It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
SG, its still fun. I like being able at my age to run most of the time without aches and pains whereas you only have to look; if you must, at most guys my age and see what physical wrecks they've clearly become. I mean, they always were wrecks but their youth hid it well. As I've said before; bear with me on this one, as an official old git I repeat myself constantly, the Age Graded Performance calculator provides great comfort to me. Indeed, my last outing provided a % that for a 10k, a 30 year old would have to run 33:03! So lucky me!.
robT wrote (see)
chase unsuspecting people who have no idea that they are racing with me around the park
I too like that sort of racing, when I pass them I win, if they pass me then I am on a recovery and they are doing reps.
My money is on robT to beat SG over 1000, and I reckon he can even do it if SG has a 50m start. Anyone want to put £10 on the table against rob?
We are all going to get slower at some stage, it is inevitable. You can look at the data everywhere (e.g. http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/agegroups.html) so as a man you can expect to be at about 80% of your peak by age 60.
The thing is then what this means and how you take it. I am basically close to an 80% guy, so at age 28 I was 34 minutes for 10k and now aged 46 the age graded result is 37:40 which I can easily beat. If I grade that as a 28 year old me it is still 71% and 37.xx isn;t a bad open time for anyone: I know this is an elevated ability group but sub 40 for 10k is still a reasonable mark.
So we will decline, the better we were, the smaller the decline is and also the more competitive we will be in open classes.
For what it is worth, I also thing WAVA gradings are fundamentally flawed. The progress of the world record wrt age and distance is well done but then the oversimplification of making a grade based on you time and this single figure is wrong. You need a two variable model so what we need is not only the world record but also the variation so we can express the outcome in deviations and not a raw fraction. (Talking of stats, where is UG and his report on his 100k?)
A 1km with a 50metre head start might be interesting..
Let's explore it, Rob's 800 looks to be 2:06, with 1500 4:20
McMillan suggests a 2:44 1km, and looks a good prediction as it predicts 1500 at 4:19..which is pretty close.
I've only ever raced a 1k once...that was last summer, which came out 2:57.
Now that extra 50metres at 1k pace would perhaps be 8seconds...
so 2:52 plays 2:57.
But perhaps Rob's best times were in quality races, whereas my 2:57 was won with a 30sec margin, and had a couple of 8year olds in the race
so...Phil's probably right, Rob would still take it even with a 50m head start, but perhaps it would be close...closer than that 5sec from the calculation!
As for WAVA..generally oldies like it, younguns don't. It's kind of galling to be told that someone coming 5 mins slower over 10k has actually supposedly "had a better performance" due to the WAVA, when the only thing that really matters is order home over the line...
Otherwise, why not stretch things out to include upbringing (ie Kenyan's lifestyle gives them an advantage), years of training,natural ability injury invincibility, height, weight etc, and all the other factors that work towards your race times!
Some would say oh but age and gender are impossible things to get over, but half of my list are too!
I agree Phil, the basis of the gradings is on what someone of a particular age has actually done. I do however have the suspicion that the extremes of statistical data have been adjusted to allow for the probability that the fastest performer for any given age is unrepresentive of 99.999% of the rest. In laymans term,'they disregard freaks'.
Ric, if isn't the outliers, it is the spread. Purely as an example let us say the open world record for 10 miles is 45 minutes. If a runner does 90 minutes he has a grading of 50%. Now for a V60, the WAVA standard for 10 miles is 55 minutes so a 50% standard is 110 minutes and for V70, 60 minutes and so 120 minutes.
Is it a fair assumption that a open athlete running 90 minutes is the same as a V70 running 120 purely on the basis that the world bests are 45 and 60 minutes? My gut feeling is that 120 for a V70 is softer than 90 for an open athlete.
I think a better (in terms of more accurate) is something that says e.g. open grading for 10 miles is 45 minutes with a deviation of 9 minutes, so your 90 minute man is 5 deviations slower. For V70, it would be 60 minutes with a deviation of say 11 minutes so the 120 guy would be 5.45 deviations slower.
All this is is a two equitation model, so we as we add stuff we get a better model. The current assumes we perform as a function of the fastest, I'd like to see the mode changed to include the bulk and not just the elite.
Now I'm confused lets just run!! (but a 90%+ WAVA would be nice this year) look at Anthony Whiteman rewritting V40 middle distance records WOW age is no barrier to him!!
Stevie G 2.06 was I felt not a true reflection of training at the time s/be near 2.03 but 800m days probably behind me now and that was 2 years ago when a spritely 45 year old so I think it would be closer than you say!!
As Harry Hill would say "the only way to find out is ................................."
Decided 1st race after injury will probably be next Friday 22nd 9.5 mile off road called Tattenhall Tough Team Challange something I would never normally consider but think it may be interesting as you normally run with your team mates and finish together my team is with a Mountain Goat X-Country uphill expert and a 74 min HM racer strangely I'm quite looking forward to it as no pressure re time!! Bus/Seb better watch out fells might be calling
i'd probably have a better chance in a fight than a race
Was interesting last summer doing a 1k and then a 800 15mins later.
Clearly the mistake i made was smashing the first lap and a half of the 1km in a very slow field, and then being a little underpar for the 400 against a strong rival of mine. He did a 58 to my 60, but i'm certain he ran a bit more measured in his 1mile race.
It was certainly an eye opener at those paces, as generally i don't touch that kind of intensity in normal training, as you wouldn't need to racing 5k and up...
rob, sounds a good option of a comeback race, just getting back in the mixer, no time peessure..ideal.
Last thing you want to do is pick a pb course, and not quite be up to it..so odd distance, off road is good pick.
i dont give a monkeys for wava...but i can now understand why some older runners with a history might use it to gauge how they are running now. Is a 33m 10k in their youth as good as a 37 in their forties for example
Mind you i couldnt give a monkeys about Po10 rankings until i got a few lower scores, now they are an excellent guide
Dean, the way you're going, when you're say 42, you'll probably check your score, and it'll tell you the equivalent at 20 would have been 1hr 05 for a half
If its anything like a fell race Rob your in for a bit of a shock! All the fell races are too far away for me so packed it in at the moment although might do one in August.
Reasonable 5m Road race for me last night, 28:45, a PB by 19secs, still more to come though, the Banbury 5 is definately not flat! and not that fast. not too hilly though 185ft of climb. Much faster courses out there somewhere. splits of 5:21, 5:37, 5:55, 6:01, 5:45 + afew seconds over 5 miles by my watch. I just feel so fresh in the first few miles then come a cropper as soon as I hit any undulations.
going out for a long run now, interval session tomorrow morning hopefully, then off to Spain warm weather training.. a.k.a Booze up with the lads.
I'm still at the stage of my life where I am more concerned with how quickly I can get over the line. I don't even know what my WAVA scores are. I am sure it will interest me a bit more when I hit V40, but that's still a few years away.
Nice 5 mile race there Seb. Interesting on what is classed as flat races in different parts of the world. I come from South Africa and my old club's weekly 8km time trial route was considered to be a fast flat course by local standards with only about 225 feet of climbing!
6km at snail's pace for me last night. Legs still need a few more days rest but very tempted to go to the club tomorrow for some 600m intervals, even if it is done at a slow pace.
seb - a pb on an undulating course sounds like a great return, congrats.
Seb, it's about time you picked a flat race don't you think? I don't think i recall you ever doing one..Victory 5 in Portsmouth in Nov is one i suggest, or Hanney in Oxfordshire, which I think is Sep, which will be a fair bit closer to you.
(ps well done on th pb though obviously! )
I try and get down to the south coast once a year for a big race, they have some terrific fast courses down there, Victory 5, Gosport half, couple of 10ks like Stubbington Green. Have good quality runners in that area too, which helps a fair bit.
Warren, indeed "flat" is one of those interesting terms. I think the distance of race can affect it too.
For instance, the Reading half has 2 hills, yet i've never seen it classed as anything but "flat". Wokingham, is always thought of as super quick, yet has 3 undulating motorway bridges.
For halfs, those can be absorbed comfortably. For a 5k for instance, a tiny incline in the scheme of things can suck a great deal out of you, as clearly the faster you run, the more it affects you.
Seb - good result for the course. As you say, more to come!
Got some Adidas Hagios for my birthday today! At 160g they make my DS racers look positively fat! Can't wait to try them in anger!! I am going to have to run fast in them though as they are fluorescent yellow and it'd be embarassing to wear them and get a poor result! I've never tried Adidas before, but they seem to be a good fit.
Reps at lunchtime - 6 x 0.5M in 2:47, 2:48, 2:45, 2:46, 2:47, 2:48
Felt nice and controlled today - slowing them down initially certainly made for better consistency.
Seb, always good to PB, and it sounds like a tasty time on a course that wasn't ideal. A good base to work from, at any rate. I do notice that you have some fair old difference in your splits in some of your races - a 5:21 at the start of a 5 miler is flying!
SG - to be fair, I think Seb did the Silverstone 10k, but was buffetted by wind. So maybe a flat and sheltered course ...
Rob I was thinking of doing the tough team race, but as yet don't have a tough team. Was talking with my club mates and apparently only 3 people from our club have ever managed to run up it without stopping, one being now Tipton runner Nick Jones. So assume it's a tough climb up the old train track. Funny set out with the 'you're only as fast as your last runner' format.
My calf is still sore and tight as hell. Rest yesterday and gentle 3 miles tonight with stretching, rolling and ice after. It does feel 'on the brink' more than I ever recall so will play it safe.
By the way, on the subject of ultra's (we weren't really, but Warren was a couple of days ago) nosing around Po10, I came across the following, listed as a SHORT 100K.
It says "Note that the course has been found to be 97 metres". Surely you'd notice?
Philip_M_Jones wrote (see)
Ric, if isn't the outliers, it is the spread. Purely as an example let us say the open world record for 10 miles is 45 minutes. If a runner does 90 minutes he has a grading of 50%. Now for a V60, the WAVA standard for 10 miles is 55 minutes so a 50% standard is 110 minutes and for V70, 60 minutes and so 120 minutes. Is it a fair assumption that a open athlete running 90 minutes is the same as a V70 running 120 purely on the basis that the world bests are 45 and 60 minutes? My gut feeling is that 120 for a V70 is softer than 90 for an open athlete. I think a better (in terms of more accurate) is something that says e.g. open grading for 10 miles is 45 minutes with a deviation of 9 minutes, so your 90 minute man is 5 deviations slower. For V70, it would be 60 minutes with a deviation of say 11 minutes so the 120 guy would be 5.45 deviations slower. All this is is a two equitation model, so we as we add stuff we get a better model. The current assumes we perform as a function of the fastest, I'd like to see the mode changed to include the bulk and not just the elite.
Now we know why Phil is the director of a technology company and I mow lawns.
Bus...just out of interest were those off 90sec or 2mins?
Bus - happy birthday! You weren't hammering yourself with reps on your birthday were you?
Speed stuff for me on the track tonight. Started off with 4 x 400 with 200m recovery (70, 71, 70, 72) then a whole bunch of 200s. I think there were 21, done in a 3 person relay so a nice long recovery in between. Done in 33, 32, 32, 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, 34, 33, 34, 34, 34, 34, 34, 33, 34, 34, 34, 33, 33. Just looking at the length of that sequence makes me feel tired. Fun to run fast at the beginning, but the fun ended on about the fifth one, and was replaced by a nagging feeling that I should leave sprinting to the sprinters.
Thanks Dachs - belive me the reps were the lesser of two evils today as it gave me a chance to get out of the office! Don't worry though, made up for it down the pub this evening with pie and mash washed down with a few pints of Pride
Bloody good session that - makes me feel exhausted just looking at it, 25 reps indeeed! Madness! Those 400m seem very tasty too (not sure on the 200's - nothing to judge them against, but they sure look consistent!). That course was only 99,903m out - how would you notice??
SG - recoveries for me today were a shade under 90 sec split into walk for 45, then jog for 45.
Stevie See - you take it easy with that calf mate. Give it some time to recover....
All that talk of outliers and statistical deviation earlier was making me dizzy! I used to like maths, but could never quite get my brain to take complex stats on board properly for some reason!
Bus, sorry pal was posting quick as was watching footy..completely missed your bday...happy birthday old son! One year closer to the V45 and a new wealth of prizes!
Sounds a pretty nice session for you... 2:47 average for 800m by the look of it, so 2:48 for 1/2mile, meaning a pace of 5:36 which would give a 17:25. Sounds on track for you to hit/break a 17:30 if we can find the right course, especially as you did 6, and the recovery was a 90sec only job. Did you intend to do further in the reps than the intended pace run at?
As a comparison, in my 2 sessions of 5x1/2mile 2&3 weeks ago, in my last test that i was ready to come back to the main schedule, i averaged 2:48 as well.
In fairness, yesterdays 6x1k at 10k pace felt more what I'm looking for with a 3:29 average rep, which would be under 35 for 10k.
Was yours up the track? My last 3 have been on random roads, which is worthwhile every so often, especially if you can sneak it in at lunch, but can't beat that lush flatness of the track!!
Dachs, the 2nd half of that session reminds me of one I did twice with Frankie's mob. Not 100% sure on the distance, but it must have been between 150-200metres, run in 3s, so you get the 2 legs rest...we did 20 of those, but didn't time them. One of only 2 sessions that has ever left with me with smashed legs for 2-3 days after (the other, a ridiculously badly planned club session!)
Sounds a hard enough workout with just the 200s, the 400s are just showing off
Right...bed for me, physio tomorrow, just to keep ticking over!
Happy Birthday Bus...and a good session too
Dachs..i am down for 12*200m tomorrow...comparing it to yours it hardly feels worth it
Baleted congrats to bus.
Bridges race yesterday, still a lot of mess in London with the Jubilee and all that so my run out and back was a bit longer than normal but race was fine and I did 13:38, exactly the same time as my last two outings and so I have PBed and then equalled it twice.
Bit of reflection on recent runs shows that I lost to Steve Roberts of Handy Cross at Burnham who I have a 8-6-1 head to head with but I have won the last 5 so that is a set back but yesterday beat a guy who is 9:46 for 3k and 16:17 for 5k so looking to be back to where I should be after a blip. Must have been an underlying virus or something, trouble is that most runners can;t tell when they are ill or not.
Phil, is beating a 16:17 5k runner where you should be?
but good consistency on those races...3races to the second is stirling!
solid consistancy Phil...good stuff
Thanks Chaps. Bad enough working yesterday, but had an 8am meeting this morning too, all slightly fuzzy headed! It's amazing the effect just 3 beers has on me these days!
Nicely done Philip - can't get more consistent than that!
The session was on a cycle route yesterday SG, with the even reps being slightly uphill and vice versa. It's quite a good place to do it, as although there is an incline, it's very staright, with no road crossings. Not sure what you mean by "Did you intend to do further in the reps than the intended pace run at?" (but my brain isn't working well yet today!)