Roberta Groner 2:29:06 PR AGE 41

"In the general population, VO2max tends to decline by about 10% per decade after the age of 30. Athletes who continue to compete and train hard can reduce the drop by about half, to 5% per decade after the age of 30."

How Does Aging Affect Athletic Performance?

- Article by Christopher Minson, University of Oregon.

You seem to be struggling with the word "about"

Then you need to look up a study on people who start to train hard in their later 30s after just dabbling earlier.

"How Aging Affects Athletic Performance" (Freeletics)

The Life of the Human Body

"The period between 15 and 30 years of age is when the human body can reach its highest performance level – with systematic training of course. When we reach 30, however, things slowly begin to change: Not straight away, but gradually over time the bones begin to lose calcium and other minerals which results in a lower bone density. The skeleton becomes less resistant and the body becomes more prone to fractures and other injuries.

At the same time muscles retain less and less electrolytes, calcium and water. As a result of this, the muscle mass slowly starts to decrease and with this, the overall strength of the body.

The elasticity of the joints and ligaments also decreases with age. This affects our range of motion, causing the human body to get stiffer and making some movements a lot more difficult to perform.

Unfortunately, that’s not all. The cardiopulmonary system also changes: the lungs become less elastic, while the heart muscle mass shrinks. These contribute to a weaker cardiopulmonary performance in terms of oxygen uptake and transport to the muscles and organs. This change has a direct impact on the body’s endurance levels and also means we take more time to recover.

To sum it up, after the age of 30, your overall physical fitness starts going downhill. Your muscle mass, force, endurance, and range of motion begin to decrease, whereas the rigidity of your joints begins to increase. On top of that, recovery, after intense physical effort or after suffering an injury is not only tougher for the body but it also takes longer."

I'm starting to think you are actually really not very bright rather than just a troll.

Why do you think people even bother competing after 30 if this is absolutely true?

This study of a group of elite masters athletes from age 35 showed that age-related decline is in the region of 0.5% each year till 65, when it accelerates.

Outliers are different wrote:

I'm starting to think you are actually really not very bright rather than just a troll.

Why do you think people even bother competing after 30 if this is absolutely true?

Perhaps you're not as bright as you think you are, if you think the reason masters athletes compete is to beat younger athletes.

_________________

Do you think that 2:22 is clean? I'd practically bet my life that it's not. Distance running at the world class level is dirty. It just is.

This site would be a lot more interesting if posters actually were betting their lives on their assertions about doping.

[quote]Armstronglivs

This study of a group of elite masters athletes from age 35 showed that age-related decline is in the region of 0.5% each year till 65, when it accelerates.

How Fast Do We Age? Exercise Performance Over Time as a Biomarker

Walter M. Bortz IV and Walter M. Bortz IP

In the region of .5....

See how it starts making sense? I mean you have to be getting it at this point.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Outliers are different wrote:

I'm starting to think you are actually really not very bright rather than just a troll.

Why do you think people even bother competing after 30 if this is absolutely true?

Perhaps you're not as bright as you think you are, if you think the reason masters athletes compete is to beat younger athletes.

Farah and Kipchoge are over 30.

Where on Earth are you getting your second statement from?

Guys,

I swear this armstrong guy is just punking all of you to see who is actually willing to follow up on his sources. Here's the second half of the very same article he quoted from 'freeletics' about "how age affects your performance"

According to research, there is one area which isn’t affected by age as much as all the others: endurance. Slow twitch muscle fibers are less affected by aging than the type II – or fast-twitch – fibers. Some muscles consist largely of slow twitch fibers, which are very resistant against fatigue and can maintain strength output for long durations. They are the fibers mainly used during endurance events, as the type II fibers used for explosive movements fatigue very fast. In addition, even if the cardiopulmonary system changes, it can be trained considerably well in older bodies.

In fact, older endurance athletes even have a crucial advantage: experience. After years of training, they have created strategies based on experiences and know how to balance their training and recovery periods. Experience allows them to understand the best way to adjust their physical effort and where to draw the line to avoid injuries during the effort. Mental strength is also an important reward of years of training. This allows athletes to endure strong physical efforts more easily.

So, if you listen to your body and are aware of the increasing risk of injury as you get older, age shouldn’t be a problem nor an excuse. Workouts might seem tougher, recovery might take longer, and progress could seem slower, but everything is still possible. Age is a number.

The second link he included is dead and goes straight to a "time out" notification. There is no article at that link at all, to say nothing of the fact that even if you take that "aging decline may be 0.5% starting at 35" that would put her at "3% performance drop" or mid-2:20s instead of 2:13, something at least 5 US women have bested in the last 5 years. Plus with 4%'s on her feet now...it's a wash, right?

Listen dude, no one's saying she's definitely clean or age doesn't matter. In our current world, anyone that runs a stand-out time is going to get the side eye from anyone that watches the sport, and probably rightfully so based on history, but to say anything definitively because of the numbers and 'sources' you've been throwing about is irresponsible and misleading. It is not impossible for her results to come from an exemplary athlete that's clean. You have to have more proof than the garbage you're spewing to accuse anyone of anything.

He'll be back with the same old line. I think he might be Jon Orange's Dad or Uncle.

The Bortz's study above of aging in elite athletes suggested that highly-trained athletes could reduce the rate of aging from the figure of 1% each year as it applies to the general population to half that, of 0.5% each year. Although the rate of aging could be reduced by that amount it could not be arrested. All athletes declined over time.

Using calculations based on the figure of 0.5% decline each year it follows that a 41 year-old athlete would be at least 3% better 6 years earlier, at the age of 35, as all the athletes in the study showed that kind of decline from age 35, which was the starting point for the research. Starting from a performance of a 2.29 marathon at 41, that would translate to a time of 2.24xx at age 35.

But, of course, 35 is not an athlete's peak biological age; studies put our actual physical peak in the mid to late twenties. A study of two marathons referred to above showed that most competitors peaked at that age. So, the 41 year-old runner would have been even better in their late twenties than they were at 35. If 2.24xx was within a predictable range at 35 (on the basis of the 0.5% figure obtained by the Bortz study) then a time in the low 2.20's ought to have been achievable by that athlete at their peak age.

See?

JHCOAB

This has turned awful. You're going back to the same fallacies hat you started with, but have now just scaled back he numbers. This makes me sad for you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So, the 41 year-old runner would have been even better in their late twenties than they were at 35. If 2.24xx was within a predictable range at 35 (on the basis of the 0.5% figure obtained by the Bortz study) then a time in the low 2.20's ought to have been achievable by that athlete at their peak age.

So what's the problem?

I was right. You're not very bright wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Perhaps you're not as bright as you think you are, if you think the reason masters athletes compete is to beat younger athletes.

Farah and Kipchoge are over 30.

Where on Earth are you getting your second statement from?

The studies I have read indicate that it is possible to maintain a plateau up until the mid-thirties from the peak age of the late twenties. This can be the result of improvements in training and technique, and experience; particularly in sports that aren't essentially about strength and speed but have a significant factor of skill. Also, endurance is generally retained longer than speed.

But the outer limit for elite achievement is still given as being in the thirties because of the inevitable onset of physical decline. Although that decline is initially small it will be reflected in results, where success is measured by margins. It also means that from about 40-onwards most athletes will be competitive only in their age groups, and not at an elite level. This last point was my response to your earlier comment. You might also bear in mind that the description of the aging process, that you apparently object to, is not my description but comes from those who have studied it.

Joan ran 2:21 34 years ago wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So, the 41 year-old runner would have been even better in their late twenties than they were at 35. If 2.24xx was within a predictable range at 35 (on the basis of the 0.5% figure obtained by the Bortz study) then a time in the low 2.20's ought to have been achievable by that athlete at their peak age.

So what's the problem?

In the low 2.20's is world-class for a woman marathon runner, and high championship level. It is only a "problem", so to speak, if the athlete concerned is not seen as being of that level, or has never previously shown they had that kind of talent in their earlier career. The potential to be world class usually shows itself early. If it suddenly appears at a much later age it can be questioned.

What if an oulier was like .2% wrote:

See?

JHCOAB

Doped. 0.5% are already outliers.