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

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

you keep saying he's a 4:05 guy despite evidence that he could have run faster. i know in the bottom line world of sports "could have" means nothing, but in the world of speculation (or in other words, the world of letsrun forums), "could have" becomes fairly relevant.

and your interesting fact is not interesting at all since not many 3:50-3:55 guys stay in the sport as masters for many reasons beyond aging/injury. however, since i was a 3:55 guy, and i'm now 51 (i may be one of the few who've stayed in until 50--shane healy of ireland is another, and 50 wr holder david heath was a 3:59 guy), i suppose i can prove and disprove your point at the same time. at 45 i ran around 18 seconds slower than my open times in the 1500 (3:37.94-3:55.09), so had i aged in a relatively linear fashion, 4-flat in the 1500 was a real possibility. but--and too your point--father time has caught up with me to some degree with injuries, so it's been tough to put together a solid year of training. but there are so many other factors when speculating possibilities: could i have been more disciplined with injury prevention? could i have run even faster at age 45 (that was my only 1500 of the year)? could i have run faster in my open days (though i'm at peace with that one, it's still a possibility)? could i have raced less in my early 40s, thereby reducing wear and tear, and saved myself for the 50s, making 3:59 at 50 in the 1500 a real possibility? or could i at 55 again find that magic formula of health, fitness, and training/racing opportunity required to shoot for records? i'll never get to find out all of the former, and will have to wait on the latter, but since we're speculating, it all seems within the realm of possibility, which makes barton's mark not so impossible, nor not so improbable that it's clean. of course, this all is based on the assumptions that we were clean in our heyday (or now), in which case i can only speak for myself, but no one has to believe me...

by the way, on the "wear and tear" notion: if you wear something down, then it heals, is it really worn down? yes, i'm aware aging reduces muscle flexibility, healing rates, etc., but i'm not a big believer in the "legs have only so many miles in them" analogy, or the idea that hard training in my 20s has worn down my body beyond what regular, gradual aging may do, but again, i'm just speculating here. also, i'm an outlier in regards to injuries--i have yet to have any surgeries outside of dental...

still my story, still sticking to it,

cush

Just a comment.

Brad Barton has the same coach now that he did in college, Chick Hislop of Weber State. That guy is a great, underrated coach. Secondly, a 4:04.9 mile at 4500' ALTITUDE is a 4:00-flat mile no ifs, ands or buts. So "Armstrong Lives" start your argument with that. However I am a little suspicious. No intervals longer than 600 at race pace, no set-up races, and only dropping off to 4:19 at age 53 (not 50 - a difference there too). Sure it's a little questionable to me, but I don't have any real proof so congratulations to Brad Barton is in order unless someone can prove otherwise.

More on Brad and his many misfortunes — concussions, broken toes, broken ribs, etc.:

https://timesofsandiego.com/sports/2019/06/05/brad-bartons-book-of-job-from-ceaseless-injuries-to-world-record-mile-at-53/

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.[/quote

I'm 5'9.5" and at about 139-140 now. In college was about 135, post college to about age 35 at 138-140, age 35-57 at 150 or so.

Injuries include ITBS/piriformis/hip bursitis while training for marathons in my 20s. The last time took me out for about 9 months so I stopped training for marathons and started XC skiing & racing for half up to half of the year. Also have had some shin/calf issues, knee tendinitis, and and osteoarthritis in one knee and these half knocked me out or way back for 1-3 years at time. But I hear you on carrying extra weight, that can do a number on your joints. The shin and knee tendinitis problems stemmed from doing intensity while at 155 lb or more at beginning of training seasons.

Here are age grade percents and approx training level for half marathon different stages in my running life (using 2010 factors for consistency, up to latest which is 2015 factors)

22 - 80.8 (100 mpw)

24 - 83.4 (70 mpw)

41 - 80.0 (55 mpw)

51 - 85.6 (65 mpw)

56 - 88.6 (60 mpw, but only 2 mo. after XC ski marathons so had a good base)

61 - 92.8 (65-70 mpw)

Thank you, Ken Stone!!!

Great insight and article.

Interesting to see if Wade lines up on Sunday.

factual analysis wrote:

I am a little suspicious. No intervals longer than 600 at race pace

I'm not sure where you saw that, but why would it make you suspicious?

jkthankyou wrote:

Thank you, Ken Stone!!!

Great insight and article.

Interesting to see if Wade lines up on Sunday.

Wade is going to run in heat 2 of the open 5000m on Saturday. He's aiming for 15 low with an eye on sub 15.

lost the quote so here the reply post again (wish we could edit messages, it is past 1999 you know! but I think that concept escapes the brojos)

I'm 5'9.5" and at about 139-140 now. In college was about 135, post college to about age 35 at 138-140, age 35-57 at 150 or so.

Injuries include ITBS/piriformis/hip bursitis while training for marathons in my 20s. The last time took me out for about 9 months so I stopped training for marathons and started XC skiing & racing for half up to half of the year. Also have had some shin/calf issues, knee tendinitis, and and osteoarthritis in one knee and these half knocked me out or way back for 1-3 years at time. But I hear you on carrying extra weight, that can do a number on your joints. The shin and knee tendinitis problems stemmed from doing intensity while at 155 lb or more at beginning of training seasons.

Here are age grade percents and approx training level for half marathon different stages in my running life (using 2010 factors for consistency, up to latest which is 2015 factors)

22 - 80.8 (100 mpw)

24 - 83.4 (70 mpw)

41 - 80.0 (55 mpw)

51 - 85.6 (65 mpw)

56 - 88.6 (60 mpw, but only 2 mo. after XC ski marathons so had a good base)

61 - 92.8 (65-70 mpw)[/quote]

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

How many do you really think care enough to try? Now everyone has to keep plowing ahead just to give you some data points. COAB

The Messiah on a Bicycle wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

How many do you really think care enough to try? Now everyone has to keep plowing ahead just to give you some data points. COAB

You don't find it unusual that no one who has 3.50-3.55 pedigree has either stayed in the sport or been good enough to set a 50's world record? So all it takes is determination, not exceptional talent, to set a wr? To put it in another perspective, Jack Lovelock and Glen Cunningham were almost as fast in the 30's over a mile and an 8.31 steeplechase was ok in the early 60's.

Of course it's a world record, Einstein, but that doesn't answer the question of why no half-way decent elite runner of 3.50-3.55 (or even sub-4 guy) has been able to do it, but a 4.05 guy has. And don't give me the spiel about the fact that he was really 10 secs faster than he ever ran. An 8.31 steeple doesn't require sub-4 speed or talent. 8.31 was a good steeple time when Roelants was running in the early 60's.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The Messiah on a Bicycle wrote:

How many do you really think care enough to try? Now everyone has to keep plowing ahead just to give you some data points. COAB

You don't find it unusual that no one who has 3.50-3.55 pedigree has either stayed in the sport or been good enough to set a 50's world record?

I don't find that unusual at all. It takes constant mental downgrading/reframing of what you consider good. It's why at 50, I'm content with a lot of jogging, often don't race for years, and when I do, I race locally mostly in events/trails that aren't measured distances. But socalpete up thread meets that pedigree, has stayed in the sport, and has a chance.

As a former elite that I have referred to as a benchmark, your comments are very interesting. It doesn't surprise me that you struggled to hold it together against injury as you aged, and that your capacity declined as it did. Pretty much par for the course. However I do find it revealing that even as a runner 10 secs faster than Barton over a mile in your youth you couldn't achieve marks like he has at age 50 - or 45. Even at 45, time - the "years" - injury, wear and tear and reduced strength and aerobic capacity - were taking their toll on you. The latter in particular fall away fast. It is notable that times between ages 40-50 slow big time in elites. The difference between the world's best time at age 45 for the 1500 is 10 secs slower than for 50. That's 10 seconds in 5 years, yet Barton has slowed only 14 secs in 25 years. Incredible. The mile age wr is similar - or was so till Barton's stand-out performance. What you might have been able to do at 45 would have been light years away from what you could now do at 50, if you were unimpeded by injury. But I do know something that could help you out, and a lot of guys are now using it.

zzzz wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You don't find it unusual that no one who has 3.50-3.55 pedigree has either stayed in the sport or been good enough to set a 50's world record?

I don't find that unusual at all. It takes constant mental downgrading/reframing of what you consider good. It's why at 50, I'm content with a lot of jogging, often don't race for years, and when I do, I race locally mostly in events/trails that aren't measured distances. But socalpete up thread meets that pedigree, has stayed in the sport, and has a chance.

Oops, meant socalcush.

Brad Barton is a great, hard working guy who deserves every success. He is a clean athlete. Young people should look up to people like Brad as role models.

People like Armstronglivs are an even bigger cancer on our sport, than the actual dopers. Armstronglivs is a creep and a psychopath who spends all his time trolling these boards. Truly a sick, angry individual.

Barton's time is also over 8 seconds faster than Nolan Shaheed's previous world best for the age 50's. That's such a huge improvement it's like they were in completely different age categories.

I wish one of these old guys doing amazing things and falling under suspicion would once and for all store blood and urine once a week for a year, or whatever it takes to prove innocence, then do or exceed the previous amazing thing... and let LR get a go fund me to test it all.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Barton's time is also over 8 seconds faster than Nolan Shaheed's previous world best for the age 50's. That's such a huge improvement it's like they were in completely different age categories.

It's like Barton was about that much faster than Shaheed when younger.

since you've sort of responded to my points, i'll probably settle on one last shot at this beaten horse...

1) barton was closer to 4-flat than you seem to want to admit, so therefore only around 5 seconds slower than me. maybe even closer if he was able to compete post-collegiately like i was (i only ran the equivalent of a 4-flat in college), but there are too many factors to name that limit those opportunities, especially in the 90s. or maybe he just underachieved in his youth--i've heard many a master admit as much...

2) i've seen that age lightning bolt hit at various ages from 30-55. there are so many factors you seem so willing to overlook--life, family, children, motivation, time, jobs, geography, genetics, teammates, coaching, diet, money, healthcare, etc.--that may determine failure, mediocrity, and sucess, yet you would rather settle on drugs. that's your right, and you may even be right (though i don't think so). but until you can know for sure, at best you're being intellectually lazy, at worst near-libelous...

3) my success and decline--i suppose you have to call it that, but i'm ok with slowing down--has been affected by everything i've listed above, and probably by other things i can't think of. for example, there were times where coaching helped get me more fit running with kids, and there were times where it got in the way of racing opportunities, but i enjoy coaching more than i enjoy racing. i actually have a fair amount of confidence that if i could devote as much time as another elite-turned-master-miracle in running shoes, sean wade, who is very upfront about his meticulous and time-consuming devotion to chasing records (and the fact that he has the time and money to do so), i could either approach some of these records and perhaps surpass them. but if "ifs and buts" were candy and nuts...

4) you talk about the "decline in elites" as if there's a large enough sampling statistically to really get a handle on it. now if you're talking about the decline with masters runners, that pool is large, but ever-changing and nebulous (comparing aging in the 70s, 80s, and 90s may be far different than now); if you're talking about professionals who've stayed in the sport past their 50s, that pool is pretty small, and, at least at this point, changing less. last i heard, whiteman (who's set multiple records in his 40s) is done competing, and i seriously doubt meb or lagat will continue past 45, at least on the track (which meb gave up a long time ago). so really, you're dealing with test subjects of one. which means i may not have anything to offer anyone further than the tip of my nose...

end of my story, but i'm still sticking to it,

cush