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

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Nope. John Gregorek Sr. moved to the steeple because low 3:50 wasn't good enough to be a miler even before Barton was a young lad.

Malinowski and Bayi did too.

Did you just start following the sport?

zzzz wrote:

Those studies don't prove or even try to say that there is a constant rate of decay that is the same for everyone. That's what you highlighted in socalcush's post.

Exactly. Even if you say Barton is 25 seconds slower because his tendons have degraded. They have degraded less than average.

Can someone then post studies how Testosterone Replacement Therapy regenerates tendons in runners?

Thanks.

Another aging outlier here. Some of you on the 50s thread know me.

Not a miler by any means, and not a marathoner either but better at the stuff in between. As an open runner was 83-85 percent age grader (and that's using an altitude conversion AND pre 1994 age grade factors), now at 60+ have been in the 90s for 5K to half marathon. And road mile has gone from about 83 to 88 percent. If I worked at it, could get up to 90, but I'm pretty sure I'd break down with the faster training and racing so I stick to what I like. I aged pretty well into my mid-50s (consistently in the 85-88% range) but had to change my diet due to health concerns. Lost ~10 lb (back to post-college weight), and have kept healthy and consistent with training. My T levels are normal and I take no supplements of any kind.

Zyrtec for seasonal allergies and ibuprofen as needed, which is not very frequent if I'm not injured or nursing a sore something.

How about that - King Kong has been learning sign language.

No he would not have wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Nope. John Gregorek Sr. moved to the steeple because low 3:50 wasn't good enough to be a miler even before Barton was a young lad.

Malinowski and Bayi did too.

Did you just start following the sport?

Bayi was a world record holder in the mile. I could ask you the same question. Also, what was 3.50 not good enough for - to beat El G? It is in a different stratosphere to an 8.31 steeple.

doctohouse wrote:

Can someone then post studies how Testosterone Replacement Therapy regenerates tendons in runners?

Thanks.

It doesn't. People like Armstronglivs are just obsessed with drugs. He posts endlessly on the subject day after day.

Sinew Man wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Those studies don't prove or even try to say that there is a constant rate of decay that is the same for everyone. That's what you highlighted in socalcush's post.

Exactly. Even if you say Barton is 25 seconds slower because his tendons have degraded. They have degraded less than average.

He isn't 25 seconds slower. If he was he would be a 4.30 miler, at 50. But he's only 14 seconds slower than what he was 25 years ago. And as we know, outliers are always completely natural.

doctohouse wrote:

Can someone then post studies how Testosterone Replacement Therapy regenerates tendons in runners?

Thanks.

The previous post about tendinopathies (not mine) was making the point that elites frequently succumb to them, and it usually ends their careers. (Mary Decker.) If an athlete has not trained or competed as hard in their prime then the risk of that over-use injury would be less. But then they were probably not elites.

That is a separate issue from the effect of testosterone, which significantly increases muscle and joint strength, at any age. Prescriptions for it have doubled in the last ten years and are expected to treble in the next five years. As much as we might expect masters athletes to avail themselves of a "youth drug" we know they would never do that.

You're bullsh!itting again. Testosterone can't slow down ageing. You're just obsessed.

The amount of time you spend here makes me wonder if you are a letsrun employee?

What's your height & weight CM? (you said you lost ~10lbs back to post-college weight). How about your injury history? Anything big like ruptured tendons, ligaments, OA, etc.?

What's this 50 yr old 4:19 miler guy weigh, and how tall is he? Having a thin, slender build with great biomechanics and low injury history will reduce the ground reaction forces significantly with less wear & tear in your older years. These body types can probably handle the higher mileage and more frequent speed workouts and not get injured resulting in great results from training (recall Whitlock was around 110 lbs on a 5-7 frame and I think 800m specialist "Fisky" said on one post here he's 5-5, 135?).

But the key is the low body weight, great biomechanics & resilience to injuries -- all components of great genetics (nothing new there). I'd be more suspicious of the bigger, heavier, very muscular, etc middle-age guy that runs very fast...that's definitely not normal.

Armstronglivs wrote:

No he would not have wrote:

Nope. John Gregorek Sr. moved to the steeple because low 3:50 wasn't good enough to be a miler even before Barton was a young lad.

Malinowski and Bayi did too.

Did you just start following the sport?

Bayi was a world record holder in the mile. I could ask you the same question. Also, what was 3.50 not good enough for - to beat El G? It is in a different stratosphere to an 8.31 steeple.

And he switched because his 3:51 was no longer good enough. Not even close in fact.

Barton was not good enough at either event but he's still allowed to hang onto his ability if he wants to.

FYI George Young broke four minutes and he was only an 8:30 steepler with a medal. You don't have to turn Barton into a 3:50 guy just to fit your silly deterioration ratio.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sinew Man wrote:

Exactly. Even if you say Barton is 25 seconds slower because his tendons have degraded. They have degraded less than average.

He isn't 25 seconds slower. If he was he would be a 4.30 miler, at 50. But he's only 14 seconds slower than what he was 25 years ago. And as we know, outliers are always completely natural.

COAB. He was in the doldrums of the low mileage 90s when almost everyone underachieved Let's make him a 3:55 guy.

Presto, he's clean and about 25 seconds slower.

strong 3000 m steeplechaise performance is always a strong sign for superior strength and stamina. i guess brad never hit the maximum as a miler until now. and now his former power as a steeplechaiser plays well into his cards as a masters miler.

observer of trolling wrote:

You're bullsh!itting again. Testosterone can't slow down ageing. You're just obsessed.

The amount of time you spend here makes me wonder if you are a letsrun employee?

You should tell all those older folks who are hitting the stuff. And they sure are. As the ABC has reported, prescriptions for testosterone are due to treble in the next 5 years. But it's no more effective than asprin, right?

you did just start following wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bayi was a world record holder in the mile. I could ask you the same question. Also, what was 3.50 not good enough for - to beat El G? It is in a different stratosphere to an 8.31 steeple.

And he switched because his 3:51 was no longer good enough. Not even close in fact.

Barton was not good enough at either event but he's still allowed to hang onto his ability if he wants to.

FYI George Young broke four minutes and he was only an 8:30 steepler with a medal. You don't have to turn Barton into a 3:50 guy just to fit your silly deterioration ratio.

But he wasn't a 3.50 guy or anything like it; just a fairly routine 4.05 and 8.31 steeplechase guy. But as we know, some runners never really get old - they mature like fine wines. Everything is possible on Letsrun.

Interesting fact. I can't find a single 3.50 miler or even a 3.55 guy who has run 4.20 at age 50. You might think one of them was still good enough, fit enough, uninjured enough to be able to do it. But it appears not. So, too hard even for one of them.

Grader wrote:

Cavorty wrote:

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.

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?

Sorry, I meant that age graded overall, 3000m, 5000m/5k and 10k, I was at my best at 56. I didn't race a mile at that age. I lived in an area where I couldn't get track races, so moved up to 3000m indoor or 5000m outdoor for National Masters, so that I could fit it around 5k road races. I did do 4x1000m with 3 min recovery in 3:19, 3:19, 3:20, 3:12 a couple of weeks before the 3000m indoor at the Masters Nationals. The last one was low 5 min mile pace, and wasn't flat out. In 3000m race I was 2 secs down on the guy who won the 1500m at the previous year's outdoor Masters, so I would guess I was probably in shape to just get under 5 min.

A couple of years earlier in the Masters I had targeted the 5000m, but stayed on and did the 1500m also. That was my first mile or 1500m in about four years, and was about 4:40, with pretty stiff and tired legs from the 5000m. I was in better shape at 56, so again, I'd say 5:00 would have been reasonable at that age.

observer of trolling wrote:

You're bullsh!itting again. Testosterone can't slow down ageing. You're just obsessed.

It appears to come awful darn close. Check this report out: