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

whether anyone cares or not, i believe barton's records are legit, and i've been on the receiving end of a couple of beatdowns by the man personally.

as for the doubters, and especially armstronglivs, skepticism in my opinion is only natural, and i think even welcome. nothing wrong with it, and i'm sure it matters not one bit to barton. that said, it is the remarkable sign of a troll to argue name calling poorly grounded opinions, yet ignore the logical and well-argued facts, such as barton's altitude mile times as a collegian and the fact that it wasn't his main event, meaning fewer racing opportunities, which may mean he is the perfect candidate for some of the "age conversions" suggested...

for my part, i believe aging is another form of increasing variance and unpredictability. does anyone think desi/yuki wins boston in 2018 under perfect conditions? i'm not saying they wouldn't have had a chance, but the extreme weather increased variance in an unpredictable way that CANNOT be easily calculated or quantified. same with age--while age-grading can be incredibly accurate on some points and for some people, it's still an average that is quantified, like all averages, by numbers that are generally not equal. so, while you could say the average shows people slowing down 2 seconds per year in the mile after 40, you have to assume that average is made up of some people who slow down less and some who slow down more--as far as i know there is no "constant rate of decay" that explains the wear and tear of aging. at this point in my masters career, i've seen that variance from year to year, having good years and bad years (just like younger open runners!) that don't seem to fit a linear quality that you might expect with aging (i felt better at 42-43 than 40-41, better at 48 than 46-47), and it hasn't always correlated with injuries even. i'm having a couple of sub-par years now, so brad barton gives me hope...

that's my story and i'm sticking to it,

cush

I’m only saying I’m skeptical. I am also curious.

My age graded performance for the 800m @ age 31 was 82.88%, the mile @ age 50 was 83.99%, and I’m aiming to crack 2:30 in the 800m @ age 60 which would be around a low 84%. Fairly consistent with a higher % trend due to runners dying off probably! How do your times vary from college until now? Barton is showing a 5% increase but maybe that is more likely on the elite end of the spectrum.

My assumption nowadays with any elite athlete is that the chance they are on something is 50/50. That is probably on the conservative side.

I'm just remembering how hard I worked to run my first sub 4:20 in high school. It was a lot of intervals and a lot of miles and this was with the recovery ability of a 15/16 year old. Over a college career I managed to run just about exactly what this guys PR is. Now I remember how hard it was to get any consistent training to run even 5 minutes at 50. I'm not even sure that I could run 5 minutes at 50.

Active Masters wrote:

The 4:04.97 was run at Big Sky Conf outdoor in 1991. 4500', with a 4.3 second NCAA conversion (and those are fairly conservative). That an 8:31 steeple PR indicate at least 4:00 ability.

Masters runner here, 4:31, 4:38, 5:00 at 22, 40, and 50 (with drop off less in longer distances).

Those are facts not troll speculation.

Very similar - 4:21 lifetime best (on track); 4:30 on road at 39; 4:40 on indoor track at 47; 5:00 min 1500m equivalent at 53 on track when training for 5000m (hadn't run a mile or 1500m in years, but had flown across the country to do National Masters, and did 5000m two days earlier).

I'd be pretty happy to accept that a 3:55 type miler could run 4:19 at 50 if they stayed focused on it, and had a lucky shuffle in the genetic lottery. I trained and raced seriously since I was in my teens, and age graded was at my best at around 56, so beating the age grade curve happens.

oldie wrote:

I'm just remembering how hard I worked to run my first sub 4:20 in high school. It was a lot of intervals and a lot of miles and this was with the recovery ability of a 15/16 year old. Over a college career I managed to run just about exactly what this guys PR is. Now I remember how hard it was to get any consistent training to run even 5 minutes at 50. I'm not even sure that I could run 5 minutes at 50.

so you improved from 88.5% in HS to 91% at peak and now would struggle to get to 84%. Trending down to my level but impressive. His times are trending up 5% as he ages. This is using WMA age grading tables which change from year to year but the general trends tell the story. He is an unbelievable talent!

Nice times consistently around the 85% range. Were you 5% better at age 56 running around 4:55 for the mile or were you closer 5:10?

Grader wrote:

I’m only saying I’m skeptical. I am also curious.

My age graded performance for the 800m @ age 31 was 82.88%, the mile @ age 50 was 83.99%, and I’m aiming to crack 2:30 in the 800m @ age 60 which would be around a low 84%. Fairly consistent with a higher % trend due to runners dying off probably! How do your times vary from college until now? Barton is showing a 5% increase but maybe that is more likely on the elite end of the spectrum.

i haven't checked barton's age grading consistency, but i can speak to mine. from age 16 through 51, i'm fairly consistent between 92-94%. my two outliers are a 95% at 48 y/o and a 96% at 45 y/o, two races where i did actually feel like i ran as close to my potential as anything i did in my open days. this at least shows that for me, 3-4 % increases are possible, and while i have no science to back me up, greater percentages should be possible if the runner slightly (or greatly) underachieved as an open runner, or that age grading calculators have not completely caught up to what may be better training technology/philosophies...

Thanks! That is very interesting and does show that 5-6% is in the realm of possibility.

Typical Letsrun reasoning, faster than _____ (me) elite and/or doper. Slower than me = not very good or hobby jogger.

Too many people are focusing on his 4:04 mile in college to lodge their accusation. His third place steeple finish shows he was a high level D1 runner. He probably would have been in the mid 3:50s had he concentrated on the mile while in college. Per TnFNews. The 34th best steeple this year is 8:31.40 and the 34th best 1500 is 3:38.35 which converts to a 3:55.9 mile.

I agree with SoCalCush that people age differently given their genetics and environment. It’s not like Barton was a former mid level collegiate runner or someone with zero pedigree putting up WR times. Skepticism is fine but at least use more realistic data points when comparing his times and your own times.

I agree with all that point out that you can't expect his mile PR to be the same quality when that wasn't his event. Andrew Wheating could easily have a 1500 PR 10 seconds slower if he was a steeplechaser who rarely did the mile.

Yes...there is:

From the introduction:

"The degenerative changes associated with increasing age may be detected as early as the third decade, when a progressive decline becomes apparent in cellular func-tion in many tissues [5]. With aging, various functions of the body gradually deteriorate. This also includes the musculoskeletal system, even if not so extensively as the cardiovascular system [6]. The tendon is subjected to early degenerative changes, since both the collagen and noncollagenous matrix components of tendons show qualitative and quantitative changes. There are also many cellular and vascular changes within the aging tendon. However, in adults, studies have not found a clear correlation between macroscopic tendon character-istics, such as thickness and surface area, and age."

Third decade = 30 yrs of age. Basketball players, skill positions in football, sprinters, mid-d runners, etc., all start showing signs of slowing down with many sustaining acute injuries to tendons & ligaments. The fourth decade is even worse and is why you very seldom see an athlete continue to compete in football (skill positions), basketball, sprints, mid-distance, etc. without physical limitations.

You can't read. Just above that it says, "The rate of aging is highly individual and depends on many factors".

A 4:19 mile is freaking fast for any age. I know that everyone here thinks that anything slower than 3:50 is garbage, but it takes a pretty hefty dose of talent and training to hit 4:19. Then to do it at 50yo, man that's hauling. I'm 59 and I'd puke out a lung to run one lap in 70. A 65 would put me in the grave. My PB is 51 from 45 years ago.

This seems superhuman wrote:

A 4:19 mile is freaking fast for any age. I know that everyone here thinks that anything slower than 3:50 is garbage, but it takes a pretty hefty dose of talent and training to hit 4:19. Then to do it at 50yo, man that's hauling. I'm 59 and I'd puke out a lung to run one lap in 70. A 65 would put me in the grave. My PB is 51 from 45 years ago.

Not everyone is a Division I All American or ranked tenth in the USA in their heyday.

Comparing apples to oranges.

I wouldn't agree with that. An 8.31 steeple is not at the level of a 3.55 mile, for a while variety of reasons. The mile time requires an athlete of higher basic speed, for a start. I would say that not many 8.31 steeplers would have been able to get near a 3.55 mile - which is a world-class middle-distance time. Ryun speed. If an athlete was capable of that sort of mile time in his youth, then he would have been a miler, not a steeplechaser. So, I would say a 4.05 mile fits pretty well with what he was capable of - including an 8.31 steeple. Good, but not outstanding i.e. world-class. But a 4.19 mile is world-class at 50.

I don't think you can read either. It also states "Overuse tendinopathies are common in primary care.These tendon problems are not restricted to competitive athletes but affect recreational sports participants and

many working people. The pathology underlying these

conditions is usually tendinosis or collagen degenera-

tion."

This is exactly what we're seeing with the some of the "genetically-gifted" elites who had their careers shortened from overuse and age-related injuries:Symmonds done at 33 from a torn ligament & stress fracture in his ankle, Webb done at 31 from a Achilles tendon pathology and other chronic injuries, Wheating finished at only 30 from chronic injuries. And how about Rupp? Is he going to be able to return to pre-injury level after this recent Achilles surgery?

These guys are all in their early 30's...so how can guys in their in their 40's & 50's train very hard & intense like they're in their 20's, and race very fast times without sustaining age-related debilitating injuries? Is it somekind of freakish anti-aging genetics never seen before?

Another study for you:

Good times are killing me wrote:

zxcvzxcv wrote:

At age 50, the issue is not lack of testosterone; it is lack of health. If you can stay healthy and get the training in, you're plenty young enough to run fast.

So you have never used testosterone then. Lack of testosterone = lack of health. The studies are pretty clear on this. Getting the training in is what comes easy when you're on testosterone. I hope the guy this thread about is not on testosterone if this is about a record though.

I've never used any of that stuff. Also don't believe in doctors. Still getting hit on by young chicks. Have no idea what my T levels are, why waste money on such tests? I will say I have a huge set of balls, its one of the things some girls are attracted to. Big balls = high testosterone. Must be my ethnic background (hint: one of our ancient kings held off an army of 1 million with only 300 men and he was 65 years old when he did it). This site has so many jealous twinks (no, I'm not Matt London but he's correct about that). Too bad you jealous ninnies have weak DNA, sucks to be you.