Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Age - more than a number?
-
28-08-2019 2:14pm#1I'm doing it, I'm starting a thread
I'm not that young, but I do appear to be younger than a fair few of the regular posters on here, many of whom are continuing to improve and I feel are performing better in races than I am. They aren't running for that much longer than I am either.
It got me thinking, is running something where getting older is an advantage in terms of mental strength when it comes to races? Or maybe having more sense or caution when it comes down to training?
Or is this forum a skewed representations, i.e. people who have gotten into running at a later stage (for the most part) and therefore continuing to improve and hone the skills as they get older? (although I again think of people who took up the hobby at much the same time as I did)
Basically I'm asking can I expect to be getting better results when I'm in my mid-40s say
Curious to hear people's thoughts.5
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Very interesting question, and something that I was actually thinking about myself just yesterday. I'd hope to have another couple of years of decent improvements in me (36 currently), but the example of others here gives me plenty of hope that I'll be on an upward curve for a while yet - assuming appropriate training of course.
After that, I'll pray that advances in shoe technology will keep me churning out PB's even though the physical skills are declining 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
There's so many variables here but no-one can resist giving their own story. Some of you know mine already but as it's a fairly positive one for oldies I'll repeat some of the details.
Did a bit of running as a teen (12-16) and wasn't bad but when I gave it up I really did give it up. At 42 (in 2007 - so I'm now 54) decided to get back on the horse.
After a few months of training did a 5min/km 11kms run as part of marathon relay. Pace approx.
Then did a few 10ks and the times came down. Eventually got to 36.48 about 3 and a half years ago. I do very few 10k runs now and I wouldn't be too confident of beating that time, but if I trained really well for it I'd say I'd be low 37 mins. So here I might be past my 'middle-aged' best.
Half marathon has gone from 1.36 to 1.21. The PB is 18 months old but I did do another 1.21.xx this year. Unfortunately 50 secs slower. I'd say I might have a chance of bettering the PB but not guaranteed.
The marathon has come from 3.32 in 2011 to 2.59 in 2017. I'm hoping to take some time off that if I can stay fit and healthy. Hopefully later this year or if not 2020. I'd be slightly confident as the time is soft compared to the Half. Unfortunately, it seems, so am I
Of course, those who have it tough are the people who were running seriously and to a high level in the 20's and 30's. If you were cracking out 2.25 marathons as a 30 year old it's unlikely you'd be bettering that at 54!!0 -
-
-
-
I won't print my age but my user name is a non-cryptic clue
Fwiw....I've broken my half-marathon PB twice in the last year and also shaved a few seconds off my 10K PB.
Would be reasonably confident of another HM PB in Charleville in a couple of weeks and barring injury I should knock 10-15 mins off my marathon PB (from 7 years ago) in Dublin.
The improvements have come from more focused and intelligent (I think) training and maybe a greater willingness to keep on keeping on during races0 -
I won't print my age but my user name is a non-cryptic clue
Fwiw....I've broken my half-marathon PB twice in the last year and also shaved a few seconds off my 10K PB.
Would be reasonably confident of another HM PB in Charleville in a couple of weeks and barring injury I should knock 10-15 mins off my marathon PB (from 7 years ago) in Dublin.
The improvements have come from more focused and intelligent (I think) training and maybe a greater willingness to keep on keeping on during races
Goes to show, even into your 70s you can improve!0 -
-
I won't print my age but my user name is a non-cryptic clue
Fwiw....I've broken my half-marathon PB twice in the last year and also shaved a few seconds off my 10K PB.
Would be reasonably confident of another HM PB in Charleville in a couple of weeks and barring injury I should knock 10-15 mins off my marathon PB (from 7 years ago) in Dublin.
The improvements have come from more focused and intelligent (I think) training and maybe a greater willingness to keep on keeping on during races
If my detectiving skills are correct we could be around the same age. What age did you take up running? Myself I'm only starting out and I'm finding this thread interesting.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
As one of the more ancient people around here, I feel I should chime in.
I'm often told by younger runners that age isn't a performance barrier, to which my answer is usually "Talk to me in 20 years."
There's no question that age affects performance. It's a simple fact that aerobic capacity declines. Training becomes more exacting, recovery period is longer, injury risk is greater - the latter also affected by natural decline in flexibility and increasing muscular atrophy. A look at age grade records will show that performance tends to decline from mid-late 30s, slowly at first and then the rate increases quite rapidly with advancing years. It's beyond argument. Of course there are superb performers at every age (like Diver, Gough etc.) but they are the exceptions, not the rule. And that's good, because they are the ones setting the standards.
That's the downside. Many of us ageing hobbyists and club runners can continue to post improvements despite being late starters because, starting from scratch, good training produces performance results in excess of the natural rate of decline, at least until we hit the plateau. When do we hit this? I suppose it depends on many factors, including the inevitable point that the faster you improve, the sooner the graph lines (increases due to training vs decreases due to decrepitude) will converge. I started at 50 and 8 years later I'm seeing those improvements harder and harder to achieve, although as beep beep says, specialising in a distance will perhaps lead to a longer period of improvement - being a bit better at one event vs being average in them all. I know I can definitely get faster at all distances, but the days of rapid improvement and big gains are gone. Smart training will certainly help the small improvements, and for me age grades are more motivational than raw (often unachievable) time targets.
Psychological factors? With age can come a degree of wisdom but I don't see this translating into 'smarter' running - regardless of age, you'll get better at racing the more you race and the more you practice race technique. If anything, younger runners should be able to push themselves further - more strength, less awareness of mortality, etc. I don't see how age leads to smarter racing - experience certainly helps, and older people are SOMETIMES more experienced, than their younger competitors, but not always.
To sum up - age is definitely more than a number, but performance is relative and hard work can counteract natural decline. Up to a point. Smart racing is more due to experience and learning ability than the age number.0 -
-
-
As one of the more ancient people around here, I feel I should chime in.
I'm often told by younger runners that age isn't a performance barrier, to which my answer us usually "Talk to me in 20 years."
There's no question that age affects performance. It's a simple fact that aerobic capacity declines. Training becomes more exacting, recovery period is longer, injury risk is greater - the latter also affected by natural decline in flexibility and increasing muscular atrophy. A look at age grade records will show that performance tends to decline from mid-late 30s, slowly at first and then the rate increases quite rapidly with advancing years. It's beyond argument. Of course there are superb performers at every age (like Diver, Gough etc.) but they are the exceptions, not the rule.
That's the downside. Many of us ageing hobbyists and club runners can continue to post improvements despite being late starters because, starting from scratch, good training produces performance results in excess of the natural rate of decline, at least until we hit the plateau. When do we hit this? I suppose it depends on many factors, including the inevitable point that the faster you improve, the sooner the graph lines (increases due to training vs decreases due to decrepitude) will converge. I started at 50 and 8 years later I'm seeing those improvements harder and harder to achieve, although as beep beep says, specialising in a distance will perhaps lead to a longer period of improvement - being a bit better at one event vs being average in them all. I know I can definitely get faster at all distances, but the days of rapid improvement and big gains are gone. Smart training will certainly help the small improvements, and for me age grades are more motivational than raw (often unachievable) time targets.
Psychological factors? With age can come a degree of wisdom but I don't see this translating into 'smarter' running - regardless of age, you'll get better at racing the more you race and the more you practice race technique. If anything, younger runners should be able to push themselves further - more strength, less awareness of mortality, etc. I don't see how age leads to smarter racing - experience certainly helps, and older people are SOMETIMES more experienced, than their younger competitors, but not always.
To sum up - age is definitely more than a number, but performance is relative and hard work can counteract natural decline. Up to a point. Smart racing is more due to experience and learning ability than the age number.
Indisputable that age is a barrier to performance.
Age grade tables on the other hand I've little time for.
Came across this post from letsrun that explains it better than I could.
"The main problem I have is that any kind of grading system (Mercier tables, age-grading, etc) is that they depend on the idea that levels of competition are equal in different events/age groups. This neglects the substantial effect of sociological variables on competitive depth.
For example, even if age had no effect on performance, you would still expect most races to be won by people 18-25. In this age range, most people won't have families or high-responsibility jobs, so you'd expect a large number of competitors training at a relatively high level. Once you hit 35-40, there will be far fewer people training at a high level, since work and family are going to be higher priorities in their lives. Thus the decrease in average 10K time between the 2 age groups is not simply a reflection of physiological degeneration due to aging."0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Chivito550 wrote: »WRs across various masters categories may be in line with each other (or may not be) but these WRs just can't be compared to senior WRs. 99% of the best senior athletes pack it in before masters. The depth in masters can never be compared to seniors.
Of course (and that’s quite a separate point from the one quoted above.). But anyway for hobbyists like ourselves, I think it’s a reasonable means of measuring progress, rather than fixating on times. A sub-20 5k for instance is a much better achievement at 50 than 30, and the age grade reflects that better than the raw time.
Anyway we have made these points to each other before and, eh, talk to me in 20 years. 0 -
-
Really interesting thread, thanks for starting V
As I understand from your last post, you want to understand why someone older than you is faster than you in the same races even though you both started running at the same time?
For a start this could be biased thinking, that out of ALL the older people you know, you are focusing on the ones that are better than you rather than the ones who are similar or worse than you? Also, are they faster than you in all the race distances, flat and hilly?
In my opinion, there are a myriad of possible reasons to account for a better performance. Aerobic endurance from other events counts for a lot. For example, have they played GAA since there were kids or have been cycling for years? This would also lead into stronger more flexible muscles, knowing their body's limits, better nutrition management. There are also the variables of lifestyle, injury management, running economy, strength training, cross training, speed sessions as well as the obvious mileage volume.
I honestly don't think it has anything to do with maturity! EVERYONE wants to quit when it gets really tough, that's natural. I think this shows how hard you push yourself more than anything else. And as long I've known you on boards, you haven't yet quit and and you have achieved amazing times in very tough conditions.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement