There's a whole field of study called geriatrics that deals with this very thing. You might want to look into it.

Being in my 50's and having lots of distance runner friends who are also in their 50's, yes, getting older means you slow down. Your body doesn't recover as quickly as it used to and you are much more prone to injury. The reasons I suppose are that the body's cell turnover isn't as quick as it was in your youth, testosterone levels decrease (as well as a host of other hormones), ligaments and tendons aren't as pliable and flexible, bones can become more brittle, and I'm making myself depressed just thinking of all these things. However one thing doesn't change...it's still just as much fun as it used to me. Maybe even more.

ralphie wrote:

kdkdkk wrote:

What does older mean? Older is a meaningless word.

If I am older than you, it means my conception and birth date occured earlier in time than yours did. Thus, older is NOT a meaningless word. It means I've been alive longer than you.

You are welcome. Glad I could help clear up your confusion on the matter.

It is meaningless in the context in which you are using it. What does being born earlier have to do with athletic performance? And how much? Why do people slow as they get older? What does being older have to do with how fast I can move my legs? As it stands from your statements so far, getting older is a correlation not a causation.

How do you not understand this? Are you going to avoid answering my questions again?

Rock Lobstah wrote:

Being in my 50's and having lots of distance runner friends who are also in their 50's, yes, getting older means you slow down. Your body doesn't recover as quickly as it used to and you are much more prone to injury. The reasons I suppose are that the body's cell turnover isn't as quick as it was in your youth, testosterone levels decrease (as well as a host of other hormones), ligaments and tendons aren't as pliable and flexible, bones can become more brittle, and I'm making myself depressed just thinking of all these things. However one thing doesn't change...it's still just as much fun as it used to me. Maybe even more.

Agreed. I'm not 50 yet, but all you say is true for me as well. Recovery time just isn't what it used to be. I used to do 3 hard workouts a week...now I do 1. The legs just don't bounce back like they used to.

Cell division, bone density, testosterone levels, and so much more archange when you get older. It is far from "meaningless".

The good news, as you said, the sport is still fun. Sure, I have to be much more careful and take more rest, but it's still fun. I wouldn't trade our sport for any other.

kdkdkk wrote:

ralphie wrote:

If I am older than you, it means my conception and birth date occured earlier in time than yours did. Thus, older is NOT a meaningless word. It means I've been alive longer than you.

You are welcome. Glad I could help clear up your confusion on the matter.

It is meaningless in the context in which you are using it. What does being born earlier have to do with athletic performance? And how much? Why do people slow as they get older? What does being older have to do with how fast I can move my legs? As it stands from your statements so far, getting older is a correlation not a causation.

How do you not understand this? Are you going to avoid answering my questions again?

You move your legs slower when you're older because cell division occurs much more slowly when you're 50 than when you're 20. Also, muscle mass, bone density, hormone production, and blood volume all decline with age (holding other factors constant).

Once again, I was glad to help in your state of confusion. Keep studying; you still have much to learn.

Older is not meaningless. Tell me once again why there are no senior citizens playing in the NFL or NBA.

kdkdkk - you're dumber than a box of rocks. But I don't have any studies to prove it.

ralphie wrote:

You move your legs slower when you're older because cell division occurs much more slowly when you're 50 than when you're 20. Also, muscle mass, bone density, hormone production, and blood volume all decline with age (holding other factors constant).

Just adding to the list of things that make you slower when you age: maximum hear rate declines, metabolism declines, and reaction times and reflexes slow down, among other things.

If you think age is meaningless, you're not very old.

ralphie wrote:

You move your legs slower when you're older because cell division occurs much more slowly when you're 50 than when you're 20. Also, muscle mass, bone density, hormone production, and blood volume all decline with age (holding other factors constant).

Once again, I was glad to help in your state of confusion. Keep studying; you still have much to learn.

Older is not meaningless. Tell me once again why there are no senior citizens playing in the NFL or NBA.

Older IS meaningless. Saying something about cell division slowing down is not meaningless. Do you really not see the difference? One is vague, the other is more specific and directly linked to physiological performance.

I'm not going to tell you again (when did I tell you before?) why there are no senior citizens playing in the NFL or NBA. The only certain reasons are either they got fired or they retired. There are lots of things senior citizens don't do. It doesn't mean they can't.

All of those physiological declines that you mentioned can be minimized or even completely negated. Which brings me back to my original disagreement with you - that a decline with chronological age is inevitable. It is not necessarily. There could easily be simple fixes that would maintain or improve your athletic performance. If you weren't so quick to jump to conclusions, then you would realize this.

For some reason you refuse to accept this and think that getting older is the only reason why someone can't perform like they used to.

Pats kdkdkk on head.

Aren't you a cute little boy, refusing to believe the aging process?

Pats kdkdkk on the head once again.

Science includes facts but is very much about building up theories to explain the facts (e.g. the deductive-nomological model is one type), which differentiates, say, Copernicus and Ptolemy.

Do you really think there are 60 year olds that could play pro football or basketball? The fittest senior citizen on earth couldn't play in the NBA or NFL. Their muscular strength, quickness, speed, and reaction times couldn't match their 20-something peers.

Physiological declines CANNOT be completely negated. That's just not a scientific reality, and never will be. You reach maximum physical maturity in your mid to late 20s, after which the best you can do is slow down the rate of decline.

If your claims were true, people would literally live forever because their bodies would never deteriorate.

The best proof against your claims is the existence of cemeteries. If what you say were true, people would never die. They do. Thus, you are wrong.

good grief, you're dumb wrote:

Do you really think there are 60 year olds that could play pro football or basketball? The fittest senior citizen on earth couldn't play in the NBA or NFL. Their muscular strength, quickness, speed, and reaction times couldn't match their 20-something peers.

Let's make it more specific to running: why don't 60 year olds win Olympic gold medals? Set world records? I watched the World Championships last month, and didn't see a single 60+ person competing. Is that just because they all collectively decided not to?

Or maybe it's because they can't compete with all the 20 and 30 year olds that actually WERE there. Heck, Bernard Legat still competes well in his late 30s and people here think he must be doping to do that. Imagine what they'd think of a 60 year old!

good grief, you're dumb wrote:

If your claims were true, people would literally live forever because their bodies would never deteriorate.

You beat me to it. Sorry for repeating your point.

As has been pointed out to you, what you've said is, physiologically speaking, simply not true.

Our bodies decline as we age. All of us. We can, to some degree, control the rate of decline, but we can't stop it. Sorry to disappoint you.

Good discussion on page one despite some wailing and name calling. A number of things happen with aging and I will tie in my own observations and experience. Never stopped running and training despite some down years due to injury. Peaked at 25 - 28 set all prs at 25-33. Noticed top end mile and 5k speed leveled off at 30 or 31 and no matter what I did I could not bring those times down. Kept stron for 10 k and up Until 33 and 34 and then those dropped, partly due to injury. Age grade times equated to prs through 48 or 49 but I have not slowed since then. Now in the 87-88 % range instead of 85 or so. Vo2 max and speed level off early. Recovery takes longer after mid or late 30s but endurance hangs on for a long time. I actually feel worse at 55 compared to 47 but can still hang tough in longer races. Interesting topic.

Good discussion here, and I noticed a similar trend myself.

My 5K and shorter PRS were permanent by age 25. My 10 times kept improvoing until about age 30. My marathons stayed near PR level until I was 34. I'm 40 now and I know I'll never PR again, no matter what I try, short of moving up to ultras(hmmm...). It does seem you lose speed sooner than distance. I know lots of old guys who can still run as long as they ever could, but can't run anywhere near as fast.

I also know lots of former runners who had their running brouoght to an end by injuries. (Typically, cartilage injuries). I'm thankful that I can still run and run hard, even if the seconds on the finish line clock move a lot faster than they used to. :)

kdkdkk wrote:

What does older mean? Older is a meaningless word.

I'm not the dense one here.

Is this Bad Wigins under a different name?

Make an incredibly ignorant statement, then defend it to beyond reason, even after being shown you are wrong.

Muscle mass decreases by a specified percent each year after around age 30. I don't have the studies but this would be a key reason for the functional decline with aging.

It made me hit the gym to try and put off this atrophy.