Roberta Groner 2:29:06 PR AGE 41

You are correct that I misinterpreted (but not wilfully) a section of the data as giving a rate of decline from the age of peak performance, rather than it indicating the progressive decline in the numbers of athletes who recorded their peak performance after the ages of 27 for men and 29 for women, when most achieved their peak performance. My apologies for that.

However, it still leaves as a significant point, that the peak ages for marathon performance are younger than most might have thought, of generally being in the late twenties for both men and women. It also attributes that to the process of aging. Although the study doesn't give a predicted rate of decline from that peak there are other studies that have put that rate of decline in the range of 1% a year from the age of 30. I could repost this information - which has been quoted by others - if you wanted confirmation of that. This decline is attributed chiefly to physiological aging and not features of life-style, such as reduced commitment to sporting activity. Thus, it suggests a natural rate of decline in sporting performance in the region of 10% in a decade, from ages 30-40, and so on. It is therefore reasonable to evaluate performances after the age of forty, and older, against that measure. Most athletes will have shown that rate of decline from around thirty - if they had been training and competing from that age. The decline is attributable to both reduced cardio efficiency and muscular strength. Essentially, a forty year-old cannot be a thirty year-old, although their actual performances may sometimes improve through better training or coming to the sport later.

The argument has been made that some will be statistical outliers, but that argument needs to be supported with something other than the claim of dedication and superior talent. After all, that was the kind of argument made about Lance Armstrong, who had been relatively mediocre earlier in his career. Indeed, to be a statistical outlier physiologically, such as having higher than normal levels of testosterone, can give rise to a presumption of doping, as under the bio passport.

As some argue here, Ms Groner may well be an outlier in terms of talent and slowness of aging. But everything I have read about this subject says the process of physiological decline, or sarcopenia, for all of us begins at about 30. No one is exempt from this process, even if it occurs at different rates. So there will a decline but the question is, what could we accept as being within the realms of what is biologically acceptable in any specific example, if not the generally arrived at figure of 10% in a decade? A 10% improvement on a sub-2.30 marathon is sub-2.15. I doubt whether anyone here would buy that. But even a much smaller rate of improvement - half of that - would have put her in the low 2.20's at the age of her biological peak. As I pointed out earlier, that's better than Joan Benoit at age 27. Is she really that good?

Nothing is impressive because we don't have 100 percent proof that anyone isn't on steroids.

Who cares?

One thing to add - based on anecdotal evidence (i.e. I don't have a study to point to) - my observation has been that men and women decline differently as a result of age. For men, it's a consistent steady drop with time; for women, the rate of drop is much slower until one hits menopause, and then there's a steep drop.

Groner is on the wrong side of 40, but presumably the right side of menopause.

Nice conversation but she is not that quick for her age. Has she broken records? I still say, “sinead diver is older and faster”

smoove, you're 2:18 guy is stuck at 15:10 more than likely because of his training. You come across as someone who started coaching because you personally had success in the sport, thus you felt you could teach others, but more than likely lack the scientific and physiological background in the sport. Could you hold a conversation with Canova, Seagrave, Pfaff on training adaptation, progression, and stimulus? Probably not. So just give the kid some proper coaching for a 6-8 week block and I guarantee you he will be well under 15-minutes.

Now, there is nothing wrong with a coach that has no scientific background - there are plenty of successful ones, but it also explains why you feel stuck or that your kid is an "outlier."

darkwave wrote:

One thing to add - based on anecdotal evidence (i.e. I don't have a study to point to) - my observation has been that men and women decline differently as a result of age. For men, it's a consistent steady drop with time; for women, the rate of drop is much slower until one hits menopause, and then there's a steep drop.

Groner is on the wrong side of 40, but presumably the right side of menopause.

Your perception is borne out by the study above, although the decline for both is greater after about 75.

You just can't admit you're wrong, can you?

Stop with that ridiculous could have done 2:15 if younger garbage.

The peak year for performance being 27 is irrelevant since most people don't even run marathons until after 30. If they can still improve after that age it's really not that hard to see that 40 year olds can still run fast and even improve in subsequent races.

She just got a profile story in Runner's World:

https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a27100926/roberta-groner-rotterdam-marathon/

Dang, son wrote:

You just can't admit you're wrong, can you?

Stop with that ridiculous could have done 2:15 if younger garbage.

The peak year for performance being 27 is irrelevant since most people don't even run marathons until after 30. If they can still improve after that age it's really not that hard to see that 40 year olds can still run fast and even improve in subsequent races.

Wrong about what? That we are all subject to the effects of aging? There is absolutely no question about that.

All the research says we physically peak in our mid to late twenties. Apparently, it is possible to maintain a high plateau, through training, till about 35. After that the effects of aging are revealed by an observable decline in performance. This has been calculated at a rate of 1% each year, which accelerates as we enter old age.

The study above of the contestants in two marathons selected showed that peak performance in most runners was at a younger age, in their late twenties. Fewer peaked after that age. Youth is still king, even in the marathon.

Runners who take the sport up later may certainly improve, as you say, but that is only because they are latecomers to the sport and not because they are immune to aging; they are unlikely to be as good as if they had competed at their physical peak. That is hardly controversial.

The question is what is a credible performance from any senior athlete, given they will be subject to the same process of aging that affects all of us. It is interesting that Ms Groner's time is only five or so minutes slower than the best time for a male in her age group in the 2012 Boston marathon. The differential at an elite level between the genders is more typically 3 or 4 times that.

You're kind of embarrassing yourself now Livstrong.

bro are you mentally ill or what

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is interesting that Ms Groner's time is only five or so minutes slower than the best time for a male in her age group in the 2012 Boston marathon. The differential at an elite level between the genders is more typically 3 or 4 times that.

Ah yes. The final nail in the now obviously troll coffin. Cherry picking the Boston year where it was 89°F as your data point.

Your aging percentage is wrong, among other things.

What is apparent from the responses here is that

1. there is no acknowledgment that aging will reduce levels of performance

2. It is effectively argued here that aging is purely notional and not real, and in some athletes it will not apply because they will continue to improve indefinitely

3. It is effectively argued that there is no consistent standard of aging that can be applied because - the argument goes - everyone is different, and the 1% per annum decline in performance that researchers have calculated as normal and predictive is dismissed without alternative research authority but only anecdotal account

4. that unusual performances can simply be ascribed to that athlete being an "outlier" (which by itself is a tautology) or to their dedication, even though equally dedicated athletes can get nowhere close to these levels

5. that doping in elite senior performances is not acknowledged to exist, even though it is known to be present in senior sport as it is everywhere else

6. no alternative research is produced to either support the views above or to counter the points I have raised

Additionally, the example I gave of the time for the winner of the men's 40-44 at the 2012 Boston marathon was chosen simply because I came across it an article indicating the highly superior levels of masters sport now. It was not cherry-picked to suit an argument

If that winning time of 2.23xx is not truly indicative of what elite males of 40-44 are now running perhaps someone can provide data of other performances that are

- and also data on how many elite senior American males in that age group are running faster than 2.29

- and whether the differential between males and females in seniors should reflect the same differential as is typical at non-age elite levels

Lastly, it has been pointed out by several times by others that the athlete in question in this thread is not a full time professional but a working wife and mother. Is that an argument that she could have run even faster than 2.29 if she were a full time athlete?

One other question, if 2.29 for a 41 year-old female athlete with no significant earlier background in the sport does not give rise to questioning, then what would?

You need help old timer.

Nobody is saying anything about not aging at all.

Being full time or not as an athlete makes very little if any difference.

Maybe you should try actually training instead of complaining? wrote:

You need help old timer.

Nobody is saying anything about not aging at all.

Being full time or not as an athlete makes very little if any difference.

If there is no advantage in being full-time why have others pointed out that the athlete in question is part-time? You really think pros have no advantage over amateurs when it comes to training and competing?

You are right that nobody is saying anything about "not aging". It is simply ignored. I also see you have no figures on anything, including a predictable rate of aging.

I'll give you some interesting figures: an ABC report on the use of testosterone by baby boomers says prescriptions have doubled since 2006 and are expected to triple in the next five years. But it won't be masters athletes riding that wave, will it?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Maybe you should try actually training instead of complaining? wrote:

You need help old timer.

Nobody is saying anything about not aging at all.

Being full time or not as an athlete makes very little if any difference.

If there is no advantage in being full-time why have others pointed out that the athlete in question is part-time? You really think pros have no advantage over amateurs when it comes to training and competing?

You are right that nobody is saying anything about "not aging". It is simply ignored. I also see you have no figures on anything, including a predictable rate of aging.

I'll give you some interesting figures: an ABC report on the use of testosterone by baby boomers says prescriptions have doubled since 2006 and are expected to triple in the next five years. But it won't be masters athletes riding that wave, will it?

Not really. Unless the job is very physically demanding or entails long hours doing so.

Rodgers and Jones and Foster etc worked full time and barely improved at all once they went full time. Jones was a mechanic when he set the WR.

Nobody is ignoring aging. They are saying your percentage is off.

No, it won't be masters athletes riding that wave. They tend to not be lazy quick fix types.

Some masters will dope, just like some young people will too.

It's not my percentage that predicts performance decline at a 1% a year. That comes from various studies by sports physicians. You can easily find that on the net. So how are they wrong? And what is the "right" figure?