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

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

I guess this is a bit of a trick question with the obvious answer being “NO”. “Aging” in and of itself is not a disease but a collection of changes too long to list here. The WMA-Age-grading calculator is our current best mathematical predictor. Personally it’s not been very accurate as my mile and 5K times have gone from 85% at age 18 to 77.9% at age 53, and now, being injured for 1+ years: 0%.

correct me, if i am wrong? is there a misunderstanding?

i think, the wma age-grading calculator is not a predictor-tool. it compares an age-performance of a specific age-group with the best result of this age-group ("age-performance %") and it calculates what you should have to run as a young lad to perform at the same level ("age-graded result").

you were a stronger runner with 85% at age 18 than at age 53 (77,9%).

for example: a runner at age 45 is doing a 3k in 9:10. his pr at age 25 is a 8:30. which time is better or harder to achieve? the 9:10 at age 45. if this 45 years old athlet, performing a 9:10, would be 25 years old instead of 45, he would do it in 8:20,4.

I wouldn't quite call this a scientific study in a strict sense but for my graduate course in signal processing, statistics, and data mining, I wrote a paper on the subject of slowing down over time. I looked at distances from the mile up to the marathon and tried to find races with large sample sizes with freely available data where I could try to eliminate as much bias as possible (such as from weather). For instance, I collected nearly 800,000 entries from the NYC Marathon, which was probably the worst weather entry but had the most data. It's been suggested I publish it but it's not really my field of study and I there's more to do that I haven't quite done. I do heavy statistics in astronomy, so like I said, it's not really a strict scientific study, but I'd like to think I did a good scientific analysis for the class (I've been a graduate student for a few years, if that gives me any more credibility).

I took large sample sizes because I argued you couldn't follow individuals because of things like injuries and training variations, and I didn't use age records because those follow only the elite runners. Without giving away too much of the beef of it (in case I ever do publish it), my results were as follows:

-It is very clear that you see a broken power law form of the slow down. That is, you slow down by some relatively stable rate until a certain threshold age and then you slow down worse after that point. There wasn't enough data at the oldest ages (>70) to see if there was another break (my other limit was

Do you have examples of elite runners who are able to run much closer to their PRs? Are there any former elite 50 yos who are really close to their PRs?

Look, one feature of aging is that your cells are not being replicated with the same fidelity...and as a consequence they are not as good as they were in your prime. You're just not the same as you were in your prime. If you push try to maintain your old training practices or up the training you will break down and therefore decline in your athletic performance. No one violates this rules. Sure, there are outliers, but they still decline in performance.

Even in an activity like chess, you'll notice that the very best players in the world are not very old. Even the brain can not defy the aging process.

Kind of funny that NOBODY in 4 pages of responses can answer the question with actual evidence. The answer that has been discussed some is loss of concentric strength:

Stride rate doesn't seem to change but the amount of power per stride does, and this also affects heart-lung function. And this is why EVERY aging runner or sprinter should be doing regular weight training.

But there's another reason. Older people don't train as much or as hard. Dr. David Costil has in his book some data on Hal Higdon, who trained similarly (trying for marathon trials) over a number of years as he aged, and his VO2max didn't change over many years.

If you train like you used to, I think you will get adaptions like you used to.

It's not a 100% predictor, but the WAVA age-grade tables/calculator are pretty darned good. Obviously, there are some folks who start late and get some of the "low hanging fruit" in terms of improvement and PRs that way. And I think we all recognize that Ed Whitlock is just an entirely different species of stud. But a lot of data went into those tables, and they work most of the time. Like a lot of folks on this board, I got back to my HS PRs by age 30-31, and if I had trained at 27-28 like I did then, I might could have been even faster. By 35 it was like flipping a switch. Now at 45, if it were not for the age-grading, I would cry to read my log. But at least in terms of perceived effort cross-referenced with quality of training, they seem to hold up very accurately for me.

What I find doubly interesting is to take a race time, convert it, and plug that back into Daniels or McMillan or Purdy and figure about training paces. It's not always clear, but there are some neat patterns, particularly involving easy runs. My mind and muscle memory still wants to run what used to be really easy, and what is now not hard at all. But a few of those in a row and I discover that I can't recover. I've got a friend in his 60s who races better relative to his age than me, but on paper he trains what seems super-slow. Starting to think he might be smarter.

coach d wrote:

"If you train like you used to, I think you will get adaptions like you used to"

Do you mean to sy that someone who at 30 yo ran 50 mpw and had 15 min 5k ability, can train at 50 mpw at the same intensity at say....50 yo?