Why are masters sprinters better than masters runners?

Google "The Need for Speed" by Pete Magill. Very entertaining and informative article.

Le Drugs

When the 100 and 400 records were set, what type of drug testing were they doing?

You know that the distance records set by Ed Whitlock, and the mid distance records set by Earl Fee are clean, but what about sprint records set 20 years ago?

If you regularly do strength training as most sprinters do, you can do a lot to limit the natural decline in strength and muscle mass. But the same is not so for the decline in cardiovascular performance. So, it would follow that the decline in sprinting ability might not be as steep as decline in distance running ability.

iSteroids blog:

"Jager insisted that she was not taking steroid-filled syringes into veins and was innocent and claimed that her only crime was to follow orders of a doctor and using a little green hormone replacement pill that quelled her post-menopausal hot flashes. Jager was banned for testing positive for methyltestosterone at the 1999 World Association of Veteran Athletes World Championships in Gateshead (Great Britain) where she had broken world records in running of 100 meters."

Most of the good sprinters never make it to the masters. Its usually the ones who never got hurt as a youngster who do well in the masters.

fred wrote:

When the 100 and 400 records were set, what type of drug testing were they doing?

You know that the distance records set by Ed Whitlock, and the mid distance records set by Earl Fee are clean, but what about sprint records set 20 years ago?

Most masters sprint records were set recently, not 20+ years ago:

In many age categories, the newer sprint records are much better than the older distance records. Here are the M65 times:

100: 12.37, 29.1% slower than WR, set in 2012 and 2008

200: 24.65, 28.5% slower than WR, set in 2013

400: 56.09, 29.9% slower than WR, set in 2013

800: 2:14.3, 33.1% slower than WR, set in 1995

1500: 4:39.9, 35.9% slower than WR, set in 1994

5K: 16:39, 32.0% slower than WR, set in 1992

10K: 34:42, 32.0% slower than WR, set in 1992

Marathon: 2:41:57, 31.7% slower than WR, set in 1992

The functional overload for Ed's marathon record at 70 is 3 hours of running every day. How many 70 year olds can do that?

So a few guys can do the work to be within a certain percentage of the world marathon record which has a workload of what 120-140 miles a week at 7,000 feet.

Whereas the 65 year old sprinter doesn't go to altitude and neither does the the regular sprinter ( although I believe that Sunder Nix trained at altitude in the 80's ).

So the gap for distance records is widened by altitude training, alleged blood doping and alleged EPO use.

fred wrote:

The functional overload for Ed's marathon record at 70 is 3 hours of running every day. How many 70 year olds can do that?

So a few guys can do the work to be within a certain percentage of the world marathon record which has a workload of what 120-140 miles a week at 7,000 feet.

Whereas the 65 year old sprinter doesn't go to altitude and neither does the the regular sprinter ( although I believe that Sunder Nix trained at altitude in the 80's ).

So the gap for distance records is widened by altitude training, alleged blood doping and alleged EPO use.

The 1500 records are actually worse than the 5K and marathon records for almost all age categories. Looks like the ability to handle high training volumes isn't a good explanation for the distance record gap.

My first thought is max heart rate is what happens, not very relevant in a short sprint.

And I doubt that Turnbull used any chemicals for his 2:41 and sub 5 mile at 65 plus. And he probably didn't go to altitude.

He was a genetic outlier who " used to lollop off into the Southland bush, refusing to admit he had any system ".

Whereas the world marathon record was a product of systematic training, and coaching.

jjjjj wrote:

My first thought is max heart rate is what happens, not very relevant in a short sprint.

yes, and most sprint types

conventional wisdom is wrong wrote:

fred wrote:

The functional overload for Ed's marathon record at 70 is 3 hours of running every day. How many 70 year olds can do that?

So a few guys can do the work to be within a certain percentage of the world marathon record which has a workload of what 120-140 miles a week at 7,000 feet.

Whereas the 65 year old sprinter doesn't go to altitude and neither does the the regular sprinter ( although I believe that Sunder Nix trained at altitude in the 80's ).

So the gap for distance records is widened by altitude training, alleged blood doping and alleged EPO use.

The 1500 records are actually worse than the 5K and marathon records for almost all age categories. Looks like the ability to handle high training volumes isn't a good explanation for the distance record gap.

No, the gap between 45, 59, 60 and 65 and the world 1500 record reflects the chemical basis of that record. Trautmann is clean, Ed is clean, Earl is clean.

And ever one of those world class female middle distance runners was doped to the gills.

fred wrote:

No, the gap between 45, 59, 60 and 65 and the world 1500 record reflects the chemical basis of that record. Trautmann is clean, Ed is clean, Earl is clean.

El G's 3:26 record may be doped, but Lagat and Kiprop have also run 3:26. The gap doesn't change much.

Besides, the 800 records are pretty bad as well compared to the 100.

M50 100: 10.88, 13.6% slower than WR

M50 800: 1:58.7, 17.6% slower than WR

M80 100: 14.35, 49.8% slower than WR

M80 800: 2:49, 67.3% slower than WR

M70 4x100: 51.96, 41.0% slower than WR

M70 4x800: 11:09, 58.5% slower than WR

conventional wisdom is wrong wrote:

fred wrote:

No, the gap between 45, 59, 60 and 65 and the world 1500 record reflects the chemical basis of that record. Trautmann is clean, Ed is clean, Earl is clean.

El G's 3:26 record may be doped, but Lagat and Kiprop have also run 3:26. The gap doesn't change much.

Lagat's A sample was positive, and Saugy fixed the B sample. Kiprop trains in Kenya.

3:26 is chemicalized.

"M50 world champion and world-record holder Val Barnwell of Brooklyn, New York, has been slapped with a two-year drug suspension " for T.

My guess is that the masters sprinters only get tested once or twice a year, and they are free to avail themselves of the same protocols as the world record

record holders.

fred wrote:

[quote]conventional wisdom is wrong wrote:

[quote]fred wrote:

No, the gap between 45, 59, 60 and 65 and the world 1500 record reflects the chemical basis of that record. Trautmann is clean, Ed is clean, Earl is clean.

El G's 3:26 record may be doped, but Lagat and Kiprop have also run 3:26. The gap doesn't change much.

Lagat's A sample was positive, and Saugy fixed the B sample. Kiprop trains in Kenya.

3:26 is chemicalized.

Lagat's sample was cooked in the sun for hours and totally degraded before it was tested. If you knew anything about gel electrophoresis you would understand that the A sample was mis-read and the B sample confirmed that.

That's an easy one. Old runners are wimpy just like young runners. Comparatively speaking, Sprinters are tough. That is why casual female fans of the sport perk up when the sprinters come on the screen.

random masters racer wrote:

fred wrote:

[quote]conventional wisdom is wrong wrote:

[quote]fred wrote:

No, the gap between 45, 59, 60 and 65 and the world 1500 record reflects the chemical basis of that record. Trautmann is clean, Ed is clean, Earl is clean.

El G's 3:26 record may be doped, but Lagat and Kiprop have also run 3:26. The gap doesn't change much.

Lagat's A sample was positive, and Saugy fixed the B sample. Kiprop trains in Kenya.

3:26 is chemicalized.

Lagat's sample was cooked in the sun for hours and totally degraded before it was tested. If you knew anything about gel electrophoresis you would understand that the A sample was mis-read and the B sample confirmed that.

Baloney. They waited on the B sample to degrade, but it didn't really matter, because the problem was being fixed.