Smoove wrote:
Agree, there will be outliers, and the farther and father beyond 40 we are talking, the greater the likelihood of there being outliers when using age grading. At some point, it is a useless tool, but for those in their 40s, it seems like a good starting point.
Bit of an outlier here, and on the surface would raise one of your red flags. But as one of our regulars on a masters thread often says, here's my story and I'm sticking to it. No supplements, not even vitamins
College, age grade low 80s at best. Struggled with overtraining and race consistency
Post college 20s 85-86% (ca. 140 lb)
Post college 30s about 84-85% on less mileage (50 mpw)
Masters (early 40s) 82-83% with young family and high stress work (40 mpw, ca. 150 lb)
Masters late 40s to mid-50s 85 to 87% (50-70 mpw, ca 150 lb)
Late 50s, and now 60 - 89 to >90% (60-80 mpw, ca 140 lb)
Caveat A - I XC skied a lot most winters from age 26-56, when you do that you have a great base but spend half the running season just getting into shape, so the window to improve is short.
Caveat B - had blood sugar and cholesterol issues diagnosed at 58 so I changed my diet. Nothing radical or fancy but eliminated bad foods in favor of good foods (low glycemic, egg whites, oatmeal, salmon, etc. instead of whole eggs, refined flour, sugar, chips, pizza yadda yadda)
And one more, moved to higher altitude a year and a half ago and enjoying live high train low, with more racing at sea level than in my younger days.
what I'm seeing with long time runners my age that were much better is that they are more broken down. I did moderate mileage for many years and missed half the year while skiing. Plus did relatively So while I never stopped, legs are probably more fresh.
Would like to see more drug testing at the masters level, if prize money is being offered.