Forums >Racing>2024 Advanced Training and Racing Thread (still competitive jerks)
Oh I never claimed running in your 50s is easy, that's always the straw man the olds make.
The difference between you and 60 years old is that 60 years old was your age once, but you - yet to get to 60.
Enjoy being young JMac - you still have maybe 10 more years to continue practicing arrogance and ignorance We have been there, age will fix whatever gibberish you are exhaling now
paces PRs - 5K - 5:48 / 10K - 6:05 / HM - 6:14 / FM - 6:26 per mile
Are we there, yet?
Personally I would think it would be harder to run a high AG% 800m at age 25, if only because I would think the sample is primarily elite and recreational track runners so times would likely skew to the faster side. Whereas all sorts of people run marathons. Probably just highlights your comparability point though.
Remember the AG is a percentage of the standard time, nominally the world best for the distance and age. Each age has its own standard so what 25 year olds are running has no direct bearing on the standard for 65 year olds.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K, 9:11:09 06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour, 35.82 miles
Ah, my bad. I assumed it was based on the overall distribution of times.
3,000m: 9:07.7 (Nov-21) | 5,000m: 15:39 (Dec-19) | 10,000m: 32:34 (Mar-20)
10km: 33:15 (Sep-19) | HM: 1:09:41 (May-21)* | FM: 2:41:41 (Oct-20)
* Net downhill course
Last race: Runway5 / National 5k Champs, 16:22, National Masters AG Champ!
Up next: Still working on that...
"CONSISTENCY IS KING"
Mmmm Bop
Yeah I get why people do it. It's a cool way to track yourself through time, as long as one recognizes there's a bias upwards as you get older. Its like the Moose Mug. I love the idea of it. But I'm not under any illusions that if I run a 2:45 at 46 that I'm somehow better than my 2:36 at 32. I also was specifically commenting on some comparisons of age grading across distances across ages. For example, I don't think you can look at your AG at age 25 running the 800 and compare it to your age 65 AG running the marathon. It's a sampling issue that I don't think a lot of runners appreciate. Winning your age group is a fun little thing to chase in a race, or trying to increase your AG. No issue with that - it's when you compare to your younger self especially across distances that people are making big mistakes in their conclusions.
Yeah I get why people do it. It's a cool way to track yourself through time, as long as one recognizes there's a bias upwards as you get older. Its like the Moose Mug. I love the idea of it. But I'm not under any illusions that if I run a 2:45 at 46 that I'm somehow better than my 2:36 at 32.
I also was specifically commenting on some comparisons of age grading across distances across ages. For example, I don't think you can look at your AG at age 25 running the 800 and compare it to your age 65 AG running the marathon.
It's a sampling issue that I don't think a lot of runners appreciate. Winning your age group is a fun little thing to chase in a race, or trying to increase your AG. No issue with that - it's when you compare to your younger self especially across distances that people are making big mistakes in their conclusions.
I do think a 2:36 at 32yo is a fantastic achievement and it’s unfortunate that you’ve got this ongoing ankle issue as you’d have easily run a MM time with another 2/3 years of consistent training. I agree that AG is a fun thing, especially for older competitive folks who started running late as it can help with motivation!
I remember thinking it odd that my 5k AG% is slightly higher than my marathon PR and yet if I plugged the 5k into McMillans it would predict a slower marathon time.
Steve - It looks like you’ve prepared very well. 👍
5k - 17:53 (4/19) 10k - 37:53 (11/18) Half - 1:23:18 (4/19) Full - 2:50:43 (4/19)
I do think a 2:36 at 32yo is a fantastic achievement and it’s unfortunate that you’ve got this ongoing ankle issue as you’d have easily run a MM time with another 2/3 years of consistent training. I agree that AG is a fun thing, especially for older competitive folks who started running late as it can help with motivation! I remember thinking it odd that my 5k AG% is slightly higher than my marathon PR and yet if I plugged the 5k into McMillans it would predict a slower marathon time. Steve - It looks like you’ve prepared very well. 👍
Good job MIkkey - I am getting the main negative character here now
The difference between you and 60 years old is that 60 years old was your age once, but you - yet to get to 60. Enjoy being young JMac - you still have maybe 10 more years to continue practicing arrogance and ignorance We have been there, age will fix whatever gibberish you are exhaling now
Time is on our side and the internet doesn't forget CalBear, so we will just pull this back up in 10 years' time and I am sure we will have some very different views from the younger folks. Eventually everybody notices that everything, including running fast, will just be a lot harder than it used to be. One starts to believe that the status quo is here to stay. It isn't and you don't fully understand it until you experience it first hand.
I believe AG% is a fantastic tool, similar to the golf handicap. Who wants to constantly live in the past and think: I used to be able to do this 10% faster - and rather package it as - I got better at doing this over time, all things put into perspective.
But I am a Walton for a reason. Sorry for disturbing this thread - and agree with you on 2h runs being too light. I just hate longer runs; everything has it's price.
HM: 1:47 (9/20) I FM: 3:53:11 (9/23)
2024 Goals: run a FM & HM + stay healthy!
...
Different algorithms will give different results. I expect if you plugged your 5K time into some of the other running calculators, the results would differ from McMillan. How much of a difference would it be and is it significant? I vaguely remember doing this years ago and there was 4-5 minutes difference between the fastest and slowest predicted marathon time.
Part of TLC
McMillan gives you a 2:54:15, right? The funny thing for me about McMillans calculator is that the results don't change if you play around with the variables ("speedster", "endurance monster", "I don't know", "advanced", "intermediate", "can finish races, want faster"). Try JD, he is more in line with your results (17:53 <-> 2:51:20). Doesn't mean the results are more exact, of course, except if you are pretty certain you reached your potential at both distances.
Don't hurry - next AG will start 2026
RIP Milkman
Again, why are people struggling to understand that I am not making that point. Of course running gets harder as you get older. Running a 2:59 at 60 is very difficult. Running a 2:59 at 30 is relatively much easier. I have never argued that somehow running when you're 55 is the same as 35 and therefore hitting AGs is easier. Yet somehow, that is the takeaway (old) people are having. They fail to understand the statistical sampling argument I am making, especially that as you get very deep into the tail of a sample (which is what AG records are by definition) sampling errors can cause huge problems.
Maybe I need to be easier on the older folks. Perhaps reading comprehension degrades at the same rate as your running skills.
WC - I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I just don't trust AG past about age 40, maybe 45, as that is when the best in the gene pool stop training. But I would be curious how many AG records at each distance/age is held by someone who held an AG pre-40. You see it sometimes with folks right around 40 who set masters records (I think Meb did among others), but does that extend up to 50+? Of course there is the chance that some people start late, set AG records when they're 50+, and actually would have been a WR holder in their 20s. But I think the chances of that are very low, which is what skews the AG ratings.
Flavio - actually trying new shoes for the first time in a long time, some NB shoe with a ton of cushioning (forgot which one it is). It's so different than the Kinvaras I've trained in, but I figure I have nothing to lose.
I am glad Flavio is enjoying our small return to a jerk thread. I've missed some of this even though I am certified Walton jogger at this point and not advanced. I'll probably go back to lurking soon. Just the whole AG thing happened to be in discussion when I popped my head in for the first time in weeks.
5K: 16:37 (11/20) | 10K: 34:49 (10/19) | HM: 1:14:57 (5/22) | FM: 2:36:31 (12/19)
Maintaining the training intensity to continue setting AG records over a 30-40 year career is difficult to say the least, so I would not expect to see many continuing that into their 50s and 60s. The are exceptions like Joan Samuelson. I don't know the backgrounds of many older AG record holders, but the few that I do know were often very good athletes, though not necessarily in running, when younger. Among sprinters Willie Gault stands out as a former elite setting AG records in his 60s. Not quite top tier runners like Hal Higdon continued to perform well at national and world track championships. What I have seen are people who got into running in their mid-30s and continued to set records into their 60s. Nolan Shaheed and Norm Green are two who come to mind. Looking over the current AG records, Steve Moneghetti holds the M60 5.000m WR. On the other end of the scale, I see very few youth AG record holders who went on to elite professional careers.
Unfortunately I don't know of any easy way to find former AG record holders, so i don't know if any former open elite runners have held a world record since bettered by someone who came to the sport later.
Agreed on all of this. It's interesting: it adds to the theory that you really only have 10ish years or so of elite running in you (20 for the genetic freaks like Kipchoge). Some people dispute that, but you would think you would see more people spanning decades if that wasn't the case.
Maintaining the training intensity to continue setting AG records over a 30-40 year career is difficult to say the least, so I would not expect to see many continuing that into their 50s and 60s. The are exceptions like Joan Samuelson. I don't know the backgrounds of many older AG record holders, but the few that I do know were often very good athletes, though not necessarily in running, when younger. Among sprinters Willie Gault stands out as a former elite setting AG records in his 60s. Not quite top tier runners like Hal Higdon continued to perform well at national and world track championships. What I have seen are people who got into running in their mid-30s and continued to set records into their 60s. Nolan Shaheed and Norm Green are two who come to mind. Looking over the current AG records, Steve Moneghetti holds the M60 5.000m WR. On the other end of the scale, I see very few youth AG record holders who went on to elite professional careers. Unfortunately I don't know of any easy way to find former AG record holders, so i don't know if any former open elite runners have held a world record since bettered by someone who came to the sport later.
The east Africans don't seem to be interested in running after they get past their best. Running for a hobby isn't in their culture like with us is the impression I get.
Nice 2.04 at London by Bekele at over 40 though 👌
Mark did Sally Gibbs run when younger ? I remember hearing she started in mid 40s and was a good swimmer.
55+ PBs 5k 18:36 June 3rd TT
" If you don't use it you lose it, but if you use it, it wears out.
Somewhere in between is about right "
Again, why are people struggling to understand that I am not making that point. Of course running gets harder as you get older. Running a 2:59 at 60 is very difficult. Running a 2:59 at 30 is relatively much easier. I have never argued that somehow running when you're 55 is the same as 35 and therefore hitting AGs is easier. Yet somehow, that is the takeaway (old) people are having. They fail to understand the statistical sampling argument I am making, especially that as you get very deep into the tail of a sample (which is what AG records are by definition) sampling errors can cause huge problems. Maybe I need to be easier on the older folks. Perhaps reading comprehension degrades at the same rate as your running skills.
I don’t think you are really making a valid point from a mathematical point of view, I guess you have heard a bit something about distributions in school and are now throwing around some big sounding words, and those amongst us who have a math background are able to look through. Statistical significance is achieved at super low sample sizes. So if its not the disparity between sample and population- let’s assume you are talking about the left skewed distribution but the confidence intervals also don’t lead to insignificance. So is it sample composition as Piwi alludes to? This has nothing to do with standard errors etc.
mate you are a jerk and belong here even if you are now down to 6minute k pace