If this is true then age grades are a joke. Bernard Lagat could have run backwards half the race and ran sub 15 for road 5k at age 40.
See my post above. Bullet got the wrong figures.
Ya, age grades seem to look at how many people in an age group run a certain time. Not necessarily how difficult it is to run that time at that age. The number of guys in their 20's trying reeeeaaally hard to be fast is a lot higher than people in their 40's trying reeeaaaally hard to run fast. So if you're one of the few people above age 40 who is still trying, it's easier to hit a good age grade. Most highly competitive people just throw in the towel at some point when they're no longer competing at or near the front. They 'retire' and casually run after that.
The thing that limits you as you get past 35, 36 is you can't do the really fast stuff, or a lot of volume of moderately fast stuff because you risk strains and it takes more time to recover. So breaking 15:00 past 40yrs is impressive. Requires quite a bit of quality volume to do that, and that is hard on body at that age.
at least from my experience, and from seeing other high level masters runners, this is patently untrue. loss in speed at that age is more from "use it or lose it" training, and given that there have been some 40 year olds who've gone sub-4 or close, not to mention lagat, it's clear that for the most part you can hang onto your speed into your 40s. other reasons you may lose it, though, are that you simply don't care enough to maintain it. but i would argue that anyone who's held onto their fitness until 35 will NOT see a rapid, or even significant, decline in their abilities if they continue to train hard. of course, everyone ages differently, but most examples of those who've struggled with age issues at 40 probably had the same issues at 30, or even 20.
age 45 and up is a different story...
I think some are slightly better at holding on to the youth in early 40s. Be it genetic, lack of injury or low mileage training with less wear and tear on the body. You're right about 45. That is when things hit the fan even in the best case scenario.
Age grade is the percentage of the world record for an age. Then the percent is applied to the overall world record to get the equivalent time. It is not perfect, but very good. There are enough people "trying hard" that the age group world records are unachievable for all but a handful of humans.
Age-graded comparable to a 12:37 on the track and 12:54 on the road. Not sure why they are different.
Ridiculous. Bernard Lagat ran 27:49.35 for 10,000m on the track when he was 41 (pre-Super Spikes). He ran even faster on the roads.
I could run about 15:00 for 5k when I was 41. I doubt that I ever came very close to 14:00 5k when I was younger.
And what about guys like Bekele and Abdi?
Yes, the age grades are ridiculous and don’t account for the fact that 95% of competitive college runners have other priorities than training full time when they’re 40. Lagat ran 13:06, which is definitely within 30 seconds of what he could have run in his prime. So running 15:00 at 40 is, from a purely physiological perspective, about as impressive as running 14:30 when you’re in college. I’m almost 40 and while I don’t really run any more, I haven’t noticed any real difference in what I can do at the gym or in other sports. A lot of my lifting PRs (including deadlift and pull-ups) are from 35+. Of course if you add in the fact that most 40 year olds have a career, family, and other priorities, then the performance becomes more impressive.
Ridiculous. Bernard Lagat ran 27:49.35 for 10,000m on the track when he was 41 (pre-Super Spikes). He ran even faster on the roads.
I could run about 15:00 for 5k when I was 41. I doubt that I ever came very close to 14:00 5k when I was younger.
And what about guys like Bekele and Abdi?
Yes, the age grades are ridiculous and don’t account for the fact that 95% of competitive college runners have other priorities than training full time when they’re 40. Lagat ran 13:06, which is definitely within 30 seconds of what he could have run in his prime. So running 15:00 at 40 is, from a purely physiological perspective, about as impressive as running 14:30 when you’re in college. I’m almost 40 and while I don’t really run any more, I haven’t noticed any real difference in what I can do at the gym or in other sports. A lot of my lifting PRs (including deadlift and pull-ups) are from 35+. Of course if you add in the fact that most 40 year olds have a career, family, and other priorities, then the performance becomes more impressive.
To sum up: Not impressive, but you can't do it in your late 30s. But with a job & family, which almost everyone has, you MIGHT call it adequate.
According to runrepeat, you need to run 19:15 to be in the top 1% of 40-49 year olds. This probably includes a lot of walkers, but it gives some data on the range of times from a huge database of road races.
According to MastersRankings.com, it’s EXTREMELY impressive. However, the World Record for Masters Men is Bernard Legat’s 13:06.78 that he set in Rio in 2016, (link to top-100 ever in the World here):
These rankings are not accurate at all. Sub 15 for a masters runner is very impressive but there several American masters men who can run that time in a given year. Just last weekend there were five 40+ American men under 52 minutes at the Sactown 10-miler, which is equivalent to sub-15 on the MacMillan calculator. Any 40 year old who is running sub-2:22 or so in the marathon can pretty easily go sub-15. That's probably something like 10-15 guys/year? Maybe a few more?
According to MastersRankings.com, it’s EXTREMELY impressive. However, the World Record for Masters Men is Bernard Legat’s 13:06.78 that he set in Rio in 2016, (link to top-100 ever in the World here):
These rankings are not accurate at all. Sub 15 for a masters runner is very impressive but there several American masters men who can run that time in a given year. Just last weekend there were five 40+ American men under 52 minutes at the Sactown 10-miler, which is equivalent to sub-15 on the MacMillan calculator. Any 40 year old who is running sub-2:22 or so in the marathon can pretty easily go sub-15. That's probably something like 10-15 guys/year? Maybe a few more?
Let's say there are 15 40-44 yo who can go sub 15 in US. Top 1% would be 1500. Do you think there are 1500 masters running? Hint. There are over 2000 40-44 yo males in Boston marathon each year.
How fast did u run as an open runner and a master at 5k? The original posters question was 1 percent. Much Much less than that 40 and over breaking 15 in the 5K. Only guys from Michigan years back I remember doing it is Paul Aufdemberge and Paul Baldwin but I probably am omitting some
OH! That I don’t know! (I know that as the USATF Masters Indoor Champs and WMA WORLD Indoor Champs were going on the results on there were updated fairly instantly).
What’s an example of a fast Masters race you competed in last year? I’d be curious to look some things up.
Carlsbad 5000
Yakima Mile
Portland Track Festival (has the masters mile winner, but not #2 who should appear on the 45-49 list)
Oh! Carlsbad and Portland Track Festival are definitely high-profile competitions. Hmmm….
In looking at their site, it looks like this may be due to:
The majority of listed results in this site come from complete meet results. This page is for making MastersRankings aware of meet results and getting them into our queue for inserting into the rankings. Individual athlete's results will not be processed. Click here to Submit Results for an individual athlete. Thank you for using this form. Please let us know if you have any trouble
So, then looking at the submittal page for Individual results, I see:
Performances listed on this site are compiled from official meet results, official National Rankings and athlete submissions. All listed performances are subject to verification. MastersRankings routinely reviews lists for accuracy and remove performances and or competitions that it deems inaccurate or ineligible.
Also,
Eligible Competitions
Pre-scheduled, organized competitions run by qualified officials who ensure competition is in accordance with WMA or National Governing Body rules are eligible. MastersRankings is the sole arbiter for competition eligibility on this site.
Is it possible that events like the Yakima Mile are not eligible for performances to be listed, etc?
In summary, there certainly does appear to be MANY holes in this site.
Age grade is the percentage of the world record for an age. Then the percent is applied to the overall world record to get the equivalent time. It is not perfect, but very good. There are enough people "trying hard" that the age group world records are unachievable for all but a handful of humans.
If the people who set the world records at age 25 continued trying into their 40's, then the 40+ world records would probably be faster. If Usain Bolt trained 100% to age 41, I'm sure he would smash the world record. But he doesn't train anymore, so some random person who was never the best but kept training a lot ended up setting the weaker 40+ world record, making it easier for someone who actually trains to be 'close' to the 40+ world record.
Age grade is the percentage of the world record for an age. Then the percent is applied to the overall world record to get the equivalent time. It is not perfect, but very good. There are enough people "trying hard" that the age group world records are unachievable for all but a handful of humans.
If the people who set the world records at age 25 continued trying into their 40's, then the 40+ world records would probably be faster. If Usain Bolt trained 100% to age 41, I'm sure he would smash the world record. But he doesn't train anymore, so some random person who was never the best but kept training a lot ended up setting the weaker 40+ world record, making it easier for someone who actually trains to be 'close' to the 40+ world record.
We're fortunate to have had Lagat to correct the grading. He did it the justice. But none of them will be competing after early 40s. Maybe Bekele who knows.
I can only say it would take a pretty special athlete and favorable circumstances to achieve it. Normal 50 year olds are not breaking 16 let alone 15.
I don’t think many athletes at the age of 40,41,42,43 are running sub 15 without very dedicated training/talent and a serious passion. Most people at some point turn their attention elsewhere which makes it nearly impossible. I think cracking out 1 performance might be achievable…but anyone who does it for years has a gift and has my attention.
According to runrepeat, you need to run 19:15 to be in the top 1% of 40-49 year olds. This probably includes a lot of walkers, but it gives some data on the range of times from a huge database of road races.
To include 49 year olds (and the ages just below it) severely dilutes the performance pool with which you are comparing.
And so you may have data, but it's not exactly relevant data.
There were zero times faster than 14:59 in their database for 40-49 year olds. Sub 15 is so far to the left of the distribution of 5K times that these pedantic qualifications have almost no effect.