Can a master runner improve significantly? Do what?

keep the miles up and watch what you eat.

For me, and I have no speed, what works is consistent miles with large training block of high volume (10 weeks or so above 80). So I average 60 miles a week for the year and will have about 8 100mile weeks in a 10 week block usually. Your miles seem a little low to me. Not that you need 100mile weeks but I mean average 60 for two or three months, then do a two month block of 80 with workouts if it can handle it.

You're leaving out a lot of information that could help answer the question your title poses. Thirty to sixty miles a week is a wide range. If you were mostly around thirty with a few forays toward fifty or sixty you may not have been running enough. You don't say what your racing range is either so it's hard to know if your mileage was adequate for your distances nor do you say what "good workouts" actually involved doing.

But the biggest piece of information that's missing is what you're looking to improve significantly from. When did you start running seriously? If you've been at it since high school and are hoping to improve on times from your 20s-30s, I'd say that you cannot expect to improve significantly, at least not at commonly raced distances. If you've started recently, yes, you should improve quite a bit. Runners usually can count on five to seven years of improvement once they start training seriously regardless of how old they are when they begin.

HRE wrote:

Runners usually can count on five to seven years of improvement once they start training seriously regardless of how old they are when they begin.

So if someone's 94 years-old and die at 96, they'll can still count on 5-7 years improvement?

douchbag... wrote:

So if someone's 94 years-old and die at 96, they'll can still count on 5-7 years improvement?

Absolutely.

Thank you for the feedback. I am interested in the 5K. I have been running about 1 minute per mile slower than at my best in my 20s. I would like to see that become less than 30 seconds per mile faster than I am running now. I had a pr of 14:48 (71 sec per lap)at my best and now it is hard to run much faster than 6 minute pace for the same distance. My age graded pr should be 16:30 or near 80 seconds per lap.

Some things that I have been working at is losing weight. At my best in my 30s and 40s I was 140-145 lbs. Now I am 155 Lbs. I know that the 2 second per mile rule typically works. So I am trying to get my weight back down to the mid to low 140s for a start.

Then, I am trying to consider what I need to do with my running.I have been working on lifting weights these past 3 years. With that, I have seen good progress with injury reduction and good bio mechanics. The bottleneck is my aerobic capacity.

I can run down to 6:20 pace on runs without too much effort, but when I try to run under 6 minute pace I really start to notice my breathing and effort become challenged.

So the question is, can I see further improvements in my aerobic capacity with greater volume? Then can I expect small improvements or grand improvements with this. I just don't know. After 35 years of running and training I would think I might have the best answer, but I don't.

A person has about 10 good years of improvement. After that, it is downhill, but at different rates that are influenced by aging, training, diet etc. I see guys at 50 who, in effect, just started running seriously.

douchbag... wrote:

HRE wrote:

Runners usually can count on five to seven years of improvement once they start training seriously regardless of how old they are when they begin.

So if someone's 94 years-old and die at 96, they'll can still count on 5-7 years improvement?

The word "usually" basically means "most of the time, but not always". I would say that your example falls safely into the "not always" portion of that definition.

Anyways, you have only been training for a year and are nearly 50? Of course you can improve if you amp up your training. Probably for the next few years. The people who cannot PR as Masters have PRs from when they were training hard as 20 somethings.

162430 wrote:

Anyways, you have only been training for a year and are nearly 50?

Reading the long posts in the thread before throwing my response out there probably would have been a good idea. Whoops.

HRE wrote:

douchbag... wrote:

So if someone's 94 years-old and die at 96, they'll can still count on 5-7 years improvement?

Absolutely.

Oh Please!

Sounds like another interesting thread, how are all of you 50 somethings etc. still doing HEY WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CURSER??)

Wanted to edit, but seriously a NEW master runner will improve, a master runner who's been on the road, tack, trail, etc. can only hope to see how litle he/she can slow down. That's if he/she has been lucky enough to avoid injuries.

Here's what I'm understanding from your answer here:

You've been racing and training seriously since you were 15 and have gotten about three minutes slower over 5 km and want to get significantly faster. from what you've written, it seems as if you're doing the same training now, more or less, as you've always done but added weight lifting which seems to have helped avoid injuries but hasn't made you faster.

If that's the case, I don't know that you can get all that much faster. I mean, you're doing what you've been doing as you slowed so why would that routine make you faster? Yes, weight loss should help and so should staying healthy so I think that you can reverse the slowing for a while.

What I've observed of long term master's runners is that over the decades they have times when they're more serious than at other times. When they're in the less serious phases they slow down. When they get serious again they get faster than they were during the last "casual" phase but usually do not get back to where they were before the recent casual phase. I've also observed that mostly when long term master's runners reverse the slowing that comes with age they often have the same reaction you're describing, i.e., "I've improved but I think I should have improved a lot more than I have."

If you're lucky here, maybe some long term guys who have made dramatic reversals on their long term slowing will chip in. It seems to me that the key for you here is to get to where that 6:00 pace feels to you like the 6:20s do now. The way I used to get more comfortable at faster paces was to move my mileage up for a good stretch of time and then bring it back down a bit. That always made it possible to run faster. Then I'd work the miles back up but at the new, faster, pace. I did that for a few years and got to where 6:00 pace felt like 7:30-8:00 once felt.

I would also suggest that you stop trying to run under 6:00 pace but simply run as fast as you can without your breathing becoming labored. Over time, you may find that the pace comes down naturally on its own.

Thanks HRE This seems the best advice. I am wondering just how I can lose all that aerobic capacity over these years. I enjoy rolling into that low 6 pace. I can maintain that for at least 2 or 3 miles.

I have been doing interval work on the track of 800 meters under 6. E.g. 3-5 at 25- down to 2:38 on the last one with full recovery. Seems that sweet spot is 5-7 milers rolling out to 60 30 down to 6:10 pace.

But I do find many of my distance runs end up at 7:30s naturally. Today I ran 11.5 miles with stretches of miles at 6:45 pace, feeling comfortable, but for the heat.

Guess I'll keep plugging away. Keeping the miles up for a time with some shorter weeks mixed in to regroup.

Wish me luck as I wish you luck with your running.

Maybe you should try big numbers of reps at around 6:00 pace with very short recoveries. e.g, 40 x 200 at 45-46, 20 x 400 in 90 or so. It might get you more comfortable at that 6:00 pace. At any rate, I do wish you luck and appreciate you doing the same for me.