Forums >Racing>2018 Sub-3. No rules. Run.
Love the banter guys.
I started at 42 as well. Some sort of last ditch mid life crisis. I never would have had the motivation or maturity or mental toughness at 30.
Jmac im doing some bodyweight squat/lunges a few times per week. Ive done a 3 and 5k jog with good stretching after. I can feel it a little sore and tight just walking around. Im hoping this low week will heal it up. Its only the one calf. Im doing some foam rolling. I also stretch my back daily or it locks up tight. I have a semi physical job which is good and bad.
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 "
Seriously. No matter how awesome of a runner you are, you wouldn't have run a 2:30 at 30 without putting some amount of dedication or effort in to it. You probably would've needed a level equivalent to what you do now. You didn't.
Who argues with that? Of course you would have to put some effort. And you are right about priorities in your late 20s early 30s. All this theoretical of course and we definitely talking about potential, because it can never be done.
The "I could've run a 2:30 at 30" argument is about as legitimate as a "I could've gotten a PhD from Stanford if I spent a little more time on my homework instead of partying with friends" argument. Both are bullshit and only look at raw ability, which is somewhat worthless. What you manage to do with that ability at the right moment matters a lot more. Like finding a way to run awesome marathon times at 50+.
That's a bad example. I don't see a problem with a person who proved his abilities and had great GPA (4+? sorry - I am from different country where the highest grade is 5) could not get a PhD from Stanford. Not sure what the problem there - he has abilities - all he needs after that - financial resources and dedication. It's not like a person having 2+ GPA wanting a Masters from Stanford. The same with marathon - you proved your results and potentially I see it totally reasonable for something great to happen (potentially and theoretically). If a person ran 3:30 - 4 hours marathon after good training, then I would not think (s)he would run sub 2:30 marathon in his/her 30s - I know it's theoretical but you have data and theories - and a lot of stuff we know about many things are theoretical (we never experienced that) but we believe into it anyway.
Another way of thinking about it: what if a 30yo tennis player came on here and said, I'm not a runner, but if I wanted to be, I'd run a 2:30 marathon. Even if you believed him, wouldn't you think that's kind of a worthless point of view?
Tennis player??? Why not kerling player? What tennis has to do with running marathons? Until the guys has some results under his belt to show a potential what is the point to talk about it? We are not offering theories - we operate with some data (real data) which are extrapolated, yes, but they are real, just build a graph based on that data and extrapolate
I was just saying that specifically because Cal decided to use it to put me in my place. Cal - we’re not competing in times on this board, no need to bring in your time vs mine when we’re debating training techniques to put me down.
Hey man... Stop being so sensitive - I didn't put anybody into any place - you are reading too much from our discussion. Enjoy a discussion while it lasts - it's pretty rare nowdays. And not sure why you got offended by me bringing up my time - I worked hard for it and it's a legit time - what's wrong with bringing it up?
paces PRs - 5K - 5:48 / 10K - 6:05 / HM - 6:14 / FM - 6:26 per mile
I picked a random sport. And like I said, even if it was believable, it's a totally worthless statement. Stating that you, Mikkey and Piwi (even though he is not saying it) could've run a 2:30 at 30 if you put the effort in is certainly believable. I never argued otherwise. I still think it's a worthless statement, especially when coming up in the context of comparing yourself to a younger runner and their marathon time that happens to be faster than yours (which isn't what age-grading is really all about?). Similar to the PhD example. Even if it is totally legitimate that you had the capability to achieve something like that but for choosing not to put the work in, makes the assertion useless in my mind. The "but for" is the biggest and hardest part. Who gives a crap that you have the raw ability to do something? You still needed to do it when it mattered.
Upcoming races: Boston
I picked a random sport.
When you pick up a random sport it makes things look absurd. But when you are talking about correlating things then you have a ground for discussion.
I don't buy the argument that if something never happened there is no point to talk about it. There is. Just like in case with younger people. Everybody safely can extrapolate future results of some runner based on his current times and comparisons with older runners when they were of age of this younger runner. Will the younger runner show better results or worse results in a few years? Of course nobody knows. But you can legitimately talk about it. That's how those runners get their scholarships, right? Based on potential, right. Now... So, you can extrapolate ahead but you cannot extrapolate backwards? Why? Only because you will never be able to check the actual results?
Do you make plans? Do you plan for future events - like building a house, having a baby, getting a loan? Will it necessarily happen as you planned? Of course not necessarily. But do you talk about it, do you plan, do you extrapolate? I bet you do! So, you can talk about future but you can not talk about past?
Wow, you boys have been busy!
Not sure I can contribute anything to the debate, other than I am 43 yo, but lately feel about 97 the first few miles of my runs. So can I put 97 yo into my age-graded calculations?
2:52:16 (2018)
Sure, I'm currently talking and planning about the house I'd like to build. What I don't do is talk about how much cooler an apartment I could've rented when I was 30 if only I worked a little harder at a better paying job.
I remember reading somewhere that we peak at some point, say 10 years after getting serious about running. So if a 30yo peaks and runs a 2:30, what are the chances he/she can run a 2:50 when they are 20 years older? I imagine there are not too many that even stay with it that long.
My running buddy was running marathons in his late 20s/early 30s and ran a PR of about 2:50. He took a break from road running, did some trails and such. Now, 25-30 years later he is back to marathons. Recent PR of 3:06 at 61 years old. He doesn't feel he has a sub-3 in him these days, but his AG results put all the other younger local runners to shame and therefore gets much respect.
Could he have done better back then? Maybe. He had less tools to use though. No GPS, fewer shoe options, less training knowledge sharing (no internet), etc. Can't really speak to his motivation then, but that could be part of it. I think he wanted to BQ when it was a 2:50 standard, but never did. But now he enjoys seeing how he fares in his age group at Boston.
Just some food for thought.
RIP Milkman
Andres - I love the fire you're bringing, glad you're joining me in this! I guess I'll throw my hat back into the ring.
Cal - A better example is miles per week. Should we MPW adjust our marathon times? Maybe if I ran 100+ MPW like you, then I could run 2:25. But to Andres's point, I don't go walking around thinking about how much faster I am than than guys who run 2:30 on 100 MPW because I only ran 59 MPW in my last build up. It's just an absurd way to look at times. You ran the time you ran, end of story. To your last post, I personally don't care if you think "boy I could have run so much better if I ran when I started younger." What you can't do is throw your time into a biased AG calculation and then compare your time to someone younger than you to demonstrate that you are faster than them, which is exactly what you did with my time. We don't get injury-adjusted calculators ("if I got injured less, I would be faster than him"), MPW-adjusted calculators, or any other "what if" calculators. But somehow Age Grading is an acceptable way to compare yourself to other people? No, it's not. All it does is tell you what your potential could have been when you were younger. What it does NOT do is tell you that you are faster than guys younger than you. If someone breaks the WR at 65 years old, does that mean they're faster than Eliud Kipchoge because they're AG time is above 100%??? Just silly logic.
5K: 16:37 (11/20) | 10K: 34:49 (10/19) | HM: 1:14:57 (5/22) | FM: 2:36:31 (12/19)
Why?
Cal - What you can't do is throw your time into a biased AG calculation and then compare your time to someone younger than you to demonstrate that you are faster than them, which is exactly what you did with my time.
Not sure why you decided that I demonstrated my time to show that I am faster than you. I obviously slower that you - by 2 minutes if we compare your PR and mine - but to have some common ground and compare apples to apples and not oranges to apples I referred to AG time too. Not sure what caused the stir. Would your reaction change if my AG time turned out to be 2:59? What you suggest anyway? Of course I will not be talking about me being totally worthless in baseball or inferior in tennis. AG times exist and based on real data - you guys can argue with that as much as you want.
We don't get injury-adjusted calculators ("if I got injured less, I would be faster than him"), MPW-adjusted calculators, or any other "what if" calculators. But somehow Age Grading is an acceptable way to compare yourself to other people?
That part about injury-adjusted calculator sounds like "last straw" thing - and it's a bizarre idea but if you have data we can use it . Injuries most of the time are nobody's but your's and your body "fault". And yes, AG calculator is an available, most reliable instrument to compare yourself to other people. If you have other means, mention them. If you just saying you can't compare - that's fine too, it's your right to say at 31 yo. Will talk when you are 51
What it does NOT do is tell you that you are faster than guys younger than you. If someone breaks the WR at 65 years old, does that mean they're faster than Eliud Kipchoge because they're AG time is above 100%??? Just silly logic.
It usually silly when it doesn't work into your favor. Otherwise it can be pretty good
And, JMac, you underestimate power of data. For example - let's take some "ridiculous" WR of 2:42:49 set by Clive Davies at age of 66. Insert that time into AG calculator - what we would get? Yep, modest 2:05:39
Or let's take WR of 2:24:08 set by Mbarak Hussein at age of 50. Use AG calculator to convert and will get even more modest 2:09:09.
Btw, in 2002, at the age of 37, Mbarak Hussein ran 2:09:45 at Boston marathon.
So, the data are not that bad seems like...
Yes, this forum got alive but people get upset much more than when it was "dead" seems like. So, I promise to limit myself to only reporting my weeklies and saying "great job" for at least some time in the future. I swear!
I mean I'm not upset, I just find it funny the way you view the world of age grading and how riled up you got, going on a rant about "young people these days." It was the easiest trolling I've ever done in my life.
This might be my favorite Cal quote of all time. Just when you think he's going to concede that a younger person is faster than him, he chimes in to say but it doesn't really count since it's not a level playing field since he's younger so I'm actually faster, all things considered.
Also, I agree with JMac that this here is some easy trolling--you can always count on Cal to come back with the last word!
Ha... I mean - that reminds me my 13 years old daughter - when she is out of arguments she usually ends with - "oh, I was just joking / trolling...". American way to avoid any discussion involving different points of view. I forgot where I live now...
I think it might be time for all of us to take a deep breath and realize how absurdly fast a sub 2:30 marathon is.
HM: 1/17 1:18:53. FM: 12/18 2:46:04