How do these masters runners do it at Boston?

It's possible. I must admit I'd find it hard running think of running at 9:30 - my turn over is around 190 strides per minute, so I'd have a six inch stride!

The sort of thing I've been doing at the moment training for a 3000m track race is (most recent week)-

Saturday - 8 x 800m - with 2 min jog recovery 3:04, 3:03, 3:02, 2:59

Sunday - 4.3 miles at 8:34

Monday - off

Tue - 8 miles at 7:19 per mile, including 6x4 minute fast, 4 min steady

Wed - 3.1 miles at 7:49

Thur - 4 miles including 6 full out hill sprints

Fri - 3.1 miles at 8:4 per mile

Sat - 3x1000m with 2 min jog recovery in 2:48, 2:48, 2:44.

On the road I would be aiming for about 41:00 10k.

Before sharpening for the track race, I would also throw in a long run of 8-10 miles at about 7:30 pace.

Interesting question as to whether I would benefit from making the recovery days 5 or 6 miles at 9 minutes, rather than 3 or 4 in the 7:40-8:30 range, although at 8:30 average HR was only 112 (68% of max). It's recovery pace by HR, but the legs aren't convinced!

Then this makes sense and good for him! If he had run 35:XX in his 50s, i'd be suspicious that one could take time off between 55 and 65.

I would agree. But if he ran 2:29 when he was 45, i would question it.

The other explanation is a lot more focus on diet, strength, and mileage.

Oh you're mostly a track guy. Different animal I guess. I'm a marathoner, same age, same turnover, but higher mileage and no problem with slower pace on easy days.

The difference between fast twitch and slow twitch!

I can go up to 10k OK, but my marathon pace was about 70 sec per mile slower than my 10k pace.

The big plus is we're 60+ and still getting out there.

Kipchoge is almost 40.

Edna Kipligat ran 2:22 at Boston at age 42

Of course age slows you down. Not only can't you run as fast but you can't train as hard because of less efficient recovery.

However, old runners could run faster than they do with more dedication to running. That point is taken.

However as an older runner, I and many others like me, switched from running goals to health and fitness goals. Cross training is so much better for our health than emphasis on running. I still run but that is only one part of my exercise regiment. I am 67 and honestly look better (weight training) and feel healthier than the group My age who have stuck with racing.

Cycling, cross-country skiing, kayaking, hiking, weightlifting and running is just more fun and better for you as you age. If I emphasized just running I could run faster but its not at all no longer important.

Sometimes age does bring wisdom.

There seems too be a number of typos in your post. For instance, your 1000 reps each would be a world record for 65+.

The most impressive part is not getting injured. I was never that fast but didn’t start running until my 20s and was able to run comfortably sub 3 off mediocre training.

Almost a decade away from the marathon and average of maybe 12-15 miles per week. Now in my 40s, and every time I start to get within 30 seconds of my old training paces, I get injured. The mediocre training I could get away with in my 20s and early 30s does not work in my 40s.
I do think a lot of masters focus solely on running “fast”, and are at a point they have fewer distractions from running (no late partying, young kids, more flexible job or retired).

I have several college friends who say the same thing. Just wondering if you think changes in shoes could be a part of this...because it was for me. When the shoes first started bulking up the soles I found them very awkward to run in and would have gotten inquired had i not switched to lighter shoes (essentially switched all my running into racing shoes). Af first, this made my calves tight, but over time that went away and i actually find that I have less soreness after workouts than I did when i was younger (noticing it mostly in the thighs = were I used to get sore, but now don't). This really surprised me when i first made this switch.

So after running in racing shoes for years I started uping my mileage and was shocked to discover that i could do a long 20 mile run and actually have no soreness the next day. For me at least, i think there is something major going on in the shoes - where the more build up in the soles = more problems (more soreness). They made me feel like the were trying to control the motion of my foot (how it rolls from heel-to-toe).

I know this will seem untrue but at one point when i had been doing 140+ miles weeks over 1 summer, I did a 30 mile run in my racing shoes: even added a workout with my much younger cousin that evening of 9x400 - i was tired as crap and hungry....but the next day i ran another 30 mile run. How is that even possible? I did it and i can't even believe it...but i had no soreness from that 30 mile run.

Every time some younger runner tries to convince me to try these bulking shoes I absolutley hate them and feel like they will injure me if i ran in them. The last time this happened one of my athletes worked at a runner store and had me try to Brooks Boost - i ran one slow evening 8 miler and hated every step of it. Had to give those shoes away. Total waste.

Go back to the 1970 and look at the shoes Bill Rodgers ran in and everyone else for that matter - you see any big soles in those shoes? No. and guess what there were a lot fewer injuries in those days. I can't even think of one guy who had to miss a season in my college days.

It's the shoes, man. Its the shoes.

This is the kind of simplistic, "people are fat because they lack discipline" logic.

What is discipline? If you don't eat ice cream because you don't crave it, or even you hate it, you feel nauseating when thinking of it, that takes no "discipline". Same goes to all cravings for unhealthy food. If you don't have the crave, there is not discipline involved in not eating them.

Do your body automatically know how much calories it needs? is there even a definitive answer to the question "how much should you eat". In an environment that food is scarce, a sound strategy is to eat as much as you can, because storing up energy as fat enhances your chance of survival. It's only in a food-rich environment that this strategy becomes problematic.

Food intake is governed by hunger and craving. All these feelings are chemistry in nature, and it works differently for different people. For a large part, weight control is a subconscious process. When this process fails you, you have to fight it, that's when things get hard.

If you are naturally a lean person there is little to no discipline involved in staying slim. I know this because I am one.

People tend to magnify their own achievement and belittle others. They give themselves excuses for failure and judge other people harshly for the same failure. After all, I know all the effort I made, all the excuses I have. What had other people do? What are there excuses? At least I don't know. I make a little bit of effort to stay slim that's discipline. Other people hard as they tried still cannot do it because they lack discipline. I always face the same if not bigger obstacle in achieving my goal when compared to other people, so if I can do it and they can't, the only reason is they are lesser people than me.

For people who have to fight the crave every day, every moment to stay within healthy weight, It's the balancing of two harms to quality of life: unhealthy or driven mad by the crave for food. It has less to do with discipline than making the choice of totally sucks and even worse.

Sorry - the 1000s were 3:48, 3:48 and 3:44 - not 2:48, 2:48 and 2:44 - was thinking of about 40 years ago!

The 800s in 3:04, 3:03, 3:02, 2:59 is correct though..

Did actually do an experiment today make sure I'm not kidding myself about recovery runs.

So, Steady recovery run of 5 miles, with 88ft ascent/descent, slowing down every time HR reached 120. Ended up with 5 miles at 7:44 per mile and HR average of 116.

That's just borderline on McMillan "Recovery Jog pace by % max HR (upper limit 115) and below the borderline based on HR Reserve (upper limit).

It looks, then, just based on cardio, 5 miles 7:45 is a genuine recovery pace. For me it's easier to do that after a shorter faster session (like the 3x1000m) than after a longer run, even if it's lower intensity. The long run - when I do it - is the one that I find toughest.

I'm pretty sure that I'm a slow sprinter with a fairly big V02 Max :)

But you wrote 8x800 with only four times listed.

For me it’s all about body weight. I’ve run similar marathon times on 40mpw and 90mpw.
138-140lbs

Obviously not a good day on the keyboard!

It was 4x800m

Give me a race time and I'll tell you what your recovery pace should be. I don't know about that HR stuff. What have you run recently?