Aging athlete - law of aggregated miles?

SKME2013 · April 2015

http://zelle.runnersworld.com/chatter/the-aging-athlete-the-law-of-aggregate-miles?adbid=10152743183651987&adbpl=fb&adbpr=9815486986&cid=social44600896&short_code=2vfe1

The above article suggests that after years of running, running related health issues increase. What is your experience with it? Appears like extensive running is bad for you...

Curtruns · April 2015

I'm tossing the flag on this one

STrooper · April 2015

At a personal level, I can say that there was a long break between running for the purpose of training to some goal and it wasn't just racing. They were shorter races, too. But in my 20's and early 30's, the ability to run sub-6 minute miles seemed so easy. And the ability to run a 10K at a 6:00 pace was also doable.

Now, at age 61, I feel fortunate that I can turn in a single mile on a track at 6:56. But then again, I'm also about 15 pounds heavier than those days (at my lightest I was about 150-155 pounds). The difficulty is that I can't really compare the short training distances and speed associated with training for 10Ks with the training required for marathon distances or longer. They are completely different animals.

I am recovering from an overuse injury that I think I would not have experienced when I was younger (or certainly would have recovered faster).

Now, I do have a neighbor that is more than a year younger than I am and he has a long running history. He has run at least a marathon every year for the past 40 years. And he runs nearly every day. If you go over his times at various marathons you can see a gradual decline in speed. In his 40's, he could turn out a marathon in the low 2:40's. But by his early 50's that time had slipped into the 2:50's range. And by age 53, his times had slowed even further to exceed 3 hours. In his last marathon, his time was 3:32:56 at age 59.

They take more time to prepare for (obviously) and he still runs about 75 miles per week.

His short-distance times have remained relatively resilient. And haven't shown the same sort of decline as the long distances have.

His wife is also a lifelong runner though she hasn't been so much a marathon runner as a short-to-mid distance runner. She is in her mid-50s and has had a history of stress fractures and lower leg problems. But she, too, is incredibly fast and has been able to sustain her times over the mile to 10K distances. She admitted to me that she actually likes to run a lot slower than she used to.

snowflakesav · April 2015

I think there is an efficiency that life long runner might have learned over years of training that actually allows them to perform better when they age. There is a mind body connection one makes to internalize running form that benefits life long runners.

SKME2013 · April 2015

I am less worried about time than about injuries. Information re whether running is actually good or bad for your joints/ health differ greatly. That's why I would love to hear from long time runners whether their injuries gotten worse over the years.

STrooper · April 2015

Well, time is an indicator for people who race. And certainly there is evidence to suggest that recovery time from the sort of damage that training imposes increases with age and maybe with lifetime mileage. But it could also be earlier experience (damage) that ends up showing up over and over again (like stepping wrongly on a cobblestone in Rome and spraining an ankle and then having to have surgery to deal with that injury years later).

But if it is just about collecting the t-shirt and medal and not really pushing one's limits, then maybe it's not an issue to be too concerned with.

There are probably too many "youngsters" here to really answer your question.

Curtruns · April 2015

Running puts stress on your knees and hips....stress can lead to injury as well. However, my knees and hips are carrying 25lbs (11.5kg) less for the rest of the day. Additionally by repeatedly stressing those joints you condition them against injury. It is a tightrope you walk between optimum performance and injury. Runner's World The Runner's Body by Tucker and Dugas goes into great detail on what action to take in order to reduce the likelihood of injury.

STrooper · April 2015

I've discovered the hip stress (unexpectedly) and that is what I'm recovering from.

GiddyupTim · April 2015

I don't think that the information on whether years of running has a positive or negative impact on your knees and hips goes both ways. I remember a study in which the researchers actually took MRI images of the knees of long-term runners. That study found that the knees were perfectly healthy, and they found no indication that long miles wears on the cartilage or produces injuries that, over time, lead to joint damage. That study's implication, and the researchers's conclusion, was the running was probably beneficial and helped the knees stay healthy and young.
I have run since I was about 20 years. I am 54 years now. I have had many injuries, including plantar fasciitis that lasted, off and on, for over 10 years. I do not feel that the stress of all that running is breaking me down. I am slower but just because I am older, not because I am hindered or in pain. I am stronger and faster and in better shape that any of my similarly-aged friends with whom I play tennis, and I have no doubt it is from the running.
In my experience, injuries take longer to heal. But I would not call them worse.
I think when you hit about 35-40 years, you experience your first significant decline in performance. It feels like the end of the world. I think that is what the author of the article -- and the people surveyed -- is expressing. But it is not. And, the decline, while significant, is not always huge.

GiddyupTim · April 2015

I would also like to mention: A woman from my town, Sacramento, just won the 50-54 year age group for females in the Boston Marathon, with a time of 2:52. This is a woman who runs -- and has run -- a ton. She twice tried to qualify for the Olympic trials. So, she has some serious miles on her.
I believe her best time in a marathon was 2:46.
If that is the case, she has not had much drop-off in performance at all -- and she is now 51 years!
And, another thing about the survey. A questionnaire like that is silly. It is not designed to answer any question.
She said the runners with the most miles were more likely to be experiencing declines in performance. Well, duh! The people who just started running, or who have only been running 4-5 years, are probably still getting better, and that has nothing to do with age. It just reflects the fact that it takes you a while to reach your peak.
And, the runners who are experiencing declines, and who have more miles, are older and they are getting older. In order to have 10 to 15 to 20 years of running on your body, you necessarily have to be older. There might be one 25 year old in that group. But the majority are necessarily going to be 40 years or OLDER!
She needed to compare people who were the same age, and who had run for varying lengths of time. I suspect, she would have found that the people who had been running for 15 years were almost always better than those who had been running 4 or 5 years.

Curtruns · April 2015

I agree with tufel

lporter229 · April 2015

Umm, I do not believe extensive running is bad for you. I am 43 and have been running pretty consistently since my late 20s. I only recently (past 2-3 years) started "training" for performance and I have seen significant improvements in my speed and endurance in that time. This is mostly a result of increased mileage. I would say that I still have the ability to improve more, but it will more likely come in the area of longer distances. I am not sure how much faster I can improve on my 5K time.

As far as injuries go, I don't think I have sustained more injuries as I age, just more little aches and pains along the way. But that is true of almost all of my friends, even the ones that don't run. I think as you age, supplemental strength training, even in the form of yoga and pilates becomes more critical. At least this has been my experience.

All in all though, I would say that I am in much better physical shape and more capable of activity than many of my non-running friends my age. I firmly believe this is because of my running and not in spite of it.

WhatMeRunning · April 2015

Just my personal experience so far (since you asked...and limited timescale in my case of course). I started running in my 40's and now have seemingly stronger knees, ankles, and of course all around lower body strength and far greater mobility. Maybe later in life, sure, things will wear down. But it seems to me that I might just make it to pretty old age without those problems simply due to starting late. Then again...maybe not. Frankly, I would rather run now than not (like most here I imagine).

Curtruns · April 2015

I suppose we all have our opinions. Mine is that running is not bad for your knees. Now OVERUSE is bad for anything, to include your knees, hips and ankles. As we age, what our body is capable of doing may diminish and by trial and error we learn where that line is that separates the adaptive qualities of running (the strengthening of bone, muscle and cartilage) from injury due to overuse. You cause damage when you ignore the warning signs your body gives you that minor injury is present; and if you push it, damage will result.

Carrieendar · April 2015

Wolff's Law. Google it

GiddyupTim · April 2015

So, in the interests of buoying the spirits of all the other old people who, having read this, have been forced to contemplate their eventual decline, i'd like to add one more thing.
Today, i just happened to come across a relevant item on the Runner's World website. It was a review of the book: "Older, Faster, Stronger: What Women Runners Can Teach Us All about Living Younger, Longer."
It says we are learning that much of the decline we see with aging is the result of deconditioning, not necessarily weaker hams and brittler bones. It points out that the current world record in the marathon for a woman over 50 years is 2:31.05, a time that would have finished above the middle in the 2012 London Olympic marathon.
It also says that studies have shown that 70-year-olds who keep themselves in good shape can have a VO2 max, the muscle mass, and the performance of someone in their 20s. (I'm going to guess that refers to someone in their 20s WHO DOES NOT WORK OUT MUCH. But I don't know.)
The article says that performance, in someone who works at what they are doing, generally declines about 1 percent a year between the ages of 30 years and 50 years. It falls 2 percent a year between ages 50 years and 75 years.
Then it gives advice for runners over 40 years who want to maximize their potential:
1) 70 percent of weekly mileage should be done at an easy pace. That gives you benefits, but reduces chance of injury. Injury is the factor that really contributes to decline. If you hurt, you run slower, and because you take longer to heal that is a big deal. Plus, if you cannot exercise, you get deconditioned, etc. etc.
2) Only run at your expected race pace for 5-10 percent of your weekly mileage. The article says there isn't much body adaptation that occurs at that pace that does not occur at the slower pace.
3) Run 15-20 percent of your running time at the fastest pace, the lactate threshold. It says there are huge benefits that occur in this zone, so you have to do it. But, of course, don't injure yourself.
I always love it when I find a source of information that gives me a reassuring message.

WhatMeRunning · April 2015

I will say that the healthiest and most active 50+ year olds that I have ever known were all active, a great many of them were runners. I can't think of anyone 50+ I have ever known who did not really work out who seemed as active and mobile as those who did.

That is just common sense though.

So, what does that say for articles such as these that try to contradict such common sense?

But then again, considering the concept that "after years of running, running related health issues increase", you could replace the word running with any activity. Drinking, smoking, inactivity, parachuting, of even no word used there at all and having the statement "after many years, health issues increase".

mwyvr · April 2015

tufel wrote: »

It also says that studies have shown that 70-year-olds who keep themselves in good shape can have a VO2 max, the muscle mass, and the performance of someone in their 20s. (I'm going to guess that refers to someone in their 20s WHO DOES NOT WORK OUT MUCH. But I don't know.)

There's a reference to a Norwegian study that makes a nod to the 70 and 20 year old comparison in this NY Times blog article:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/how-old-is-your-health/?_r=0

“A 70-year-old man or woman who has the peak oxygen uptake of a 20-year-old has a fitness age of 20,” he says. He has seen just this combination during his research.

Here's an on-line estimator that takes into account age. When I filled it out using my current metrics it showed me has having VO2 max of 46, which makes my fit-age at 45.

https://www.worldfitnesslevel.org/#/start

My estimated VO2 max (from my Garmin running watch / heart rate monitor) has been climbing as I increase my running training and is now at 47. I don't feel I'm at the end yet.

I re-did the evaluation using slightly reduced waist measurement (I *will*) get there and bumping up my activity level and the result was VO2 max of 51, equivalent to fitness level of a 32 year old. So 50 can be the new 30. Excellent. Muahahahaha.

Number mumbo aside, I firmly believe in use it or lose it. That's my main plan. Actually it's my only plan.

Edit for a quotation:

The results can be sobering. A 50-year-old man, for instance, who exercises moderately a few times a week, sports a 36-inch waist and a resting heart rate of 75 — not atypical values for healthy middle-aged men — will have a fitness age of 59. Thankfully, unwanted fitness years, unlike the chronological kind, can be erased, Dr. Wisloff says. Exercise more frequently or more intensely. Then replug your numbers and exult as your “age” declines. A youthful fitness age, Dr. Wisloff says, “is the single best predictor of current and future health.”

Way too much common sense there. Must be wrong!

mwyvr · April 2015

SKME2013 wrote: »

http://zelle.runnersworld.com/chatter/the-aging-athlete-the-law-of-aggregate-miles?adbid=10152743183651987&adbpl=fb&adbpr=9815486986&cid=social44600896&short_code=2vfe1

The above article suggests that after years of running, running related health issues increase. What is your experience with it? Appears like extensive running is bad for you...

That wasn't my takeaway at all. Some respondents quoted indicated they were running better older than when they were younger. Some noted they'd had experience with injuries but were running without injuries because, editorializing here, they are now running smarter.

Some studies I've read strongly support the notion that use improves joint fitness and bone health.

The key seems to revolve around what constitutes use vs abuse and surely that will vary widely depending on each person's individual body state and history.

SKME2013 · May 2015

Thanks for all your input and reassuring!

isulo_kura · May 2015

mwyvr wrote: »

Some studies I've read strongly support the notion that use improves joint fitness and bone health.

There was an Australian study that6 showed an increase in cartilage in runners joints. (Sorry don't have the link to hand). The other thing to take into account is the actual health benefits of running in comparison to being inactive. So even if you do have any running related issues in the long term the benefits of running both mentally and physically may outweigh them. The problem I always see with articles when they start to claim running is bad for you is they always take that in isolation without looking at a persons whole lifestyle or what may be the alternative.

jturnerx · May 2015

mwyvr wrote: »

Here's an on-line estimator that takes into account age. When I filled it out using my current metrics it showed me has having VO2 max of 46, which makes my fit-age at 45.

https://www.worldfitnesslevel.org/#/start

Nifty. I just turned 52 and my fitness age is 25, a perfect number swap. lol