I'm so glad I didn't take up running til I was 33, I break PR's all the time in my late 30's. I figure I will peak around 45.
I'm so glad I didn't take up running til I was 33, I break PR's all the time in my late 30's. I figure I will peak around 45.
Oh and here's another suggestion: Show your wife the calculator. I'm sure she'll be able to figure it out ;o)
..thanks for the input
"pretty sure" - Many thanks for the interesting analysis - I'm very surprised the % drop-offs aren't greater at longer distances. I've done this with US performers and it certainly is the case there. See the Methods and Table 1 of this paper:
To illustrate: there are probably thousands of high schoo and college aged males in the US that could run 50secs or better in the 400m (many with no training besides what they do for their primary sport such as soccer or football) but far fewer (maybe 200?)that could run 30min or better for 10K, which is a roughly equivalent performance using only raw percentages. Maybe it's just that the US is great at sprints and lousy at distances? Any other ideas?
I would disagree with your point that the amount/quality of training it takes to achieve something doesn't relate to how "hard" or "easy" it is. I'm not sure what a better definition of hard or easy there is but I'd be curious to hear what you think.
If you take into account how many 44 year old athletes from college (or anywhere else) can't even run a mile, the 5:05 wins hands down.
You are "comparing apples with oranges" here.
For example, I still run under 31 for 10km at the age of 41, but I can't run a decent 800 or Mile to save my life. My speed and anaerobic capacity is extremely limited. When I run the 10km, it feels like I am running 1 mile race pace for 30 minutes!
I say that your 10km is the better of the 2, even 20 years on.
Your 10km time now, based on the 5:05 mile, should be about 36:30 or so. Even though you are 20 years older now, your time should not have "faded" that much. I think that you could get it down to 33-something with a good consistent injury-free year of training.
Just as a note of reference, my best 10km was about the same when I was in college, about 31:29 in a roadrace my senior year of college.
www.666energy.com wrote:...I still run under 31 for 10km at the age of 41, but I can't run a decent 800 or Mile to save my life.Jason, I saw you run ~ 34 minutes on a very nice evening on a decent course in Ottawa a couple of years ago. Where have you run under 31 minutes lately on a legitimate course?
I ran a sub 32 when I was around 25 and ran a 4:37 mile when I was 43. I definitely think that a 5:05 mile is weaker.
But then again it depends if your "natural talent is with speed or distance?
I ran a 3:50 1500 when I was in my twenties but was never really a 10K guy.
If you're a long distance talent and let's say your mile PR from way back is slower than 4:30..than your 5:05 mile would beat the 31:48...on a personal performance level...but certainly not on any conversion table.
I agree. I call BS.
Jason, where have you run sub 31 since the '04 trials?
not my usual fake name wrote:
www.666energy.com wrote:...I still run under 31 for 10km at the age of 41, but I can't run a decent 800 or Mile to save my life.Jason, I saw you run ~ 34 minutes on a very nice evening on a decent course in Ottawa a couple of years ago. Where have you run under 31 minutes lately on a legitimate course?
OOoohhh - we're on the verge of an "outing" here
Remember you can actually enter your age as a fraction.
The way that calculator works is that is uses predetermined factors per age and multiplies it by a theoretical performance.
Example: Age 42 800 meters; 2:00 = 90.26%
However If you were actually born in Dec/ January and your performance was in July of your 42nd year- then enter age 42.5 = age performance of 90.67% (1:51.52)open
No one ever does this, but they should if you truly want to be more accurate.
Compare other distance marks from various ages and you can find your best performance. The calculator is good for comparing like performances or for helping you set goals or determine future performances, not for looking back into time to determine if I could have would have run a certain open time. You either did or you didn’t. Compare your times going forward.
If you ran a 2 flat at age 43 and 7 years later you run 2:07 at age 50 - then you improved slightly- 91.08% to 91.58%
If you were training hard and running 2 flat at age 30 and now are still able to run 2 flat at age 44, well OK, maybe you weren’t reaching you potential when you were younger. But who really cares; some runners age differently than others and are meant to perform better in their later years respectively. Set goals, achieve and enjoy.
debate fodder wrote:OOoohhh - we're on the verge of an "outing" here
My memory was hazy... more like ~ 33 minutes, at the 2009 Nordion 10k:
36 JASON MAYEROFF Sukhumvit Road 0 32:58.8 32:58.1 3:18 M40-44 3/399 34/3580
Not a bad time for > 40, but hardly sub-31, and I can tell you race conditions were ideal. Deriba Merga fell just a little short of the road WR, running 27:23.
She's right it's not even close
My best 10k ever was 23years old 36:10 but I ran a 5:11 mile at 44
so to me your 31:48 is vastly superiour
Remember you can actually enter your age as a fraction.
The way that calculator works is that is uses predetermined factors per age and multiplies it by a theoretical performance.
Example: Age 42 800 meters; 2:00 = 90.26%
However If you were actually born in Dec/ January and your performance was in July of your 42nd year- then enter age 42.5 = age performance of 90.67% (1:51.52)open
No one ever does this, but they should if you truly want to be more accurate.
Compare other distance marks from various ages and you can find your best performance. The calculator is good for comparing like performances or for helping you set goals or determine future performances, not for looking back into time to determine if I could have would have run a certain open time. You either did or you didn’t. Compare your times going forward.
If you ran a 2 flat at age 43 and 7 years later you run 2:07 at age 50 - then you improved slightly- 91.08% to 91.58%
If you were training hard and running 2 flat at age 30 and now are still able to run 2 flat at age 44, well OK, maybe you weren’t reaching you potential when you were younger. But who really cares; some runners age differently than others and are meant to perform better in their later years respectively. Set goals, achieve and enjoy.
I was running on a strained calf in Ottawa!
I ran 30:35 for 10km at the Tessenderlo Classic in Belgium on July 5th. They screwed up the official result and said I was 9th when I was really 8th.
The OP needs to run a 4:47.5 mile now to match his 10k as a 24 year old.
www.666energy.com wrote:
I was running on a strained calf in Ottawa!
I ran 30:35 for 10km at the Tessenderlo Classic in Belgium on July 5th. They screwed up the official result and said I was 9th when I was really 8th.
..sure whatever you say joke face
The 31:48 is like 5:05 pace for 10k.....obviously the 10k performance is better.
I know a 44 year old who can run 15:20. That's like three 4:55s in a row about.
www.666energy.com wrote: I was running on a strained calf in Ottawa!
I saw you run. There was no outward indication you were lame. Doesn't mean you weren't, but you didn't appear to be.
If you were injured, why did you take organizers' money to pace in the marathon the next day?
agingrunner wrote:
So the other night I was discussing my past running performances with my wife. I say my 5:05 mile at age 44 is better then my 31:48 10k at age 24. She flatly thinks there is no comparison and the age 24 10k is the better of the two. Who is right?
Is there a calculator online that will be able to determine the value of each? Also how can we measure across age and sex performances, is there a running calculator available for that also, she wants to compare her running times to mine?
Dude, I'm also 44, and with about 4 months of targeting a 5:05 mile, I could do it, but I NEVER ran a 10k under 32 minutes (32:25 is my PR). You're really far off here. Now, if you're 30 pounds overweight, then at age 44 that's an impressive feat, but your 31:48 10k is a much better performance.