You remember that kid who was big and strong when he was 7? The one who could climb that tree, or hit that baseball, or beat up everyone for no reason? We all age differently, that kid just aged quicker than you. His peak was probably at age 9, you maybe at age 23.
We're all different. That guy running 2:28 when he's 55, he's different, too.
I think the point you aren't fully understanding - but will in a few short years! - is that less training is the direct result of the aging process. After 50 or so, it takes more days to recover from a serious workout, and sometimes more days to recover from just a normal medium-length run. Running when you're more fatigued means your form is sloppier and injury risks are higher. Get injured, and you need more time off. Take time off, and it takes a lot longer to get back to base fitness. All of this means more restrained workouts and fewer workout sessions per week, and some weeks just getting in a solid run every day is a success. And you can't just do more workouts to turn things around, because the penalty for overambition is a lot higher. You can definitely gain fitness, but it's a longer, slower, and more cautious process. The successful runners you know aren't necessarily successful because they're serious and train more - they're able to train more and remain serious about running because they won the aging genetics lottery.
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not suggesting that people just magically run fast forever if they can just be hardcore enough. Even a very small annual decline in aerobic capacity and strength adds up after enough years. I get that. I also know that training intensity and volume has to decrease as you age.
My comments here were in response to the OP, who was amazed at people who were mostly not that old running times that are not that fast.
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.
Yeah, weight is a huge factor. I got back down to my college running weight, but for me that was just 155lbs (5’9”), and now I’m faster than my contemporaries Cram and Coe (and just about everybody else) in the mile (5:06 at 58) as I am no longer spotting them 20-30 lbs.
One of the big things to realize here is that although say a 2:35 is relatively fast for a marathon it doesn't actually require a heck of a lot of leg speed. It equates to on average a 22s 100m, 1:28 400m. It's very much more a display of endurance which often takes many years to develop fully. A good example of this is how many Tour De France winners have often been in their mid-late 30s.
HRE mentions Jack Forster of New Zealand. In the '74 Commonwealth games, he took the marathon silver in 2:11:19. No supershoes, and the world record was Derek Clayton in 2:08. Not too shabby, this was simply a world class runner who was 42 years old. I was 16 when this happened, the same meet where Filbert Bayi took Jim Ryun's world 1500 record away. It was inspiring. As for older athletes today, it's the combination of some level of talent, and just like any other good runner, making a commitment to serious training.
In my case, I started running marathons at age 62. It's fun, a new "toy" as it were. Like many older athletes, I focus on staying healthy. I tried to take my volume from 50 to 60 per week and got injured. Now working with more rest and fewer hard workouts with some success, and of course the key ingredient: Are we having fun yet?
Yes Zippy the Pinhead, we are having a whole lotta fun.
There's lots of wisdom in these posts, and thank you to the folks who mentioned my running and my Wired article. (I did just do Boston on Monday and came in at 2:37, behind my PR, but totally happy with it.) Here's the link:
* Most of the fast masters runners I know either came to the sport late or, like me, realized they had talent when young but still left the sport during their prime physiological years. It's partly because of the wear and tear. But more, I think, because it's hard to go all-out when you have to compare yourself to a faster, younger self. It's much easier to go all-out to try to hit 2:29 in your 40s if you didn't run 2:19 in your 20s.
* I haven't noticed much difference in my need for recovery in my 40s versus my 30s or even versus my teens. What is harder is just life. There are more professional and family obligations. If people were to train constantly from, say, 28 to 45, there would be slow, small declines because of dropping VO2 max, bone density, other physiological changes. Random injuries happen that linger. Maybe metabolism does drop which can explain why weight goes up. But I think by far the biggest reason for a decline is just finding the time and motivation in the sea of other obligations.
All that said, the people I really want to hear from are the crazy 60+ and 70+ runners who are still crushing times. Like this guy:
All that said, the people I really want to hear from are the crazy 60+ and 70+ runners who are still crushing times. Like this guy: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cck-7tRLB7l/
This man’s running times are incredibly impressive. But equally as impressive is how freakin GOOD he looks. Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeetttt
you lose speed if you stop doing speed....but if you do speed you have to be cautious....you can't do speed workouts like you did when you were younger. I suggest longer warmups (including the first few reps being much slower than you expect to run). Example: if I am doing 200's i am not embarrassed to start at 50 and then just gradually drop the time as my body lets me; my progression of my last workout went something like this: 44, 43, 42, 41, 39, 38, 37, 36...then i really just started the workout. i have gotten to where i do this a lot before doing anything real fast. another thing i have to accept is some days i can't break 40 (this is mostly injury/tightness related) other days i can hit 32. Don't force workouts - do what your body lets you on that day. For this reason i really don't plan workouts. I plan to run hard, but what will be determined by how my body feels.
You also have to keep those muscles loose: stretching, rolling, active release etc are very important. This helps keep your stride length and good posture while running. Simple speed drills are also good to do. I like to run in barefoot or socks and just do little strides where i try to stay off my heels. you can use those little 6 inch training hurdles to help with this. just set them about 1 meter a part and run over them. this helps with knee lift etc without even having to think about it.
I have not had any problems with recovering from hard efforts...but i think this more a function of good living (food, sleep) than anything else. Older runners who have been getting by cutting corners are the ones probably finding they just can't recovery like they used to. If anything, i find the recovery a non isssue. As i increased my mileage at age 50, i found i could recover even quicker.
i have not ventured into supershoes...so this is not a factor in my recovery....but i will say that i hate the built up shoes of today and do all my training in racing flats or spikes.
If you haven't recovered, don't do another hard effort day until you have (everyone is different) if that means you need 2 days, you take 2 days. if 4, take 4. Some will take a whole week. I can still do an occasional track workout back-to-back if they are moderately hard days or not big volume days.
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.
The UK guy who ran 34:3? for 10k ran sub 8:00 minutes for 3000m way back, and had a 29:xx 10k (got to think he was more focused on shorter distances then).
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.
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.
I think it's partly activity and diet, and partly luck of the draw. I'm 65 and when I was training for a trail race in the fall, I was lighter than when I was running 800m 40 years ago.
Weight has crept up a little as I'm now training for a 3000m so less mileage, but it's not a lot.
All that said, the people I really want to hear from are the crazy 60+ and 70+ runners who are still crushing times. Like this guy: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cck-7tRLB7l/
This man’s running times are incredibly impressive. But equally as impressive is how freakin GOOD he looks. Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeetttt
That's Alston Brown. Being outstanding for years. Ran against him in the mile in the indoor USATF Masters about 20 years ago...
you lose speed if you stop doing speed....but if you do speed you have to be cautious....you can't do speed workouts like you did when you were younger. I suggest longer warmups (including the first few reps being much slower than you expect to run). Example: if I am doing 200's i am not embarrassed to start at 50 and then just gradually drop the time as my body lets me; my progression of my last workout went something like this: 44, 43, 42, 41, 39, 38, 37, 36...then i really just started the workout. i have gotten to where i do this a lot before doing anything real fast. another thing i have to accept is some days i can't break 40 (this is mostly injury/tightness related) other days i can hit 32. Don't force workouts - do what your body lets you on that day. For this reason i really don't plan workouts. I plan to run hard, but what will be determined by how my body feels.
You also have to keep those muscles loose: stretching, rolling, active release etc are very important. This helps keep your stride length and good posture while running. Simple speed drills are also good to do. I like to run in barefoot or socks and just do little strides where i try to stay off my heels. you can use those little 6 inch training hurdles to help with this. just set them about 1 meter a part and run over them. this helps with knee lift etc without even having to think about it.
I have not had any problems with recovering from hard efforts...but i think this more a function of good living (food, sleep) than anything else. Older runners who have been getting by cutting corners are the ones probably finding they just can't recovery like they used to. If anything, i find the recovery a non isssue. As i increased my mileage at age 50, i found i could recover even quicker.
i have not ventured into supershoes...so this is not a factor in my recovery....but i will say that i hate the built up shoes of today and do all my training in racing flats or spikes.
If you haven't recovered, don't do another hard effort day until you have (everyone is different) if that means you need 2 days, you take 2 days. if 4, take 4. Some will take a whole week. I can still do an occasional track workout back-to-back if they are moderately hard days or not big volume days.
I'm 65 and definitely find recovery the biggest issue. A good session or long run, and it takes me two days of shuffling around for 3 or 4 miles at 8:00+ per mile to recover.
The guy who ran 34:3? is running 70 miles a week. I still do track workouts, hills, etc., but just can't do the mileage.
I think the really good guys at advanced at are reasonable talented initially, but are super-recoverers.
I'm 74 and weigh in most days at 138/9. About the same weight as my college days. The only difference is that 5 or 6 of those current pounds have all accumulated around my waist. When I go out plodding around, it shakes "like a bowl full of jelly". :) .
I was in that kind of shape in my early 40s, although I had not intention of ever running a marathon. I did bigger, slower "speed work" (longer, race pace type work). The key issue is to not lose fitness. In my case, I had back to back foot surgeries 1 year apart, and the first surgery required 3+ months of recovery. These really took the wind out of may sails, and I was not able to regain my previous fitness in a reasonable amount of time.
There are a lot of masters runners who become empty nesters in their 40s and resume hobbies once the kids out of the house and off to college.
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.
The UK guy who ran 34:3? for 10k ran sub 8:00 minutes for 3000m way back, and had a 29:xx 10k (got to think he was more focused on shorter distances then).
A good read here. Doesn't give specifics on his earlier racing results. Hiatus 38 to 58.
When Alastair Walker hung up his trainers more than 20 years ago, he thought his running days were over. But he is now one of the fastest over-60s in the...
you lose speed if you stop doing speed....but if you do speed you have to be cautious....you can't do speed workouts like you did when you were younger. I suggest longer warmups (including the first few reps being much slower than you expect to run). Example: if I am doing 200's i am not embarrassed to start at 50 and then just gradually drop the time as my body lets me; my progression of my last workout went something like this: 44, 43, 42, 41, 39, 38, 37, 36...then i really just started the workout. i have gotten to where i do this a lot before doing anything real fast. another thing i have to accept is some days i can't break 40 (this is mostly injury/tightness related) other days i can hit 32. Don't force workouts - do what your body lets you on that day. For this reason i really don't plan workouts. I plan to run hard, but what will be determined by how my body feels.
You also have to keep those muscles loose: stretching, rolling, active release etc are very important. This helps keep your stride length and good posture while running. Simple speed drills are also good to do. I like to run in barefoot or socks and just do little strides where i try to stay off my heels. you can use those little 6 inch training hurdles to help with this. just set them about 1 meter a part and run over them. this helps with knee lift etc without even having to think about it.
I have not had any problems with recovering from hard efforts...but i think this more a function of good living (food, sleep) than anything else. Older runners who have been getting by cutting corners are the ones probably finding they just can't recovery like they used to. If anything, i find the recovery a non isssue. As i increased my mileage at age 50, i found i could recover even quicker.
i have not ventured into supershoes...so this is not a factor in my recovery....but i will say that i hate the built up shoes of today and do all my training in racing flats or spikes.
If you haven't recovered, don't do another hard effort day until you have (everyone is different) if that means you need 2 days, you take 2 days. if 4, take 4. Some will take a whole week. I can still do an occasional track workout back-to-back if they are moderately hard days or not big volume days.
I'm 65 and definitely find recovery the biggest issue. A good session or long run, and it takes me two days of shuffling around for 3 or 4 miles at 8:00+ per mile to recover.
The guy who ran 34:3? is running 70 miles a week. I still do track workouts, hills, etc., but just can't do the mileage.
I think the really good guys at advanced at are reasonable talented initially, but are super-recoverers.
"8:00+ pace" is not "shuffling" at 65. For a national class road racer in the 65s, that's faster than easy pace, more like in the moderate zone. Perhaps your problem with recovery is that you don't take your easy days easy enough? I mean I'm doing mine at 9-9:30 pace and not finding recovery any slower than it was 10 years ago.
The masters winner at Boston is a former pro runner from Italy. The 50+ age grouper is Ken Rideout. He is a pure amateur and did a lot of Ironman races. Once you get closer to 50 than 40, you have to really be dedicated to cross training, strength training and be very smart about your mileage and and recovery time.
No proof of course, but if any 50+ guy is doping, it's Rideout. Look at his build (chunky for a runner), his background (boxing), his progression. I'd bet $1,000 that he's on TRT if nothing else.
Not saying that's true about all fast masters. In fact, I think most are clean. But some of them don't pass the sniff test for various reasons and Rideout is one of them.
The masters winner at Boston is a former pro runner from Italy. The 50+ age grouper is Ken Rideout. He is a pure amateur and did a lot of Ironman races. Once you get closer to 50 than 40, you have to really be dedicated to cross training, strength training and be very smart about your mileage and and recovery time.
No proof of course, but if any 50+ guy is doping, it's Rideout. Look at his build (chunky for a runner), his background (boxing), his progression. I'd bet $1,000 that he's on TRT if nothing else.
Not saying that's true about all fast masters. In fact, I think most are clean. But some of them don't pass the sniff test for various reasons and Rideout is one of them.
* Most of the fast masters runners I know either came to the sport late or, like me, realized they had talent when young but still left the sport during their prime physiological years. It's partly because of the wear and tear. But more, I think, because it's hard to go all-out when you have to compare yourself to a faster, younger self. It's much easier to go all-out to try to hit 2:29 in your 40s if you didn't run 2:19 in your 20s.
* I haven't noticed much difference in my need for recovery in my 40s versus my 30s or even versus my teens. What is harder is just life. There are more professional and family obligations. If people were to train constantly from, say, 28 to 45, there would be slow, small declines because of dropping VO2 max, bone density, other physiological changes. Random injuries happen that linger. Maybe metabolism does drop which can explain why weight goes up. But I think by far the biggest reason for a decline is just finding the time and motivation in the sea of other obligations.
All that said, the people I really want to hear from are the crazy 60+ and 70+ runners who are still crushing times. Like this guy: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cck-7tRLB7l/
It is a good article that provides an interesting perspective on how you came to running and what it takes to maintain that level of fitness in the larger context of a very busy and successful life. Thanks for sharing and writing it.
For those who might wish to read it, the article was behind a paywall for me, but I was able to track it down via Apple News in the May 2020 Wired edition.
