It's not simply aging. It's age plus years spent running. Performance varies inversely with both of those.
It's not simply aging. It's age plus years spent running. Performance varies inversely with both of those.
runner who professes wrote:
It's not simply aging. It's age plus years spent running. Performance varies inversely with both of those.
+1
This is an excellent point and one I really believe as well. I've never been a high mileage runner (45-60 mpw) and always take one day per week (Mondays). Still, over 34 years of running, that's approximately 85,000 miles in my legs.
It's a COMBINATION of age and how many miles are in your legs.
I believe that if you took another soon-to-be 56 year old with solid training under their belt but fewer miles in their legs, they would be faster than I am. All those cumulative miles have an effect.
imarunr wrote:
runner who professes wrote:It's not simply aging. It's age plus years spent running. Performance varies inversely with both of those.
+1
This is an excellent point and one I really believe as well. I've never been a high mileage runner (45-60 mpw) and always take one day per week (Mondays). Still, over 34 years of running, that's approximately 85,000 miles in my legs.
It's a COMBINATION of age and how many miles are in your legs.
I believe that if you took another soon-to-be 56 year old with solid training under their belt but fewer miles in their legs, they would be faster than I am. All those cumulative miles have an effect.
===================================================
Hmmm, the case of a lot of elite master runners with 'young legs'
The drawback of the well-known quote, the miles of trials, the trial of miles.
Wonder if those two fictional characters, Cassidy & his bud, Denton would be running much these days.
runner who professes wrote:
It's not simply aging. It's age plus years spent running. Performance varies inversely with both of those.
+++1
Which is why many very good masters runners started later in their careers and some are still progressing. I know one 48 yr old lady who has been running seriously for almost 2 years. She's a new runner and in May put down a 1:22 half. For a 48 year old, that's pretty damn good. I know another 48 yr old lady who was a 2:30s marathoner in her 20s and 30s who can no longer break 1:30. She's been slowed mostly by off and on niggles. Same for a 46 yr old who retired last year-2:38 marathon PR maintained low mid 2:40s til age 44, started slowing down at 45 and retired. Her main niggle was the Achilles/bursitis.
Baltic Babe wrote:
runner who professes wrote:It's not simply aging. It's age plus years spent running. Performance varies inversely with both of those.
+++1
Which is why many very good masters runners started later in their careers and some are still progressing. I know one 48 yr old lady who has been running seriously for almost 2 years. She's a new runner and in May put down a 1:22 half. For a 48 year old, that's pretty damn good. I know another 48 yr old lady who was a 2:30s marathoner in her 20s and 30s who can no longer break 1:30. She's been slowed mostly by off and on niggles. Same for a 46 yr old who retired last year-2:38 marathon PR maintained low mid 2:40s til age 44, started slowing down at 45 and retired. Her main niggle was the Achilles/bursitis.
Very true, most of the time. You know that masters guy who wins your local races? There's a very high probability he wasn't running seriously in his 20s.
Flagpole wrote:
Now, at age 47, I have other lower-body issues...the inside of my left knee is horribly painful today after I ran three days in a row for the first time in months. Super short runs too 1 mile, 1.5 miles, 1.5 miles. AND, I ran those runs 3 weeks ago; super sore when I first get up from sitting for a while. Had the same issue after ONE short run in September and had to take 4 MONTHS off before the pain went away, so I don't know if I've torn something, just need to stretch more or what.
Realistically, I'm just not a runner anymore. Kind of sad as I would love to be able to do it...even just short runs of 3 miles a day. I just can't though.
Going to be stuck with the elliptical and Power 90 and like workouts. Or maybe I'll just let myself go and swell to 300 pounds.
Sounds like osteoarthritis. Have you had it imaged?
I personally know 5 runners who are now former runners due to this. It ends lots of running "careers".
By the way, if it is OA, ballooning up to 300 pounds is NOT a good idea. Being overweight makes OA much worse.
SoCal Pete wrote:
Pretending that we don't age would be silly. I don't need a stopwatch for that. I've got a mirror. And, at age 53 now, I've also got memories of running in my teens, and 20s, and 30s, and 40s. And of course it changes over the years.
It used to be much easier, now not so much. Doesn't matter what element of training or racing we're talking about. Every component of our running bodies weakens as we age: We lose muscle (mostly fast-twitch), our connective tissue stiffens, our hormone levels drop, our nervous system slows down, our max heart rate drops (and the corresponding cardiac output), our VO2max gets lower, etc. etc.
When my shoelaces came untied mid-run in my 20s, I didn't have to find a bench or low wall to retie them. In my 20s, I didn't worry about pulling hamstrings and quadriceps attempting intervals without a running start.
But then again, age gave me a great gift: It removed the ability to train stupidly and hope to make a race start line; it forced me to become a better runner, even as I became a slower one. I soon learned that training as an aging runner is a No Mistake Zone: that I had to practice proper workouts (targeting all elements of running fitness--not just a glut of mileage and fast reps, with the hope that fitness and performance improvement would magically trickle down), proper recovery, targeted and thoughtful racing, etc.
And as I trained smart, I began to view racing not so much as a competition against the past--a race I could never win--but as an attempt to maximize my current potential. Victory has become maintaining a smart training routine and then celebrating with a race in which I run as fast as I can--at this age.
Look, here's the thing: As runners, we learn early on--unless we're Olympic champions and world record holders--to measure our performance against what we consider to be our own potential. To enjoy running as you age, do the exact same thing; just recognize that the "you" who existed at age 25 is not the you who will exist decades later.
If there's one thing masters runners are proving these days, it's that we don't have to slow down as much as we thought we were going to. When I was 21, I was amazed to discover that runners in their 40s could still run a 5 minute mile. At age 50, I averaged 5:01 for a 10K.
Don't be limited by what you cannot do as you age; be amazed by what's still possible.
Either way, you will age. It's your choice how you choose to deal with that--but remember that most of your life will be lived on the downslope of athletic performance. That doesn't mean it can't be a wild and exhilarating ride all the way.
I'll agree with Pete - I'm 47 and have been enjoying running more than ever because I know so much more about it now and can coach myself. what a joy that is.
for the record,
Age 17: 10:00 two miles
mid 40s: 10:45
I'm happy with that - and I am not slowing down since I turnd 40.
tyuiop wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Now, at age 47, I have other lower-body issues...the inside of my left knee is horribly painful today after I ran three days in a row for the first time in months. Super short runs too 1 mile, 1.5 miles, 1.5 miles. AND, I ran those runs 3 weeks ago; super sore when I first get up from sitting for a while. Had the same issue after ONE short run in September and had to take 4 MONTHS off before the pain went away, so I don't know if I've torn something, just need to stretch more or what.
Realistically, I'm just not a runner anymore. Kind of sad as I would love to be able to do it...even just short runs of 3 miles a day. I just can't though.
Going to be stuck with the elliptical and Power 90 and like workouts. Or maybe I'll just let myself go and swell to 300 pounds.
Sounds like osteoarthritis. Have you had it imaged?
I personally know 5 runners who are now former runners due to this. It ends lots of running "careers".
I suppose it could be. Just read some of the symptoms and it doesn't sound exactly like what I have...would almost have to be a pinched nerve from any swelling to be where I have the pain, and I don't see any visible swelling.
One of these days it will be time to get a complete physical.
Hate to sound preachy, but one of these days is now. How does a 47 y.o. not get regular physicals? Especially if you're having problems keeping you from running?
bump
An interesting thread. It has been many years since I ran or even jogged two days in a row. As I aged (now 78) my goals and interests evolved until I still enjoy running/jogging/walking but the purposes have changed completely. One theory I have never given up is that one needs 40 to 60 minutes of cardiovascular, i.e. run/jog or walking, EVERY day. Anything else is not as effective. There have been several studies that indicated that walking daily is the best exercise for the heart. So as you age and approach 70 it is likely that competing is on the back burner and cardiovascular fitness is more important. And I suggest that you stay away from the marathon after age 50.
Orville Atkins wrote:
An interesting thread. It has been many years since I ran or even jogged two days in a row. As I aged (now 78) my goals and interests evolved until I still enjoy running/jogging/walking but the purposes have changed completely. One theory I have never given up is that one needs 40 to 60 minutes of cardiovascular, i.e. run/jog or walking, EVERY day. Anything else is not as effective. There have been several studies that indicated that walking daily is the best exercise for the heart. So as you age and approach 70 it is likely that competing is on the back burner and cardiovascular fitness is more important. And I suggest that you stay away from the marathon after age 50.
Ha, my last marathon was Boston, 1982 age 34. My slowest, heat and being not quite prepared were a factor. Always then meant to give it another shot. Injuries, life circumstances, etc. took away the motivation.
Now get out for 15 - 30 min. 5x - 6x a week. Last 7 years have been delivering the early AM newspaper, a while ago had 260 copies, now backed down to 180. Do this by bike, some brisk walking & trotting around a couple of condos. I Do believe this has maintained good conditioning, I am burning calories. Not sure how much longer I want to continue with this, finances and the need to be doing something are an issue. Was obliged to accept early retirement from a 28 yr. career.
Yup PR's have long since been a thing of the past, I'd be a world class masters if I could match them now.
Am blown away by people like Ed Whitlock, a fantastic human running machine. Easily smokes out those 1/2 his age.
tyuiop wrote:
Hate to sound preachy, but one of these days is now. How does a 47 y.o. not get regular physicals? Especially if you're having problems keeping you from running?
You are right. I've had some other things (specific health things) I've been looked at for a few years now, so those examinations typically handle most things...just not muscle and joint issues.
I will do it soon.
I think you get slower after 40 but not before that
runner who professes wrote:
It's not simply aging. It's age plus years spent running. Performance varies inversely with both of those.
I suspect this is a myth. I am almost 75 and have run and competed virtually every year since I was 15. That's sixty years. My performances, adjusted for age, improved during my sixties and seventies. I started setting course records in trail and hill races. I ran sub 7 minute miles for a four mile trail race at age 70 (27:48) and came in first over 70 in a national hill race championship.
Observing the records of my competitors, I note that the ones who run most tend to perform best. I do believe that the marathon fetishism of slow runners is a mistake. Training for a marathon becomes a test of joints and bones rather than running prowess.
I was a mediocre runner in college, with lots of injuries. 4:30 miler, 27:25 for five miles, 3 hour flat marathon. I have noticed that better runners tend to cut back after winning a lot of acclaim while inferior runners like me stay motivated to compete.
It works. There is no inverse relationship between accumulated mileage and performance.
Not a Coach wrote:
WAVA tables keep me sane
My AG%s are continually improving as I get older.
Running is still fun, mpw followed by time with age-grade performance, ag time:
35: 21mpw, 16:58(78)16:32;
4:43.1(80.7)4:35
40: 17mpw, 17:38(78.1) 16:31
4:54.9(80.3) 4:37
45: 20mpw, 17:56(79) 16:14
5:08(79.7)4:39
50: 16mpw, 18:51(79.2) 16:17
5:25.8(78.3)4:44
55: 12mpw, 20:12(77.1) 16:43
5:35(79.6)4:39.7
ggilder wrote:
runner who professes wrote:It's not simply aging. It's age plus years spent running. Performance varies inversely with both of those.
I suspect this is a myth. I am almost 75 and have run and competed virtually every year since I was 15. That's sixty years. My performances, adjusted for age, improved during my sixties and seventies. I started setting course records in trail and hill races. I ran sub 7 minute miles for a four mile trail race at age 70 (27:48) and came in first over 70 in a national hill race championship.
Observing the records of my competitors, I note that the ones who run most tend to perform best. I do believe that the marathon fetishism of slow runners is a mistake. Training for a marathon becomes a test of joints and bones rather than running prowess.
I was a mediocre runner in college, with lots of injuries. 4:30 miler, 27:25 for five miles, 3 hour flat marathon. I have noticed that better runners tend to cut back after winning a lot of acclaim while inferior runners like me stay motivated to compete.
It works. There is no inverse relationship between accumulated mileage and performance.
Looks like we should all get out there and start training!
Totally - that the less acclaimed you were, the more likely you are to keep at it. Out of all the fast people I knew from my fast, the ones who were the fastest do not run anymore.
I'll admit. I'm 40. I still want to win races. I still imagine that I am fast. Hahha, I know my limitations, but I still have the passion for running, as strong as it was when I was 16. I love the actual act of running itself outside of competition and I know that I will do that forever. For right now, I am still very motivated by (trying) to run PRs and doing well for myself and placing well among women and masters women.
Point is: I still love to get out there. Turning older has not changed that one bit. Having a child hasn't changed that, although the lack of sleep is not helping recovery.
Bump