Their ground contact time is less because they are going faster.
Their ground contact time is less because they are going faster.
I'd prefer to run fast while I still can than to save something for when I can't.
However, it's worth discussing the degree to which hard training over many years degrades your health and quality of life at 50+ years old.
Along these same lines, does anyone in their 50s + continue to run with joint replacement surgery of the knees? I've heard of some guys (and gals) with just a partial knee replacement continuing to train & race, as their chronic pain from the OA has been eliminated/significantly reduced allowing for pain free running. However, I haven't heard of any competitive runner with a complete replacement being able to run, or at least run on any consistent basis without risking damage 🤔.
Has the weightlifting helped reduce/postpone the sense of your legs feeling shot, less efficient biomechanics, etc? I've noticed far fewer days when legs ever feel "good" and was planning to ramp up weightlifting to see if it would help. Interested in your experience.
[quote]Just wow... wrote:
What misinformation?quote]
Your title for starters.
"This is why you won't be a competitive masters guy if you run heavy miles all your life"
Sean Wade the world record holder in mile through 10,000m for 50 plus was an international level marathoner and self confessed road whore during his pro career.
Just wow... wrote:
I've got no data to back it up...
Sara Palin wrote:
I'm not convinced.
Here's some data: Ed Whitlock, who ran well all the way.
Whitlock ran so consistently through his entire life that the majority of his masters records punched into an age grade calculator come out to his marathon PR as a young stud. The guy literally stayed at the top of his game his whole life.
I have a theory too wrote:
[quote]Just wow... wrote:
What misinformation?quote]
Your title for starters.
"This is why you won't be a competitive masters guy if you run heavy miles all your life"
It's not information, just opinion. This isn't the news or a sports medicine journal. If you want "information", go to the expert sources.
EdWhitlock luvah wrote:
Whitlock ran so consistently through his entire life that the majority of his masters records punched into an age grade calculator come out to his marathon PR as a young stud. The guy literally stayed at the top of his game his whole life.
He was very lean, had great biomechanics & a low injury history. Those factors alone will allow an aging runner to train consistently with high mileage & speed work, and consequently remain competitive. Good genetics + the discipline to train = good success for many older runners...nothing new there.
Just wow... wrote:
I have a theory too wrote:[quote]Just wow... wrote:
What misinformation?quote]
Your title for starters.
"This is why you won't be a competitive masters guy if you run heavy miles all your life"
It's not information, just opinion. This isn't the news or a sports medicine journal. If you want "information", go to the expert sources.
Glad to know you're full of it.
OK.
Not disagreeing with Smoove's insights, and I've benefited from this too. However, to add to it, my theory is that it doesn't really matter that there are masters guys out there who used to be good when they were younger, but choose not to be for whatever reason as older guys. We only consider them, and compare ourselves to them, because we and they KNOW they used to be good, based on their past faster selves.
But what about all the other random masters-aged people out there who very well could have an elite athlete locked away inside themselves, but never know it because they never tried, either as a younger runner or as an older one? Similarly, how do we know that Galen Rupp is indeed the best possible runner we have in the US right now? There could very well be 100 other similar-aged guys out there in the country right now who, with the same years of training, could beat him. But nobody will ever know because they either chose some different sport, or even some other completely different pursuit and never developed their athletic potential for whatever reason (and live their whole life never even knowing they possess it).
My point is that the formerly great, but now slower, masters runners are only being held up for comparison because of their KNOWN past abilities. Those guys have various reasons for not training hard in their 40s+, but the guys who currently DO get the most out of themselves as masters (Iike Smoove) shouldn't knock themselves. They're still faster than most everyone else at their ages, regardless of the reasons why the used-to-be-fast guys and the never-were-but-could-have-been-fast guys are what they are.
This begs the question of just how good a masters runner could some of theses elites have been had they not done the heavy running in their prime? It obviously made more sense for them to go for it when they did, but like you have suggested, how would a Rupp-clone, who didn't take up serious running until in his 30s or 40s compare with Rupp himself (assuming he stayed healthy and kept competing) if they both toed the line at age 50. Would the Rupp-clone likely blow all the 50+ records out of the water? Would guys who have continued to compete at a high level have even been better had they not done the intense stuff in their youth? Likewise, I suppose we'll never know, unless...going back to my initial hypothesis, we can test and compare the properties of the tissues of the long-time heavy mileage guys vs. the new to the scene guys performing at the same level. Interesting as well would be to compare other physiologic data between the two groups
what a great movie, thanks for sharing!
Real World Analysis wrote:
EdWhitlock luvah wrote:Whitlock ran so consistently through his entire life that the majority of his masters records punched into an age grade calculator come out to his marathon PR as a young stud. The guy literally stayed at the top of his game his whole life.
He was very lean, had great biomechanics & a low injury history. Those factors alone will allow an aging runner to train consistently with high mileage & speed work, and consequently remain competitive. Good genetics + the discipline to train = good success for many older runners...nothing new there.
What are you guys talking about? He ran a little as a young man but then stopped completely until he was already over 40. That's pretty much the opposite of training as hard as you can in your youthful prime.
Styu wrote:
Real World Analysis wrote:He was very lean, had great biomechanics & a low injury history. Those factors alone will allow an aging runner to train consistently with high mileage & speed work, and consequently remain competitive. Good genetics + the discipline to train = good success for many older runners...nothing new there.
What are you guys talking about? He ran a little as a young man but then stopped completely until he was already over 40. That's pretty much the opposite of training as hard as you can in your youthful prime.
Except that he ran a ton of miles from age 40 to 85. Wouldn't the OPs premise suggest that he'd lose a ton of performance from 45 years of serious mileage? That's like saying someone who did HS XC/Track and maintained strong age-group performances through age 60 was able to do so because they kept their legs fresh during middle school.
Just wow... wrote:
John Trautmann is not really a good example, because he took a LOT of time off between his heyday and his comeback. I think Meb's got it right with the Elliptego to preserve the spring in his legs. It would be interesting to hear how those other top guys who were great in their twenties went at it. Did they take some down years? are they balancing their running with low impact aerobics? And Michael Wardian, well...That guy is just a genetic freak, plain and simple. Also not an early entry to the elite running scene as far as I know, and his form of elite is a unique brand. He did not run competitively until after college.
I think a lot of lifetime runners gradually adjust their training in ways that doesn't do anything to preserve the spring in their legs. The ones that maintain high mileage (base) at all costs often do so by dropping sessions that require (and perhaps improve/maintain?) springiness. They drop intense interval sessions, sprinting, short hill sprints etc and do more easy running. Sometimes the only hard running would be tempo runs with a fast cadence shuffling stride (doesn't require springiness). Cadence doesn't decline with age but stride length does. Good stride length needs spring off the ground and recoil from tendons/muscles. Perhaps training in a way that preserves this springiness is better than doing the same (but slower) version of what worked when young?
TRW wrote:
Has the weightlifting helped reduce/postpone the sense of your legs feeling shot, less efficient biomechanics, etc? I've noticed far fewer days when legs ever feel "good" and was planning to ramp up weightlifting to see if it would help. Interested in your experience.
I would say that it's been beneficial, but like all tweaks, to training it's difficult to quantify the impact. If nothing else, coming back to it emphasised just how much strength id lost as initially I could barely do one rep at weights I used to warm up with. If you are considering it, i would recommend going fairly heavy for a relatively small number of reps. I have found getting in for a couple of sessions of e.g. 3x5-6 reps of deadlifts / squats, maybe some cleans, and some ab work is very maintainable, doesn't beat me up, and seems to have resulted in favourable changes in body composition. Luckily there is a gym nearby so I can be in and out within 20 minutes at lunchtime
Either am I wrote:
Just wow... wrote:I've got no data to back it up...
Sara Palin wrote:
I'm not convinced.
Here's some data: Ed Whitlock, who ran well all the way.
Not true. Ed was a late starter.