A Former Ofsaa Champ's Insights

[Linc]

Sept 2, 2009 10:48:16 GMT -5 oldster said:

These days, most young guys are either freaked out by the idea of running 100+ kms/week, or else worried they will "lose their speed" for their next big race, which is always right around the corner.

hahaha, Great point....I love hearing people say this! Obviously, there is a little bit of truth in it there somewhere, but you never really LOSE your speed!
Young runners need to understand that they have a basic speed they will never really "lose". You're not going to run your best 400m race off of 70 miles a week without any speedwork, but in no way does it mean you will "lose" your speed.

Example...when I was at school we always ran a team "blue-white" meet in mid December, after cross country season, before winter break.
We would get on the track once before hand just to see where we're at/get the feel of the track with a light workout. We did a 3 mile tempo and then came in and did 5x400m. I ran something like 68, 65, 64, 60, 49.8. This was after 70-75 mile weeks without having touched a track since maybe July??

You never really "lose" your basic speed. (well, until you're old )

[skuja]

49.8???

It's funny....I'm 47, and, percentage wise, my recent 100m time is much closer to my all time PR than longer distances. I'm 10-15% slower in 800m up, but less than 5% slower in 100m. (And less than 10% in 400m.)

[tundra]

You never really "lose" your basic speed. (well, until you're old ) <Linc>

Hey!!! I'm not old, just mature.....well. I'm a Baby Master....how's that?

[oldster]

Old=slow. Sad but true. I'd be afraid to even try a 100 or 400, and I used to be pretty fast for a distance guy (sub 12 and 50 point).

Sjuj, if you're relatively better at 100 and 400 than at the longer stuff at your age, you need to put down your Coe/Martin and get some Lydiard/Daniels into you, because that's just wrong. Speed/power/flexibility are the first things to go as we age, which must mean you have been seriously neglecting your aerobic/economy end.

And now this little thread has veered completely off the rails...

[tundra]

Oldster......what you call slow and what us mortals call slow is very different.

Personally, my speed is still close to what it was 20 years ago. I'd say my 400 speed would be the biggest in difference, but I'm a bit like Skuj. Raw 200 times would be close. Now asking me to do 20 x 200 at 29 would kill me, but I could bust off one 200 close to yesteryear speed.

I would have to agree on the flexibility. It's like 40 was a line in the sand.

[skuja]

Sept 2, 2009 12:46:19 GMT -5 oldster said:

Old=slow. Sad but true. I'd be afraid to even try a 100 or 400, and I used to be pretty fast for a distance guy (sub 12 and 50 point).

Sjuj, if you're relatively better at 100 and 400 than at the longer stuff at your age, you need to put down your Coe/Martin and get some Lydiard/Daniels into you, because that's just wrong. Speed/power/flexibility are the first things to go as we age, which must mean you have been seriously neglecting your aerobic/economy end.

And now this little thread has veered completely off the rails...

I used to think the same about speed/power/age, but then, after my strange experience, I discovered that many other masters experience the same thing. Is it training related?

[spaff]

You old guys just need to move up to ultras....that's where it's at

Not to take this thread in yet another direction, but this is something that I have wondered about for a while and haven't asked, but here goes...

Oldster seems to have aged gracefully runningwise compared to most in the 5k-21k range and I expect that there are many masters runners out there who are curious as to why/how?...

Is it because he could have been even better as an open runner, but never reached his full potential (in all due respect) or is it something else? One theory that I have and would like to hear about from Steve, or others, is the role of strength training in masters runners and success in slowing the decline in performance.

[cda]

Check out his blog.
www.physi-kultrunning.com/

[spaff]

Sept 2, 2009 15:42:01 GMT -5 cda said:

Check out his blog.
www.physi-kultrunning.com/

Yes, I realize Steve has a blog, but think that it would be an interesting discussion to hear other masters perspectives as well since I know there are many on here.

Hell, if every other thread can be about OFSSA, why not a little love for the masters too?

[skuja]

Spaff, are you getting old?

I'm no Boyd-Deacon of course, but at 39 I was still in 2:04 800 shape (PR 1:58), but then an injury that year (my first major one) changed EVERYTHING. I clawed my way back to 2:11 by 43, but it bacame a "chore" - the desire started to wane. I still love running, but in a much more de-emphasized manner.

The Boyds and Deacons of this world don't lose that desire. Just look at those sons of bitches as they finish a race....and I mean that in the most respectful way possible. I saw Bruce when he finished that 68min Half in Vic - steely eyes, possessed. The fast masters have that look, that determination, and desire. Many other masters get to a point where they just cba. They talk about "work and kids", as if that stopped the fast guys.

2 cents.

[bdeacon]

Sept 2, 2009 10:48:16 GMT -5 oldster said:

There are many reasons young runners fail to thrive in college programs, chief among which, I think, is the inability to adapt quickly enough to the demands of the typical college program. Having only ever done the kind of low mileage/high intensity programs that produce mid-distance success in the age-class ranks, they often simply do not know how to adjust their easy run pace to the demands of a higher volume program. Or, they just find it psychologically overwhelming to be asked to run so far every day. And this, BTW, is a big part of the reason so many of our talented young mid-distance guys are failing-- or not even trying-- to make the transition to the 5 and 10k: they leave the sport before ever learning how to train the way "real"distance runners the world over actually train. When I was coming up in the sport, it was much more typical for senior HS students to run 100+ kms a week (although I think most of us raced far less than kids do today). Consequently, we had many more 17-19 year olds capable of running sub 30min 10ks (like probably 10-15 guys in my national cohort alone). This meant that many more of us were running very well at 10k to the Marathon by our mid-late 20s. These days, most young guys are either freaked out by the idea of running 100+ kms/week, or else worried they will "lose their speed" for their next big race, which is always right around the corner.

I agree Steve. I would add that the lightbulbs are not going on in many high school athletes. If you are a 1500 runner that can't run a 52 second 400, then your future is at 5-10k. So...enjoy. Start setting your sights on the longer events and adjust to more mileage.

I think that we lose a lot of ground to athletes from other nations because our teens think that 100k is incredibly high mileage. I think that a 17-19 year old should be able to run at least 12 such weeks over a year...without it being a big deal.


I think that what you are lamenting, Steve, is that perhaps kids are less willing to wait than when we were growing up. They want great results every week, and are not willing to invest in months of hard work where fatigue keeps you from your best racing.

I remember training for half a year for OFSAA. Oh sure, I had lots of races during that time, but they were leading me to where I wanted to be come the finals at OFSAA. I think that this approach helped me as I turned to longer distances...especially the marathon.

[nscoach67]

Sept 2, 2009 19:05:01 GMT -5 bdeacon said:

I think that what you are lamenting, Steve, is that perhaps kids are less willing to wait than when we were growing up. They want great results every week, and are not willing to invest in months of hard work where fatigue keeps you from your best racing.

I remember training for half a year for OFSAA. Oh sure, I had lots of races during that time, but they were leading me to where I wanted to be come the finals at OFSAA. I think that this approach helped me as I turned to longer distances...especially the marathon.

Bruce - if you haven't been involved in the new NCCP, then I wish you had. I've been drinking the coolaid of specificity in training at least in my athletes for some time now.

I'd be curious to hear your views on the tapering/peaking end of things.

[tundra]

Bruce,

I think you touch on a very solid point. As runners, we need to have a goal. Really doesn't matter what it is(a pb, a placing, losing weight, gaining fitness). I think if our running has purpose, it makes it easier to look more long term, rather than present. Oldster could school me here, but as a lay-person, I see society as a "now" society. We want our Big-Macs from the drive through, we do our banking online, we read newspapers electronically, we check race results from around the nation on a Sunday morning minutes after the completion of that race. Why wouldn't we want results right now, we get everything else instantly. It seems as if putting in the time and effort are not worth it to coaches and athletes when they can get moderate success now as opposed to taking the chance of looking long-term and thinking BIGGER.

I have been guilty of wanting results now, but after a return to running about 5 years ago and fighting father time, I am having to learn the hard way through injuries. I ran with moderate success in HS and a little less so in university and then hung them up for several years before a come back a few years back. I think opening my ears and mind to listening to folks like you, Bomba, pq, spaff et al has helped me. I try to think a little more long term now with 2-3 major goal races per year and a mix of 5-6 others mixed in to test fitness. Each run serves a purpose for me and I try to remember that. I still get caught up in reading these threads and seeing what others are doing, but I do have to remember that even if I can replicate someone's training for a while, it doesn't mean that I get their results too. I am an individual and need to modify my training for me, which is even more important now that I am a Master's athlete. I can still run the workouts with the high school speedsters, but hitting the pool and easing back on recovery runs is something I need to do on off days.

I've been very fortunate with running and set almost all of my PB's from the ages of 37-39. I haven't been injury free at 40, but am on the road to healing and learning to cross train and listen to my body a little more closely than I did when I was 20-something. As Skuj points out, that fire doesn't leave some of us and it's fun again.

I have really enjoyed the tangent this thread has taken. Thanks to everyone for the input!

[oldster]

You're right, Bruce, but I would say the 50 secs is probably the cut-off for national level middle distance success, and sub-50 a prerequisite for the international level at 1500-5k, unless one happens to also be very naturally strong at holding mid-range paces (like, say, a Brendan Foster type).

And, Spaff, I think I've had success after 40 because I still love the training process (as both coach and athlete), because I know what I'm doing when it comes to preparation, and because I'm blessed with pretty good genetics. As for a realizing my potential, I think I came about as close to doing so as the average senior elite, although my track performances don't reflect my ability as well as what I was able to do on the roads (I was really hampered by seasonal allergies in the "track months" of the year-- June-Aug-- but always consistent in the fall and early spring). As for the strength training, I imagine this has probably helped. They say a big part of the reason guys, in particular, slow down as we age is related to our natural tendency to lose testosterone, and thereby muscle mass and power, starting at age 40. I would bet that anything we can do to stem that loss would help preserve performance, provided it didn't also add a lot of extra weight (not a big risk when it comes to the typical ectomorphic distance runner).

But, as CDA notes, I do actually discuss this in my blog. There I say, in part, that I my performances only stand out today because the average open runner has become so relatively slow. I am, as I say in the piece, the "relic of a once great (or at least relatively much better) distance running civilization".

P.S. The guy whose blog is referenced in the name of this thread is a great kid and a very fine athlete. He may not have won OFSAA again after grade 9, but he has tremendous long term potential. In DST's program, there's no telling what he might do over the next 4 years.

[skuja]

Sept 2, 2009 19:05:01 GMT -5 bdeacon said:

Sept 2, 2009 10:48:16 GMT -5 oldster said:

There are many reasons young runners fail to thrive in college programs, chief among which, I think, is the inability to adapt quickly enough to the demands of the typical college program. Having only ever done the kind of low mileage/high intensity programs that produce mid-distance success in the age-class ranks, they often simply do not know how to adjust their easy run pace to the demands of a higher volume program. Or, they just find it psychologically overwhelming to be asked to run so far every day. And this, BTW, is a big part of the reason so many of our talented young mid-distance guys are failing-- or not even trying-- to make the transition to the 5 and 10k: they leave the sport before ever learning how to train the way "real"distance runners the world over actually train. When I was coming up in the sport, it was much more typical for senior HS students to run 100+ kms a week (although I think most of us raced far less than kids do today). Consequently, we had many more 17-19 year olds capable of running sub 30min 10ks (like probably 10-15 guys in my national cohort alone). This meant that many more of us were running very well at 10k to the Marathon by our mid-late 20s. These days, most young guys are either freaked out by the idea of running 100+ kms/week, or else worried they will "lose their speed" for their next big race, which is always right around the corner.

I agree Steve. I would add that the lightbulbs are not going on in many high school athletes. If you are a 1500 runner that can't run a 52 second 400, then your future is at 5-10k. So...enjoy. Start setting your sights on the longer events and adjust to more mileage.

Hmmmm......very interesting.

IF you are aiming for the world stage that is?? Some of us realized early on that we were not Olympians, but we stuck with what we enjoyed! (My best 400m is 54hi, if you see what I mean.)

[pq]

Sept 2, 2009 15:10:43 GMT -5 skuja said:

I used to think the same about speed/power/age, but then, after my strange experience, I discovered that many other masters experience the same thing. Is it training related?

Maybe. Personally, I think I'm a little more inclined toward speed (as a 44 yo), but my longer distance performances, at least up to HM, tend to be close in quality to the shorter stuff (depending on which scale you use). My training tends to emphasize aerobic fitness more than I suspect some others (e.g. Skuja) might do.

I'm pretty sure oldster's training emphasizes aerobic fitness.

So yeah, my sense is this phenomenon might be training related. I was going to respond to Darren's earlier comment about slowing more at longer distances basically the same way Steve did, but couldn't get the damn blackberry to let me formulate a response. Darren, drop the Coe/Martin and start doing more volume and longer, slower sessions (more "tempo" running).

[skuja]

You guys are cracking me up with the Coe-Martin.

(BTW my last 3 runs were 120min, 60min, 75min. Easy like.)

[pq]

Sept 2, 2009 21:58:20 GMT -5 skuja said:

You guys are cracking me up with the Coe-Martin.

Well, you were sort of begging for that kind of response.

To me it seems dead simple - if your longer distance times are worse than your shorter distance times in comparison with the younger you, then your training these days likely isn't geared toward success at longer distances.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.... unless you want to race well at longer distances.

The fact that your speed is better than your endurance (again, in comparison with the younger version of you) suggests to me that maybe the balance of volume and specific workouts isn't optimal for longer distance success. If you've still got good speed, you should be able to train to produce fast longer races, if you are so motivated.

Given that you can't race as well over, say, 5k-10k as you can at 800-1500 tells me, without knowing much about your training other than what you've written here, that a few things might be possible:

- too little overall volume
- running too fast on easy days
- very little "tempo" running
- very few interval sessions with long repeats (1k, 1200, 1600, 2000, 3000, 5000, etc...)
- more emphasis on shorter, faster stuff with long (probably standing) recovery
- little emphasis on short active recovery (say 100 jog) in interval sessions

Note when I use descriptors here like "too little" I mean that in the sense of "too little to optimize long distance race success." Maybe these things are "just right" if your objective is to run fast 800-1500.

Of course, I could just be talking out of my ass....

Just trying to spark some conversation - no offence intended.

[skuja]

Sept 3, 2009 8:14:31 GMT -5 pq said:

Sept 2, 2009 21:58:20 GMT -5 skuja said:

You guys are cracking me up with the Coe-Martin.

Well, you were sort of begging for that kind of response.

To me it seems dead simple - if your longer distance times are worse than your shorter distance times in comparison with the younger you, then your training these days likely isn't geared toward success at longer distances.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.... unless you want to race well at longer distances.

The fact that your speed is better than your endurance (again, in comparison with the younger version of you) suggests to me that maybe the balance of volume and specific workouts isn't optimal for longer distance success. If you've still got good speed, you should be able to train to produce fast longer races, if you are so motivated.

Given that you can't race as well over, say, 5k-10k as you can at 800-1500 tells me, without knowing much about your training other than what you've written here, that a few things might be possible:

- too little overall volume
- running too fast on easy days
- very little "tempo" running
- very few interval sessions with long repeats (1k, 1200, 1600, 2000, 3000, 5000, etc...)
- more emphasis on shorter, faster stuff with long (probably standing) recovery
- little emphasis on short active recovery (say 100 jog) in interval sessions

Note when I use descriptors here like "too little" I mean that in the sense of "too little to optimize long distance race success." Maybe these things are "just right" if your objective is to run fast 800-1500.

Of course, I could just be talking out of my ass....

Just trying to spark some conversation - no offence intended.

No offence taken, but.....we gotta go to letsrun land now. I made a thread about this last year, and to my surprise there was much support and discussion about this, debunking the old myth (imho) that top end speed is the first to go as we age. Stamina is more of a challenge imho. Keep in mind that many Road Running Masters aren't exploring their 100m to 400m these days. Let's do the math: Work out your % drop in 10k, Half, Thon....then apply that to 100/200/400.....some of you may be surprised.

pq I have given you and maybe some others the impression that I do 10x200 every day, hahaha. (With long recovery.)

[pq]

Sept 3, 2009 8:24:09 GMT -5 skuja said:

... many Road Running Masters aren't exploring their 100m to 400m these days.

I think chances are pretty good that if a masters runner is seriously exploring their 100-400 times, they are not naturally inclined toward longer distances anyway.

[spaff]

Sept 2, 2009 16:24:48 GMT -5 skuja said:

Spaff, are you getting old?
.

Nope!......only 6+ dog years.

[coachj]

- I think it is self explanatory Grasshopper -

Now back to Ian Dury with Marsden - www.therock.fm -

[skuja]

Sept 3, 2009 8:36:46 GMT -5 pq said:

Sept 3, 2009 8:24:09 GMT -5 skuja said:

... many Road Running Masters aren't exploring their 100m to 400m these days.

I think chances are pretty good that if a masters runner is seriously exploring their 100-400 times, they are not naturally inclined toward longer distances anyway.

Hmmmm.... in my case it was "I wonder how fast I can run 100m today?" amidst my usual "middle distance training", (as I see such training that is).

Coach J, I'm a bit confused now.

[coachj]

..not to worry Skuja, I was answering a question from SB on a previous page -

PQ
"The fact that your speed is better than your endurance (again, in comparison with the younger version of you) suggests to me that maybe the balance of volume and specific workouts isn't optimal for longer distance success. If you've still got good speed, you should be able to train to produce fast longer races, if you are so motivated."

Agreed!

[bdeacon]

[/quote]

Bruce - if you haven't been involved in the new NCCP, then I wish you had. I've been drinking the coolaid of specificity in training at least in my athletes for some time now.

I'd be curious to hear your views on the tapering/peaking end of things.[/quote]

Well, to speak in simplistic terms...you cut back on your training volume and increase your intensity. Then you rest and race.

Aside from this, much of the peaking game is getting your head together to race. From a physiological perspective, there is not a whole lot you are going to change in the last three weeks. You can change a lot neurologically (speed work), but the machine is built by this time. Rest is the key.

The problem we all face as runners (especially as high school athletes), is that we don't really believe that we will not lose our fitness if we cut things back in training. We're scared to rest and eager to prove that we are fit in training. How many of us haven't had a zinger of a workout and a dud of a race. Speaking for myself, it is often a mix of lacking control and lacking confidence. I go a bit over the top, trying to prove that I am as fit as I think I am.

In terms of specifics, I have heard it said that you should try for a pretty solid effort 10 days out from your peak race. I have noticed similar trends when I go back through my training logs. I get my last really hard session in somewhere between 11 and 9 days out from my peak. Of course when you are in school and having to race every week to qualify, this becomes more complicated.

I choked a lot when I was in high school and university because I spent too much time worrying about what might go wrong. After my undergrad, I moved out west and started training with the Kajaks. I noticed that the top guys weren't approaching their races like this. They had the confidence that they would have a good day. Sure, sometimes they stunk it up, but they didn't start the race hoping that they would have a good day.

I started to change my whole approach to racing. I saw myself as a professional and began to apply a similar mindset to my racing as I did in my professional life. I was a teacher at the time and I honestly didn't worry about having a bad day in the classroom. I went to work expecting that I could do my job well because I was trained to do so, smart enough to adapt my plans, and capable enough to deliver. When I started to approach my running this way, I started to get a handle on my choking.

I do think that you have a better chance of peaking when it counts and holding your peak longer if you have done a good mileage base in the off season. Then again, you have to have an off season to begin with, and I am picking up from Steve that youth don't have these anymore.

[nscoach67]

Thanks Bruce, I've been following the 10 day rule for many years, from Dellinger readings. Nice to know others are as well.

[oldster]

Very useful post, Brucie. Couldn't agree more.

[oldster]

Sept 3, 2009 19:25:06 GMT -5 coachj said:

- I think it is self explanatory Grasshopper -

Now back to Ian Dury with Marsden - www.therock.fm -

O.K, now you're completely blowing my mind, coachj!

[spaff]

Sept 4, 2009 0:33:28 GMT -5 bdeacon said:

they didn't start the race hoping that they would have a good day.

excellent!

[HHH]

Wow, I didn't expect this post to go where it did! Great stuff guys.