50 Year Old run 4:19 mile at Music City Distance Carnival

^+1 plus he obviously has no understanding of training seriously for the steeple and using the mile as a training component versus focusing on the mile as the goal event.

Armstronglies wrote:

Dude doesn't even run but he knows what it's like to train in defiance of age. OK.

Well...what about you? ? Do you run and are you over 50? If you're just a youngster who runs...big deal. The guys over 50 who run should have a good opinion on this. The problem is everyone here can say their over 50 & run but on an anonymous forum like this there's no way of telling. I still think there's a lot of college kids trolling here. Lol.

Armstronglies wrote:

Dude doesn't even run but he knows what it's like to train in defiance of age. OK.

I used to run and I do know something about what age does, but not everything has to be based on personal experience. You might learn that, in time.

pointlessly pinheaded wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If others want to debate the issue - as they have - what was I supposed to do? Fold my tent, and say - "of course you're right"? That isn't how debate or discussion works, when there are differing views being expressed. But some here have a real problem with a view that doesn't accord with theirs.

Thing is you are basing your entire argument based on your biased and unfounded opinion--that it's impossible for an 8:31 steepler (with a 4:00 altitude converted PB, and steeple equivalent to a 3:58 mile) to run 4:19 at 53. You are ignoring some other salient facts and putting up a straw man argument that no former low 3:50 milers are running sub 4:20s and setting world records therefore it is impossible for this individual, or anyone who hasn't run low 3:50s, to do this. Obtuse and recalcitrant.

Churlish and insubordinate.

Why is this hard to believe?

After a certain age you have to train more/smarter to get the same result and you are more suspectible to injury. Given this fact, it's not surprising that most young competitive runners choose to move up in distance, be satisfied with competing at a lesser level or stop competing entirely.

there are no old bold steeplers wrote:

^+1 plus he obviously has no understanding of training seriously for the steeple and using the mile as a training component versus focusing on the mile as the goal event.

Why would someone who might be capable of running 3.55 or better for the mile choose to focus on the steeple instead, where the best they can do is only 8.31? Actually, they don't.

A-A-Ron wrote:

pointlessly pinheaded wrote:

Thing is you are basing your entire argument based on your biased and unfounded opinion--that it's impossible for an 8:31 steepler (with a 4:00 altitude converted PB, and steeple equivalent to a 3:58 mile) to run 4:19 at 53. You are ignoring some other salient facts and putting up a straw man argument that no former low 3:50 milers are running sub 4:20s and setting world records therefore it is impossible for this individual, or anyone who hasn't run low 3:50s, to do this. Obtuse and recalcitrant.

Churlish and insubordinate.

This is fun. It's like appearing before the headmaster, to be reprimanded for bad behaviour. But he was pretty clueless, too.

In theory it is possible for a 50-yr-old to run sub-4:00.

* Bernard Lagat-like talent

* Has trained consistently since high school

* Has lived at 10k feet of altitude since high school

* Has unlimited time, lives off a trust fund, sleeps 10 hours per day, since high school

* Never gets injured

* Never drinks alcohol, only eats healthy food

* Runs 100mpw + does hours of cross-training such as aqua jogging, does form drills, etc.

* Does sprints to maintain speed

Bernard Lagat was not clean during the peak of his career.

The main argument I read here is that any performance, once achieved, must be the real deal - because the athlete has done it. Never mind that it begs the question, of just how did they do it. If we apply the same analysis to the women's E Bloc world records, that still stand, we must accept they are genuine - because they ran them. Same with the 90's records in baseball (and other sports). Nothing can be questioned once it has been achieved. And now the same applies, it appears, to the remarkable progression that is world age group records. They are bona fide, because someone ran them. If only the world were that simple. And that honest.

jamin wrote:

In theory it is possible for a 50-yr-old to run sub-4:00.

* Bernard Lagat-like talent

* Has trained consistently since high school

* Has lived at 10k feet of altitude since high school

* Has unlimited time, lives off a trust fund, sleeps 10 hours per day, since high school

* Never gets injured

* Never drinks alcohol, only eats healthy food

* Runs 100mpw + does hours of cross-training such as aqua jogging, does form drills, etc.

* Does sprints to maintain speed

You left out the factor that you are least familiar with and which is crucially decisive to this discussion, and that is biological aging. It begins at age 27. It has typically done quite a lot of damage by 53. However it might vary with individuals, no one escapes it. But it can be slowed through varieties of doping, especially testosterone - hence the boom in the TRT industry.

It starts at 27? OK Dr. Kildare. LOL

jamin wrote:

In theory it is possible for a 50-yr-old to run sub-4:00.

* Bernard Lagat-like talent

* Has trained consistently since high school

* Has lived at 10k feet of altitude since high school

* Has unlimited time, lives off a trust fund, sleeps 10 hours per day, since high school

* Never gets injured

* Never drinks alcohol, only eats healthy food

* Runs 100mpw + does hours of cross-training such as aqua jogging, does form drills, etc.

* Does sprints to maintain speed

You don't even have to do all or have all of that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

there are no old bold steeplers wrote:

^+1 plus he obviously has no understanding of training seriously for the steeple and using the mile as a training component versus focusing on the mile as the goal event.

Why would someone who might be capable of running 3.55 or better for the mile choose to focus on the steeple instead, where the best they can do is only 8.31? Actually, they don't.

Actually, they do. The steeple is a calling as much as a race. P.S. I only ran 9:03 and 3:51, but racing the steeple called to me in a way that is unexplainable to non-steeplers.

there are no old bold steeplers wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Why would someone who might be capable of running 3.55 or better for the mile choose to focus on the steeple instead, where the best they can do is only 8.31? Actually, they don't.

Actually, they do. The steeple is a calling as much as a race. P.S. I only ran 9:03 and 3:51, but racing the steeple called to me in a way that is unexplainable to non-steeplers.

That isn't the point. You don't focus on the steeple if your strength is the mile.

ArmstrongIsStupid wrote:

It starts at 27? OK Dr. Kildare. LOL

Since you are only 13 you wouldn't know that this is taught at medical school.

Armstronglivs wrote:

ArmstrongIsStupid wrote:

It starts at 27? OK Dr. Kildare. LOL

Since you are only 13 you wouldn't know that this is taught at medical school.

I have a new phrase for you to parrot: Ad Verecundiam

Sorry to break this to you, but medical doctors and medical researchers are very, very frequently wrong about so many things (happens in a society dominated by big pharma.) So much medical BS is being dispelled by new research these days - long overdue.

I really shouldn’t go out of my way to educated you, its like giving a hand grenade to a baby.

Everyone seems to be a runner over 50 these days wrote:

Armstronglies wrote:

Dude doesn't even run but he knows what it's like to train in defiance of age. OK.

Well...what about you? ? Do you run and are you over 50? If you're just a youngster who runs...big deal. The guys over 50 who run should have a good opinion on this. The problem is everyone here can say their over 50 & run but on an anonymous forum like this there's no way of telling. I still think there's a lot of college kids trolling here. Lol.

49. I have a very good idea.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Armstronglies wrote:

Dude doesn't even run but he knows what it's like to train in defiance of age. OK.

I used to run and I do know something about what age does, but not everything has to be based on personal experience. You might learn that, in time.

I still run and I am old. You were weak for your age. Many are. Some are not.