How do these masters runners do it at Boston?

The weight gain issue is really overlooked, I think. Look at masters runners and for the most part they aren't nearly as thin as younger runners, which is partly a consequence of aging but still swamps any gradual losses in your 50s.

This is a great topic for us older runners. I am simply amazed at a 55 year old running 2:39 at Boston. Knowing what I have experienced with muscle deterioration and longer recovery, I just don't get it. It is much more surprising to me than Kipchoge breaking running Sub 2:05.

I have tried everything in the book and can't stop the freight train of aging drastically reducing my times.

Anyone who is 50 and over knows very well that recovery takes way longer at that age than at age 30.

I would have to say that in all cases (excluding sickness at an earlier age) you could run quicker at age 30 than 50 given the same training for both.

Too true.. At 54, I'm always around 150-55, (5'8) but I was in the upper 130's in my teens and twenties. Short of starvation, there is no way I could get down to that now.

Me too. I am 55, I weigh 155. My prime running weight is 140ish. I got there about 2 years ago and the running was much, much easier. The problem is that when you age your metabolism slows and you can be eating minimal calories yet it gets parked around the mid section. An extra 15-50 lbs around the midsection does no runner any good.

I was racing well in my late 40's and I was around 145, that is still about 10 lbs more than my prime years.

I work out, I run, and I do an OK job on the diet (probably 1 bump towards the healthy side of normal) and still I stay in the 150's.

Just posted this on the thread about the UK guy who ran 34.** for 10k

Here's what is needed to determine whether we should celebrate or determine
he's dirty.
1. When did he start running
2. How fast did he run in his 40s and 50s
If he started running 10 years ago and he was hitting 45min 10k back at that
point, i'd say it's legit. But if he started running 20+ years ago and was running 35s in his late 50s, i'd say he's dirty

Same question for the boston times. how fast were these people running 10 years ago and how much did they train? If the guy who ran 2:39 at 55 was a sub 2:20 guy back in the day or he just picked up running in his 40s and found he was pretty good, then ya, impressive. but if he was running 2:40 10 years ago, i'd say doping all the way. Age makes you more susceptible to injury which means you cannot train as much as you did when you are younger, some to more extent than others but you can not improve!

masters running records are a farce since there is no random drug testing and you can go to your local anti aging clinic advertised in the paper and get any performance enhancing drug out there. This will allow you to train like a youngster and then you can PR in your elder years.

These people PRing in their 50s and 60s who have been running for 20+ years are taking something. it's plainly obvious when you look at the data.

I think about this all the time. I'm 63 and can't run a mile as fast as the mile pace I ran for a marathon when I was 30.

Is it simply because I'm older?

When I get discouraged I look at what I'm not doing anymore- I don't do core work as often, I don't run as often and I don't run as far.

What if I was able to get back at it? Obviously, you're going to slow down but not as much as I (and most others) have.

I really hate to think "doping" every time I see a good result. I ran a few good times in my late 40's and it was due to having 2 full years of no injuries, I hired a coach, and I ran with a talented local group of runners. I would hate if someone thought I was doping.

That being said, after reading some of the other threads about Masters doping I went to reddit and wow, it was eye opening. People were discussing alll kinds drugs, PED stacks, etc.

this is all anecdotal but just for adding another anecdote, I'm in my mid 50s and haven't gained a pound since college. In fact I have to struggle to keep on weight most of the time, and I don't pay any attention to quality eating.

I'm not bragging or poking, I'm just saying weight gain as we age isn't 100% likely for men. Some number less than that, and maybe these guys running fast marathons aren't gaining weight either and that's part of their success story.

But The Shoes! THE SHOES!!!

Well, 63 is a lot older than the 45-50 that some of these people are talking about. Even if you're only slowing down a little bit every year, it eventually adds up.

And, despite what I said above, a lot of masters runners I know have had a time where there was a sudden and steeper decline, but it was typically in their late 50s or into their 60s.

I almost fit this discussion. I’m 42 and could probably still run 2:30.

I fall into the “ran in college and maintained” category. I was never great. I simply stayed around my PRs for that entire 20 year stretch in distances ranging from the mile through marathon. I attribute my longevity to consistency without obsession (ie, taking a day off when life calls for one, but never a major hiatus), variety of workouts, always having a great training group, training by feel (both for faster and slower days), and also never shying away from speed work. I still go through a handful of 200-300m repeats at sub-mile pace at least once every couple of weeks. In my 40s I’ve run 4:24 for the mile and 69:xx for the half marathon.

That is indeed running fast. And I agree that the ones that ran in college and were fast early on are indeed way ahead of those that pick it up later. As a 42 year old, don't you think running 2:39... 13 years from now at age 55 is sort of "off the charts" impressive?

Im not diminishing your great speed. But lots of aging takes place between 42 and 55.

I’m more impressed by the English guy who ran 34:32 10k than by the marathoners in their early 50s. So this 62 year old guy runs what is basically two 17low 5ks with no break. That kind of speed at 60+ is incredible and very rare.

So much aging occurs from 50-60. I agree with what has been said above that many athletes 50+ still maintain a fairly high level of cardio fitness in endurance sports, but the strength and speed decline much more rapidly once you’re heading toward 60.

Of course, I am aware that it will get harder and that the decline in performance will likely not be linear. Running at all at age 55 is impressive to me. I said the same thing about 40 when I was 25, though, so who knows!

I responded because the OP talked about masters in general and specifically the 45-49 group, which it feels like I am rapidly approaching.

Part of the aging process that gets overlooked is simply the desire to train hard enough for that high level of success. Once you’ve run faster and the PRs are behind you, it’s hard to get excited about declining performances and, henceforth, the desire to train wanes. Unusually, this occurs simultaneously with starting a family, more professional responsibilities, and other “real life” obstacles. Running slips down the priority list, and understandably so.

Sounds like you are a young guy.

Age slows you down quite a bit, I can tell you as a aging running coming closer to 60 years of age running almost 40 of them.
Runners who still run get slower because they are aging, if they have survived injuries and weight gain.

No one mentioned Jacob Nur's 2:45:21 at 65. At 97% AG hat is far better than any of the other age groups. He has the AR of 35:4x for 10K and 59:11 for ten miles.