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

Run SCZ wrote:

I find it funny I need to write the obvious, but in my opinion, the main reason for my mile times getting slower, is age.

Be careful now, there's one poster on this thread that will get really mad at you for saying this.

after 50 years of running I can attest that the age-grading scales accurately reflect reality. I still achieve 90% performance of age grade as I did when I was 25. I'm now 68. I've tried long mileage and intensive short mileage training and still come up with the same relative performances. Genetics rule. Try reading "Lore of Running" by Tim Knoakes. He has many of the answers youy're looking for.

The age graded tables have been very consistent for me across time. I've been in the low 80% range pretty much all of my 25 years of running. A little higher for the marahton, a little lower for the 5k. I've tried lots of different training approaches through the years, and they always yeild about the same result on the age graded tables. As Bill Parcells used to say, "You are what you are."

There is a ton of research on decline in vo2 max with increasing age. Vo2 max is not the same as running performance, but it comes damn close much of the time in terms of the downward curve.

Here's just one recent summary:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18347663

The age-graded tables have been compiled by very smart, very math savvy people. They do a good job of comparing any distance performance with the world best at a given gender/age/distance. Quite a remarkable too, actually.

http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup06.html

Yale prof Ray Fair (good name) has done nice work here

http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/aging/index.htm

And of course you can look up single age records at Ken Young's great statistics site:

http://www.arrs.net/SARec.htm

Anyone who doesn't believe aging slows you down is someone south of 40--probably well south.

The answer to the OP's original question is 'No, you can't scientifically predict how much an individual will slow with age'.

We know a large number of general mechanisms by which aging is likely to slow an 'average' person. But we don't have a sufficiently detailed model of how all those mechanisms actually influence performance that would allow us to quantitatively predict performance decline across a population that declined in an 'average' way. And correspondingly we don't have models that would allow us to understand how different levels of training (e.g. those specifically designed to counter-act ageing-specific declines) would effect performance.

And of course even it we did it wouldn't do any particular individual much good since all we'd have would be averages that a particular individual might deviate from quite significantly.

Of course you can say that same thing about running performance in general. We don't have any first-principles based theories that would predict an individual's running performance based on physiological variables (at least with any practically useful level of accuracy).

All we have are parametrized models that allow us to predict individual performance at distance 'x' based on best performance at distance 'y' and a general sense of average rates of performance improvements given training levels. And of course these all have to go hand and hand with the clear observation that there's huge individual variation. We can make informed speculations about the mechanisms involved but we don't know enough to make quantitatively useful models.

For now we're left with: training based on best practices which have been mostly evolved through experiment rather than theory, the realization that you'll likely have to do personal experimentation to understand what actually works best for your physiology, and racing as the best tool for predicting running performance.

Personally, I've been racing and training regularly since age 18 (when I was a crappy D3 runner) and at 44 am still setting lifetime PR's. I've learned and forgotten piles running-focused physiology. None of it has been anywhere near as useful as actually applying the usual aphorisms like 'listen to your body' in order to figure out how to train farther and faster without getting injured.

You have your novice trolls (easy to spot), accomplished trolls, and master trolls. kdkdkk is a master troll.

I find Tim Knoakes to be a credible scientist, but that is just me.

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sasma/article/view/31858

That's avery helpful post. Thanks.

But, I would only say that if most people stay in the the same basic place on the age graded tables their entire lives, the individual variation can't be that extreme.

come on!!!!!!!!! wrote:

kdkdkk wrote:

So what? Because the cause might be something that you can avoid. This isn't that hard to understand.

Kiddo - you tell me how to avoid getting older. Go ahead. Tell me how. Outside of dying, I doubt you're going to come up with something. You slow down as you age. That's the way life works.

I'm pretty sure if I jumped out of a 5 story window, it would hurt. A lot. But I don't have a study to prove it. Oh well. I'm still not going to jump out the window.

If it was 5k high, you could set a pr!!

Sliding Toward the Twilight wrote:

That's avery helpful post. Thanks.

But, I would only say that if most people stay in the the same basic place on the age graded tables their entire lives, the individual variation can't be that extreme.

Yes. *If* most people stay in the same place on the age-grade tables then the individual variation can't be that extreme. But of course if they *don't*, then it can be. Aren't tautologies fun!

I haven't seen any particular evidence in either direction. The work that I've seen cited looking at age grading all looks at averages across large numbers of individuals rather than focusing on how much individuals vary from that average.

My 5k age-graded performance has moved up 10 points as I aged from 20 to 44. So there's an n=1 data point you can toss in a box with whatever other anecdotal evidence you like.

I actually wrote an article on exactly this topic for RunnersConnect a while back. It talks about both why you slow down as you age, and by about how much you are predicted to slow every year. You might find it helpful.

http://runnersconnect.net/running-training-articles/how-much-does-age-effect-running-performance/

The upside of it is that the average masters runner slows by 1-2 seconds per mile per year for medium-distance road races (10-15km) and 4-6 seconds per mile per year for longer races like the marathon. The biggest factors in slowing down as you age are your max heart rate, VO2 max, muscular strength and power, and muscle flexibility. Strangely, running economy does not deteriorate much, even into your sixties!

It appears all the past data was specific to a unconditioned person. I have yet to see something relative to a person who has been fit most of their life. This being said I believe "the slowing down of a athlete" is very specific and we are all a experiment of one.

That is just about EVERY factor

True and good post. Probably the lad is trying to practice one piece of what he has been taught. Experimental validation needs to confirm even obvious and accepted assummptions.The part he is missing is the role of observation and its power in understanding the world. If it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, its probably a duck.

come on!!!!! wrote:

Spoken like a college sophomore who thinks passing Bio 101 makes him an expert. Give us a call back when you're over 40 and try telling us age doesn't impact running ability.

i've been fit all my life, ran 36 consecutive years of sub 5 minute miles, and qualified for two olympic trials.

obtw am a masters prepared exercise physiologist.

silly to listen to whomever is deciding to do moot court here...

but i do know that really enjoy at age 53 entering college xc races and beating half the field. . . .

though i am 4+ minutes lower than my college days.

must be current runners, like the thread starter here, are simply weak and lazy.

looking forward to seeing you on the starting line soon MELVIN.

I thought Jack Daniels studied a few guys whose V02 max stayed up there over the years. Here is something from page 11 of the "Lydiard or Daniels" thread from Jack Daniels that mentions one of those guys:

So much to do and so little time. I do have all the data on the 25-year followup. Most amazing was that all 26 subjects returned for testing (amazing that all 26 were still alive and well enough to do the testing). They had put themselves into 4 groups -- fat and unfit, fat and fit, lean and unfit and lean and fit. Better results by the fat and fit group than by the lean and unfit group, so keep exercising, there is no putting it in the bank -- you must keep at it. Importantly getting back together prompted a few of the not so fit to get back into some training. 3 little tidbits were that one guy who never had over a 148 max heart rate as a younger guy (I always thought I had made a mistake counting in each of his tests) had a 146 max 25 years later (so I guess I was right inthe first place); anopther had a max HR of 186 as a 25 year old and 192 as a 50 year old (so much for 220-age), and one guy had a VO2max of 78 as a 25 year old and 76 when 50 years old. Maybe I should get to writing it all down for publication.

To the original poster: Every time a cell divides, the telomeres get a little shorter. If the telomeres get too short, the cell dies. This is one part of the scientific explanation for aging.

I am 58 years old. I still think of myself as a 400/800 guy.

My 400 has slowed about 28% since high school.

My 800 has slowed about 23% since high school.

My mile has slowed about 18% since high school.

Around age 45, my sprinting speed just went to hell. No amount of weight training, plyos, speed work, or hills could bring it back. I feel like my pure fast twitch motor units just died off, but my pure slow twitch and fast twitch with oxidative potential have hung in there pretty well. With modern training (we didn't have much in the way of long interval training in the late 60s/early to mid 70s) my endurance end is much better trained. But even 18% slowdown is discouraging!

Just like no one can predict how you will grow and develop as you reach puberty and adulthood, no one can predict how an individual will age. Guys like Bill Collins (world class sprinter in his 20s, world class masters guy now) are one thing. But what about Charlie Allie? How does he do what he does?

http://masterstrack.com/2013/07/25238/

A far better topic would be how to slow the effects of aging on running performance. Here's my take at age 65.

Never take extended time off. Getting back to where you were is harder and harder.

Avoid injuries. See above.

Do everything you can to recover as fast as possible. Eat right. Get enough sleep. Take vitamins. Use the stick or massage.

Maintain some high intensity 12 months out of the year.

Maintain your weight.

Yeah-I got your credible studies right here, buddy. My high school teammates and I got together at our 30th reunion. Over boilermakers, we shared our training logs that we all dutifully kept since 1979. Assigning a 1 to 10 code to each injury based on severity and duration, we were able to correlate our injury history as a function of increased mileage and intensity. Got a Pearson Correlation Coefficient of .89, which I thought was pretty good. Me and another guy wrote it up (he did the writing-he's better at english and sh1t) and I did the statistical modeling.Submitted it to Runners World, Scientific American and Nature. Once they get this global warming stuff ironed out, I imagine they'll find space to print it.

kdkdkk wrote:

49 and holding wrote:

With me, (I'm 49) I can't run even close to the same volume I ran at 20 without getting injured. My body doesn't recover as fast. I think that's a big part of the challenge with age performaance.

Any credible scientific work to back up your opinion?

ordersofmagnitude wrote:

Sliding Toward the Twilight wrote:

That's avery helpful post. Thanks.

But, I would only say that if most people stay in the the same basic place on the age graded tables their entire lives, the individual variation can't be that extreme.

Yes. *If* most people stay in the same place on the age-grade tables then the individual variation can't be that extreme. But of course if they *don't*, then it can be. Aren't tautologies fun!

I haven't seen any particular evidence in either direction. The work that I've seen cited looking at age grading all looks at averages across large numbers of individuals rather than focusing on how much individuals vary from that average.

My 5k age-graded performance has moved up 10 points as I aged from 20 to 44. So there's an n=1 data point you can toss in a box with whatever other anecdotal evidence you like.

I was referring to agip's comment:

"for most people, age grading stays pretty consistent for a while. Meaning that if you run an 80% 5k at age 30, probably at age 50 you'll still be running an 80% 5k."

This is just an opinion by agip, I suppose. You seem to think this may not be true at all.

If agip is right, then it would seem sound to work the problem backwards as well. So, for example, if a man picks up running at the age of 47 and 10 years later is setting world records in the 55-59 year old age group, is it safe to assume if he had started competitive running at an early age he would have been a world class elite runner in his 20s?