This is why you won't be a competitive masters guy if you run heavy miles all your life

Just wow... wrote:

Even with an "anything goes" approach, some people are going to keep quiet, to avoid giving away whatever it is that gives them their competitive edge.

Ugh...you'd think we'd outgrow that.

Just as a anecdote... I know guys running 15:20-16:00 in their early 30s and now at age 45 plus, they've only slowed to 16:15-16:45. I'm confident none are taking testosterone or any PEDs.

PTF wrote:

I'm probably in the minority...but I'd like to see "anything goes" after a certain age. The only stipulation is that you have to disclose what you are doing. That way we could have honest discussions about benefits, risks, health, performance etc..

That's a fair point. Most of these guys are doing it under a physician's care at these low-T centers/anti-aging clinics with legal prescriptions, blood work & the like. The problem is with some of these ageless wonders is that they keep it a secret and chalked off their performance improvements to organic food, smarter training, clean water, high-tech shoes, new Garmin watch, yoga & bs like that. They like the attention & accolades they get from their stellar performances, but don't want to tell us the whole scoop.

And who cares of they're none-competitive runners who do some fun runs once in a while...more power to them. But if they're competing against other guys in events where age-group awards & bragging rights are involved, then for those that are not using performance enhancing hormones, we have the unfair advantage issue...like at any level of competition.

Just wow... wrote:

You are right. By masters, I'm really not referring to the guys in their early to mid 40s so much, but more so in the ensuing years, with a greater divergence from those who kept fresher legs.

I don't think loss of competitiveness due to tendon elasticity (springiness) decline kicks in until the mid 50s. 20 plus years of high mileage since the age of 30 maybe. No way to be sure unless we have twins, one who ran high mileage, one who didn't, both with similar race times as young runners and see how their times compare in mid 50s.

DougC wrote:

Just as a anecdote... I know guys running 15:20-16:00 in their early 30s and now at age 45 plus, they've only slowed to 16:15-16:45. I'm confident none are taking testosterone or any PEDs.

Honestly...how would you know that for sure? Guy's running around in the Master's & Senior's divisions using T or GH aren’t going to have a bumper sticker advertising the clinic that they go to. They're all going to keep that little secret to themselves and probably use a clinic way across town where they'll be less conspicuous, Lol.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Just wow... wrote:

You are right. By masters, I'm really not referring to the guys in their early to mid 40s so much, but more so in the ensuing years, with a greater divergence from those who kept fresher legs.

I don't think loss of competitiveness due to tendon elasticity (springiness) decline kicks in until the mid 50s. 20 plus years of high mileage since the age of 30 maybe. No way to be sure unless we have twins, one who ran high mileage, one who didn't, both with similar race times as young runners and see how their times compare in mid 50s.

No, you could also determine this by doing a study involving tissue biopsies.

Those low-T clinic guys are easily caught. And they do get caught. If you are low-T and supplementing, you need a TUE. Better yet, don't fall for the TV/Radio advertising that you need T supplements unless it's a real problem diagnosed..

I'm tired of all Masters performances being suspect. There are legitimate talents and Masters training their hearts out. The reason so few performances are out there is because busting intervals at age 50 is hard work.

Your better AG performance at 10K+ is probably linked to that five pounds of weight loss. Probably lost a little power but gained efficiency. I had the opposite happen when I added 10-15 lbs of upper body muscle. Lifetime bests at 200/400/800, 30 seconds slower at 5K.

Coyote Montane wrote:

I more or less hung up ski racing three years ago (maybe to return when my legs go), and I think the shift in itself has helped. My running economy has improved from running all year, and I'm running lighter than before, at 145 lb compared to race weight of 150 (kept that consistent from about age 35 to 57 or 57). Otherwise, my training isn't a whole lot different than what I've been doing since about 2004; and it's closer to what I did in my mid 20s than late 20s and early 30s. Long runs, tempos or long reps, and just enough speed training (usually fartlek and pick ups) to get by.

And just how easily are they being caught? 🤔 There's very little testing at the Masters/ Seniors level as USADA's budget is already restricted enough (they barely have enough funding to adequately conduct testing/ABP sampling with the elites). And a legal prescription for T or GH would probably count as a TUE. And some of these clinics don't even check T levels for TRT (see the link below).

And why shouldn't a 55+ guy not be suspected who's training like a madman running 80+ mpw, twice-weekly killer speed workouts, 20+ mile weekly LRs, etc., and running amazingly super fast times? Some of these ageless wonders go years without injuries or downtown time, training and racing year round like they're a 25 yr old elite. And T prescriptions have tripled over the last several years in the U.S. All it's about the money with many of these low-T centers & anti-aging clinics. You got the dough...they've got the therapy.

And even the UK is on the act:

I am kind of surprised there isn't a blog about a clean , pretty good masters runner, going the full T. deal and sharing results? Whatever cocktail they think works. Like a 55-60 Y.O 18 min 5k runner . Send them to Dr. Brown for the full deal. Or get the real masters elites to do it and see if they don't improve. Seems like if someone can run 15 for 5k at 50 years old clean there would be someone else doing it faster doped.

Maybe a 60 second 400 runner too? How low into the 50's could they go?

I think that's what's not generally well understood. With Nationals a lot depends where it is, and as you go up in age the ranks thin, so only takes one or two guys not to turn up and you might be in with a medal or even a win chance.

You mention Sacramento 2010 as a tough year: I was 54, ran about 17:30 in the 5000m and got lapped. A couple of years later I got third in the new age group, but well-beaten, but the year after, my time would have won the same age group quite easily.

One year in the indoor at Landover, in the 55+ 3000m there were only about six or seven guys, and they included a world indoor champion in age group/distance; the previous year's 1500m outdoor champion; the runner who set the fastest time in the U.S. for the distance that season; and the runner who had run the fastest time for the distance the previous season. Like World Cup soccer's group of death!

I'm a high 80s masters guy. In three marathons - the world majors in the US - I was 2nd American masters (7th masters) (2:35 on a bad weather day in NYC); 1st male masters (2:30 in Chicago); and top 10 American masters (1st American in my age group) (2:34 Boston). None of those were 95 equivalents yet they were all high end masters placing at races that draw fields with quality that is as good as the masters championships. Those saying 95s are common seem mistaken to me.

Some of the AG WRs are in the 96/97% (for instance 5K 15:00 for M50). 95% is bordering on WR-level. Only Ed W and a handful of others get near 100%90% is world class masters, pure and simple. For example, in the M60 1500, only five athletes were 90% or better in 2016.

Smoove wrote:

I'm a high 80s masters guy. In three marathons - the world majors in the US - I was 2nd American masters (7th masters) (2:35 on a bad weather day in NYC); 1st male masters (2:30 in Chicago); and top 10 American masters (1st American in my age group) (2:34 Boston). None of those were 95 equivalents yet they were all high end masters placing at races that draw fields with quality that is as good as the masters championships. Those saying 95s are common seem mistaken to me.

Hoodunnit wrote:

Some of the AG WRs are in the 96/97% (for instance 5K 15:00 for M50). 95% is bordering on WR-level. Only Ed W and a handful of others get near 100%

90% is world class masters, pure and simple. For example, in the M60 1500, only five athletes were 90% or better in 2016.

Just how accurate are these age-graded running tables? There seems to be a wide spectrum of ability at the low end vs the high end of a particular classification (e.g., 70% vs 79%, 80% vs 81% and so). For example, I'm a late 50s chumpy HJ type runner - mostly a fitness runner...not "in it to win it" like you cats, lol (bad biomechanics, a little too heavy, significant injury history...an old donkey who's just addicted to running 😁).

Anyway my 5k time grades out at 71%, which is "regional class," and sounds good...like I'm a big shot or something (I'm only "local class" at other distances). But other cats running 1 or so minutes faster than me are grading out in the upper 70s...also "regional class." So, does "regional class" really mean anything or is it all about the percentage number? Should I feel good about myself being a HJ/fitnees runner who's "regional class," when some of these slick cats who are running much faster are also regional class. What gives with these classifications?

I wouldn't read too much into the precise numbers and labels from the AG tables but when I see a 90+ I turn my head.

Hoodunnit wrote:

Some of the AG WRs are in the 96/97% (for instance 5K 15:00 for M50). 95% is bordering on WR-level. Only Ed W and a handful of others get near 100%

90% is world class masters, pure and simple. For example, in the M60 1500, only five athletes were 90% or better in 2016.

Smoove wrote:

I'm a high 80s masters guy. In three marathons - the world majors in the US - I was 2nd American masters (7th masters) (2:35 on a bad weather day in NYC); 1st male masters (2:30 in Chicago); and top 10 American masters (1st American in my age group) (2:34 Boston). None of those were 95 equivalents yet they were all high end masters placing at races that draw fields with quality that is as good as the masters championships. Those saying 95s are common seem mistaken to me.

Yes to both of these comments. In a given year, there are only a small handful of American 90+ age graded times in each age group. Sometimes none at all. Before Running Times went out of business, they used to have top masters rankings compiled by Don Lein at USATF, typically top 3 plus a number of honorable mentions. Smoove would most likely be in the top 3 for his recent times.

Another thing to remember is that age grading tables are recalculated when age group and masters world records are set. So we can thank people like Bernard Lagat and Kevin Castille when a time we thought would be good for an 80% age grade gets bumped down to 79%.

Castille is killing me. Lagat and Meb are younger than me and we don't overlap much in age groups, so they won't mess up my age grade performances (at least not as they were set at the time); but Castille and I are only a few months apart, so he keeps resetting the bar on me since he's more than a few classes above me as a runner (with his masters/age 45 times eclipsing my lifetime PRs).

When he gets popped like Eddy, then you will be able to breathe easy again!

Smoove wrote:

Castille is killing me. Lagat and Meb are younger than me and we don't overlap much in age groups, so they won't mess up my age grade performances (at least not as they were set at the time); but Castille and I are only a few months apart, so he keeps resetting the bar on me since he's more than a few classes above me as a runner (with his masters/age 45 times eclipsing my lifetime PRs).

A quote from an article on Kevin Castille in The New Yorker, 2/9/16:

These results, he says, are due to both hard work (he runs 120 miles per week, including brutal track workouts texted to him by his coach, Matt Lonergan, an assistant coach at Northeastern University, in Boston) and the unexpected benefit of not running in his twenties: his legs—if not his mind—are less weary than most.