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

Everything declines with age wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Trolling does require a certain natural ability and it is even possible to get better with age. Unlike running.

I don't believe that's possible. It has to be drugs. None of the other old trolls on here can contend with you.

That's because they still think they can run. Wasted energy.

all same people wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you lost a good 30 secs since your peak. That seems reasonable. So what is 30 secs better than 4.19?

There you go with your exact ratio for every person again.

Its not an exact ratio. It's a comparison and a reasonable ball- park offered by a runner of the same age, who has competed for the same length of time. My original estimation was about a 25 second differential between the ages of 25 and 50 over that distance. 14 seconds for an elite I am sceptical of.

Armstronglivs wrote:

all same people wrote:

There you go with your exact ratio for every person again.

Its not an exact ratio. It's a comparison and a reasonable ball- park offered by a runner of the same age, who has competed for the same length of time. My original estimation was about a 25 second differential between the ages of 25 and 50 over that distance. 14 seconds for an elite I am sceptical of.

Some home runs are out of the park. Some of them are doped, some are not.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Everything declines with age wrote:

I don't believe that's possible. It has to be drugs. None of the other old trolls on here can contend with you.

That's because they still think they can run. Wasted energy.

And what does your trolling do for you in comparison?

go for a jog old man wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That's because they still think they can run. Wasted energy.

And what does your trolling do for you in comparison?

Makes you read.

Barry US Bonds wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Its not an exact ratio. It's a comparison and a reasonable ball- park offered by a runner of the same age, who has competed for the same length of time. My original estimation was about a 25 second differential between the ages of 25 and 50 over that distance. 14 seconds for an elite I am sceptical of.

Some home runs are out of the park. Some of them are doped, some are not.

How many of them are hit by 50 year-olds, Barry "Balco" Bonds?

There are no clean world records. I don't think this dude's age group records are any exception.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Barry US Bonds wrote:

Some home runs are out of the park. Some of them are doped, some are not.

How many of them are hit by 50 year-olds, Barry "Balco" Bonds?

A 4:19 mile is the equivalent of "A League of their Own". You don't think a 50 year old man could play in an elite women's league?

Your mom must have spanked you something fierce. Possibly even after you were 25.

Armstronglivs wrote:

go for a jog old man wrote:

And what does your trolling do for you in comparison?

Makes you read.

65 you said?

I share your skepticism completely. But as harmful as doping is to the sport, I think that immediately accusing anyone whose performances are faster than you believe legitimately possible of doping is almost as bad so I keep my specific skepticisms to myself.

There is no iron clad rate of deterioration in performance as time goes on. There's no table saying that if you ran a distance at age 25 in time X by 50 you can run no faster than the Y. This guy was primarily a steeplechaser in his prime so we have no way of knowing how close to a maximum his 4:05 mile was.

So while I understand your skepticism completely I cannot think it's fair or good for the sport to express it simple because you think someone ran too fast.

Armstronglivs wrote:

all same people wrote:

There you go with your exact ratio for every person again.

Its not an exact ratio. It's a comparison and a reasonable ball- park offered by a runner of the same age, who has competed for the same length of time. My original estimation was about a 25 second differential between the ages of 25 and 50 over that distance. 14 seconds for an elite I am sceptical of.

As said earlier in this thread, the 4:05 was at altitude, so more like 4:00. Making a 19 second difference. This, and you probably haven't heard 50 is the new 40 and has been for the past decade or so.

4:05 at altitude wrote:

This, and you probably haven't heard 50 is the new 40 and has been for the past decade or so.

He's one of those old timers who believes nothing today is better than it was back when he was 40. Including aging. Natural aging.

Brad Barton ran an 8:31.45 steeplechase and finished 3rd at NCAAs. That’s a far superior time and finishing place to his mile of 4:04.95. His 8:31.45 is worth 1116 points on the IAAF table. 1116 for the mile is 3:56.6 which is In the ballpark of a 3rd place NCAA miler. His college results show an emphasis towards the steeplechase, rather than the mile.

Some people can flat out run.

If you think TRT is such a big deal, why don't you try it and report back to us Armstrong about how you're suddenly able to run World-Class performances?

I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.

Barton needs no aid. Complete talent. And by the way, they test Masters.

Barry US Bonds wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

How many of them are hit by 50 year-olds, Barry "Balco" Bonds?

A 4:19 mile is the equivalent of "A League of their Own". You don't think a 50 year old man could play in an elite women's league?

Your mom must have spanked you something fierce. Possibly even after you were 25.

False comparison. Running fast is much harder as you get older than hitting a ball from a stationary position.

BeIrite? wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Makes you read.

65 you said?

You mistake my reasons for coming here. It isn't "trolling" to offer a different perpective from others - that goes with a pluralistic view of society - and it isn't my intention to merely p*ss others off, even if that is easily achieved where there is a prevailing view on many issues.

I care about fairness in sport and I have seen it eroded over the years, in all sorts of ways, but including doping and now, lately, the so-called "gender" debate. When I express my views they are the views I genuinely hold - just like those here who don't agree with me and who you don't consider trolls.

4:05 at altitude wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Its not an exact ratio. It's a comparison and a reasonable ball- park offered by a runner of the same age, who has competed for the same length of time. My original estimation was about a 25 second differential between the ages of 25 and 50 over that distance. 14 seconds for an elite I am sceptical of.

As said earlier in this thread, the 4:05 was at altitude, so more like 4:00. Making a 19 second difference. This, and you probably haven't heard 50 is the new 40 and has been for the past decade or so.

Yeah - I've heard that line, and it amuses me, having once been 50. Falls easily off the tongue and might work well if you think you can date younger women, but it doesn't make you run as fast as you could at 40.

jklespln wrote:

Some people can flat out run.

If you think TRT is such a big deal, why don't you try it and report back to us Armstrong about how you're suddenly able to run World-Class performances?

I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.

Barton needs no aid. Complete talent. And by the way, they test Masters.

I don't doubt that he is a talent. That isn't at issue.

What I question is a certain level of performance coming after years off wear and tear from training, competition and injury, associated with aging. I don't claim to know whether he or any other specific masters guy has 'cut the corner', but I have given reasons for some of my scepticism about such a relatively small fall-off in level since the athlete's prime 25 years earlier.

You might consider this. An athlete achieving age group world records of this kind is likely to be training to his absolute current peak; in other words training like an elite professional would in their prime. Quite apart whether it is possible to do that after 30 odd years of full-on effort, it suggests the same mind-set as a professional. This isn't recreational running. We know what professionals are prepared to do; the same could easily apply now to a dedicated masters runner - and it is easily done now with aids like TRT, which is a booming industry. The way of the world today. And tell me again how much testing is done of masters athletes?

I have to say that I’m skeptical too. My age graded percentile has trended slightly higher over the last 30 years which is probably due to the shrinking pool of runners as they age. Having a large increase (5ish %) seems unlikely to me but maybe it is possible for the most talented runners. I’m more run of the mill. I do suspect SOME of the 60s runners that can beat me are on T therapy and think its OK because their doctor prescribed it. Sour grapes! :)