In this day and age how suspicious should I be of a masters runner who runs sub 2:50 at age 60?

how about actually trying to run wrote:

old shoe wrote:

I'm not trying to start sh!t so I'm not naming names, but I've seen the results of a 60 year old run under 2:50 which is surprising. They're still improving - mid 2:50s a few years ago. The records are hard to find - fairly popular name it seems so person's name pops up as being from a few cities, even in same age group.

Just reeks of suspicion for me. The person is fit so it not a Frank Meza type of body but you know...

Also no vaporflys.

I'd be more suspicious if you CAN'T run 2:50 for a marathon.

Are you actually trying? Are you taking estrogen? Are you even a real man? Do you even run bro?

Are you 60? If not, you have no idea what you are talking about.

2 years out and counting wrote:

Genetics R Us wrote:

Gifted would be an understatement - more like exceptional, incredible genetics. Bottom line: How many "60" yr olds can run a 2:50 marathon let alone even run and finish a marathon? ?

I broke 3 hours at 16 and then ran 2:40+ at 18. I don't think I'm exceptional and I'm not saying that I'm going to do it, but I'm training to and believe that it's in me. Some people are suited for longer distances as my leg speed over 5 and 10,000 was never in line with my marathon times. Sorry, I respectfully disagree as I'm nowhere near to exceptional.

Do you understand the question relates to a 60-year old?

Armstronglivs wrote:

2 years out and counting wrote:

I broke 3 hours at 16 and then ran 2:40+ at 18. I don't think I'm exceptional and I'm not saying that I'm going to do it, but I'm training to and believe that it's in me. Some people are suited for longer distances as my leg speed over 5 and 10,000 was never in line with my marathon times. Sorry, I respectfully disagree as I'm nowhere near to exceptional.

Do you understand the question relates to a 60-year old?

Do you think 58 is that much different from 60?

zzzz wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Do you understand the question relates to a 60-year old?

Do you think 58 is that much different from 60?

That wasn't the point. The previous poster was saying that his younger times were not exceptional, he's hoping for sub 3 at 60, therefore sub 3 is not exceptional. It's not a real clear progression.

Sub 3 at 60 is not easy to accomplish. Slightly easier at 58. Roughly 2-3 minutes difference if you look at performance charts for different ages.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

old shoe wrote:

I'm not trying to start sh!t so I'm not naming names, but I've seen the results of a 60 year old run under 2:50 which is surprising. They're still improving - mid 2:50s a few years ago. The records are hard to find - fairly popular name it seems so person's name pops up as being from a few cities, even in same age group.

Just reeks of suspicion for me. The person is fit so it not a Frank Meza type of body but you know...

Also no vaporflys.

Of course that is a very good mark, but I don’t see it as indicative of suspicion. These folks are very focused gifted athletes.

There is good reason to believe this sub 2:50 is partially due to testosterone AND anti-aging treatments prescribed by his doctor. I am not saying this is a fact, but in this day & age of Dr. Geoffrey Brown (Houston, TX) there is good reason to believe.

This is why ALL age records should be scrapped.......and all age divisions as well.

Shoot, let's scrap gender divisions as well.

zzzz wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Do you understand the question relates to a 60-year old?

Do you think 58 is that much different from 60?

A comparison was being made with the times of an 18-year old. In response to your question, 58 should beat 60 - hence world age group records - even if the difference isn't much. The bigger change tends to come after 60.

I am more of a natural mid-distance runner, and decent in my age group (in the bottom half of top 10 national times from 1500 to 10K when healthy). I was motivated to get very fit at turning 60 and managed a 1:25:40 for a half marathon, which converts to right at a 3:00 marathon. Carving another 10 minutes off that to 2:50 would take a very talented runner who got in a very good block of training. Not impossible and not necessarily suspicious, but the guy who can do that should be capable of consistently finishing in the top 3 nationally in the age group from 5k upwards.

Back to the OP, a possible runner in question re: times and improvement didn't really run a lot before 40s but made a big jump mid 50s. Races rarely. But has put down some very good times in the marathon. Who the heck knows if this is suspicious or not.

Yeah I don't want to call out the person because its not a world record, just over 90% age graded.

I've known 60 year old+ to run in the low 3s but this is about 10% higher in terms of performance value. Hopefully it's just extremely impressive.