So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume?

PatrickOfSteele

May 28, 15 16:37

Post #1 of 61 (9363 views)

edit: I should point out the caveat that when I mean age, I mean mid 30's and up, whilst not really "old" in the general sense of age, but specifically with elite athletes.

I figure since there seems to be a ton of discussions going on currently for the thread I'd add yet another one for everyone to discuss, argue etc etc.

I've been perusing a multitude of sports and just looking at age of the average pro athlete that's either dominating or consistently pulling off consistent and respectable results, such as swimming, cycling, triathlon, sprint running and so fourth..

What I believe to know to be true, is that generally the best athletes in what we consider endurance sports "anything past say 400-800 meter" your average individual who is winning races is probably in their mid 20's-30's.
Triathlon: Brownlee brothers at 25/27 respectively, Gomez in early 30's. When we get into the longer distance sports such as ironmans, the ages start to creep up to mid 30's to even early 40's for podium contenders, and the young guys aren't fully represented.

Same with Cycling. Your pro crit guys, cyclocross guys, and TT'ers seem to be in the mid 20's-30's range. Tour cyclists seem to vary a bit, people like Sagan are just freak beasts on the bike, but you have some people early/mid 30's to early 40's, recently Cadel Evans comes to mind where he was 33? to win the 2011 TDF.

I know that as you age, v02 max goes down ever so slowly as does your ability to recover after sustained/hard efforts. Is this the primary factor for why we aren't seeing a plethora of these athletes past the age of 30 continue to dominate? or is it more of a mental attitude, where you have guys who busted their ass from 15-33 and just kind of think "you know what? i'm done with this, there's no point to continue for 7 years."

Also: at what point does distance actually inherently favor older individuals, and why?

Just curious on your guy's thoughts.

Last edited by: PatrickOfSteele: May 28, 15 16:47

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [PatrickOfSteele] [ In reply to ]

May 28, 15 17:00

Post #2 of 61 (9311 views)

As you get older VO2max, peak power and recovery all start to drop off a bit; to a certain extent that is offset by more years of training and adaptation.

For cycling, peak years for a grand tour rider were historically considered 27-32. Doping skewed this starting in the mid-90s since testosterone and EPO could be used to boost recovery and increase workloads.

Ironman skews a bit older since it takes a while to figure out the race (pacing, nutrition, etc.)....just ask Mark Allen. It is also a more steady-state effort, whereas in cycling there are huge surges.

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [PatrickOfSteele] [ In reply to ]

May 28, 15 17:20

Post #3 of 61 (9273 views)

Tour cyclists seem to vary a bit, people like Sagan are just freak beasts on the bike, but you have some people early/mid 30's to early 40's, recently Cadel Evans comes to mind where he was 33? to win the 2011 TDF.

Lance was ~34 when he won number 7. Evans was also 34 when he won. The only rider over 35 to win the TdF was a guy in 1922 who was 36. http://www.theguardian.com/...r-list-garin-wiggins

Horner was what, 42 when he won the Vuelta?

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [rruff] [ In reply to ]

PatrickOfSteele

May 28, 15 17:33

Post #4 of 61 (9240 views)

I didn't want to use Lance as a figure due to doping allegations. I would assume that even now *since the sport is like, 100% clean /pink* if a 38-39 year old cyclist who was good in his 20's and started doping could continue to do well up to his 40's since he would "assuming he doped correctly" could have the physiology of a young 30 year old.

Cyclocross has a bunch of older dudes, Tim johnson at 37 who's done well, Sven Nys who only until the age of 38 was dominating *and still won a few big races last year*, Ben Berden who's doing well *post doping of course* Jonathon page who's 38, Geoff Kabush at 38 and Adam Myerson who's 44. Not really winning races but you know... still throwin down with the pro's.

Those guys kind of make me scratch my head, with cyclocross being such a threshold/above threshold surge sport I would have assumed would favor the youngins...

Last edited by: PatrickOfSteele: May 28, 15 17:39

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [PatrickOfSteele] [ In reply to ]

May 28, 15 17:47

Post #5 of 61 (9213 views)

I honestly have no idea how much age is a limiting factor. Just using myself as a case study, my lifetime best 100 fly is a 57-high, which I did when I was 21. I'm 44 now (45 in swimming years), and I just swam a 1:00.8 on very sub-optimal training, with only 12 months of training since my return to the pool, and no training at all for about 5 years prior to that. If I had the time or desire to train properly, I could see myself matching or beating my times from when I was 21.

Now, I was never 'elite', but I was a half decent swimmer who did put in the training and probably got pretty close to my potential at the time.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [PatrickOfSteele] [ In reply to ]

May 28, 15 18:18

Post #6 of 61 (9167 views)

I've heard people say that performance falls off dramatically after 45, or 50, or whatever age.

For me, it was 47.
I got better every year thru age 47, but then some niggling injuries became more chronic, my recovery ability has declined, and I can't do the volume OR intensity of workouts I used to, and certainly not with anywhere near the frequency I used to.

I think a lot of it is your athletic maturity - how many years you've done something at a reasonably high level.
There are few who can keep at it at the same level into that second decade, and it drops off a cliff if you're getting into the 3rd decade.
The exceptions tend to be noteworthy, by virtue of being the exceptions.

float , hammer , and jog

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [JasoninHalifax] [ In reply to ]

May 28, 15 18:19

Post #7 of 61 (9161 views)

Quote:

If I had the time or desire to train properly, I could see myself matching or beating my times from when I was 21.

Wow, that's impressive. I'm not even close. My 40km time trial nowadays is close to what I did when I was 21, but then I did it on a steel frame, floppy jersey, drop bars, and box-section 36-spoke wheels. Same for my running; lost close to 1 1/2 minutes per mile.

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [benjpi] [ In reply to ]

May 28, 15 18:24

Post #8 of 61 (9146 views)

To be fair, I can't see myself matchin my 200 fly or free times. I'm a lot further off those. I'm about 3 secs off my 100 fly, 4 secs off the 100 free, 11 off the 200 free. As the distance goes up, I'm closer to my old times, but I'm not a distance swimmer.

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Last edited by: JasoninHalifax: May 28, 15 18:27

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [benjpi] [ In reply to ]

May 28, 15 22:24

Post #9 of 61 (8978 views)

benjpi wrote:

Quote:

If I had the time or desire to train properly, I could see myself matching or beating my times from when I was 21.

Wow, that's impressive. I'm not even close. My 40km time trial nowadays is close to what I did when I was 21, but then I did it on a steel frame, floppy jersey, drop bars, and box-section 36-spoke wheels. Same for my running; lost close to 1 1/2 minutes per mile.

Yeah, for me 40 was the point where I could no longer buy enough carbon fiber to offset aging.

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]

northern monkey

May 28, 15 23:01

Post #10 of 61 (8957 views)

The world record times for 10K get slower after 27

http://www.goodrunguide.co.uk/...esh=Refresh#PerfTool

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [PatrickOfSteele] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 1:23

Post #11 of 61 (8886 views)

My somewhat rough inderstanding of the physiology is that high end speed can be developed and peaked at at relatively young age, and is harder to reach and maintain as you get older (where you may never reach the same levels as if you'd started younger). This explains why guys in their mid 20s can often

Long distance endurance takes longer to develop to an elite standard and there are other things like pacing and nutrition to figure out along the way, so very few guys reach this level relatively young. Despite a mild physiological decline as we age*, this is outweighed by the adaptations of long term training. Hence why many long distance/grand tour race winners are a little older.

In essence it seems that if you only start trying to develop speed in your late 20s then you've missed the boat. Whereas you can probably still get quite close to your endurance potential.

*For example: A rule of thumb that I hear sometimes is that VO2Max decreases by ~1% per year after the age of 30, up to a point.

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Liaman] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 2:38

Post #12 of 61 (8845 views)

As someone who has been a competitive athlete since age 14 and is now 60, I would like to offer my thoughts based on personal experiences I thought for me that at age 35 I was still running my best times but it started to take me longer for recovery. I think the non impact sports can hold a bit longer for maximum potential
If however an athlete starts endurance sports at age 30 they still could be improving perrsonal performance even into their thirties. Would it be their maximum potential had they started younger? Of Course not but they still should see personal bests into 40's
I think with some of the modern training techniques, weight training,and recovery methods performance can hold a bit longer today. it ill be interesting to see as the next generations continue to compete into their lifetime with the use of newer techniques if maximum performances increase in all of sport.

futrmultisport.com

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 2:42

Post #13 of 61 (8842 views)

Quote:

Yeah, for me 40 was the point where I could no longer buy enough carbon fiber to offset aging.

Now that was funny! Gives new meaning to "carbon offset."

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [benjpi] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 2:46

Post #14 of 61 (8841 views)

benjpi wrote:

Quote:

Yeah, for me 40 was the point where I could no longer buy enough carbon fiber to offset aging.

Now that was funny! Gives new meaning to "carbon offset."

If you buy the exact amount of carbon upgrades required to be the same speed as you were before you got older, does that make you carbon neutral?

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Scot] [ In reply to ]

PatrickOfSteele

May 29, 15 5:55

Post #15 of 61 (8673 views)

Scot wrote:

As someone who has been a competitive athlete since age 14 and is now 60, I would like to offer my thoughts based on personal experiences I thought for me that at age 35 I was still running my best times but it started to take me longer for recovery. I think the non impact sports can hold a bit longer for maximum potential
If however an athlete starts endurance sports at age 30 they still could be improving perrsonal performance even into their thirties. Would it be their maximum potential had they started younger? Of Course not but they still should see personal bests into 40's
I think with some of the modern training techniques, weight training,and recovery methods performance can hold a bit longer today. it ill be interesting to see as the next generations continue to compete into their lifetime with the use of newer techniques if maximum performances increase in all of sport.

futrmultisport.com

I think this pretty much sums it up. Our body is essentially able to do high intensity/large volume training for so long, and at some point you either need to throw in the towel because it can't handle it, or retire, and then un-retire 2-3 years later. The break gives the body enough time to mitigate whatever damage was done and bring the athlete back to near potential for 1-2 years for a comeback.

I started getting big into the tri sport at 24, have taken up cycling solely at 28 with pretty decent results to boot in the grand scheme of my cycling. I wouldn't see a reason I couldn't continue to be competitive past the age of 35-40, given my later start and, from what I assume* is decent genetics.

Last edited by: PatrickOfSteele: May 29, 15 5:58

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [PatrickOfSteele] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 6:39

Post #16 of 61 (8604 views)

I peaked around 42-44.

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [PatrickOfSteele] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 10:11

Post #17 of 61 (8396 views)

The numbers don't lie! But I think it also has to do with the appeal. There's more glamour in the shorter events and I think it gravitates the young bucks. If you look at distance running, most of the younger folk run the 5k/10k and don't get into the 'thon until their track career is over. I think the same holds true with Sprint/Olympic distance vs ironman. However, more younger east Africans are running the 'thon right away. It'll be interesting if more mid 20s guys go after the ironman.

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Murphy'sLaw] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 10:56

Post #18 of 61 (8326 views)

When you see the running times of Ed Whitlock you have to wonder if the real issue isn't precisely these injuries that prevent folks from being as consistent as they used to.
Sure VO2max declines etc, but running economy doesn't decline. Or not much. Unless of course you're injured. I did a VO2 just a couple of weeks ago, at was at 71 at 44. But
then, I run well one week, then the next week the Achilles hurt, then run well, then something else hurts...
Whitlock ran 2.54 at 70 if I recall...

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Francois] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 11:03

Post #19 of 61 (8301 views)

Peaked at 38, started doing Tris at age 17, 48 now. My swimming is much better but nagging running injuries force me to miss a week here and there so it's hard to get fast again. I do believe somebody that starts at 40 or 50 will be better later in years than somebody that started early like me.

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Francois] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 11:16

Post #20 of 61 (8272 views)

Francois,
I still think people can run fast times from an age group point of view. There are guys in their 60's,70's and even 80's run at or under three hours but it still would be a far cry from that athlete's lifetime peak potential. You look at Doug Kurtis who ran a 2:59 at age 61 last fall. This was his 200th sub three hour marathon but he also ran 72 sub 2:20 marathons with 5 Olympic Trials including 2:15 at age 42.
I have been competitive in every age group from my teens to now 60-64 but the times have slowed to age.
I think that as training and recovery methods continue to improve the peak of an athlete's career will certainly increase in length. these improvements should slow the decrease in skills , but probably with altered training methods.
One reason times traditionally dropped off after a certain age is people stopped competition. Look at swimming, in the 70s they said the swimmers at the international level's peak was in their 20's . Now you see athletes in mid to late thirties and even forties. Why? The elite level swimmers can get paid and continue in the sport in their 20's and 30's.

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Scot] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 11:18

Post #21 of 61 (8263 views)

That's what I was hinting at. I think the decline may be strongly associated with injuries more than age.

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [PatrickOfSteele] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 11:26

Post #22 of 61 (8246 views)

The elite level are probably a more accurate indicator of age as a limiting factor. At the sub-elite level, few people are training to their full potential. The effects of endurance training are cumulative and people who have done it for a long time have a large base. Simply put a 55 year old with lots of experience and lots of time to train is going to beat most 35 year olds who don't train as much.

People in their 30's are usually building their businesses and raising young families. People in their 50's have the kids out of the house and more security in their careers which usually means more time available to train.

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Rambler] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 11:59

Post #23 of 61 (8222 views)

Maybe 35 vs 45 but 35 vs 55 not a chance. You can go through triathlon results to convince yourself.

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [Rambler] [ In reply to ]

PatrickOfSteele

May 29, 15 17:07

Post #24 of 61 (8033 views)

Rambler wrote:

The elite level are probably a more accurate indicator of age as a limiting factor. At the sub-elite level, few people are training to their full potential. The effects of endurance training are cumulative and people who have done it for a long time have a large base. Simply put a 55 year old with lots of experience and lots of time to train is going to beat most 35 year olds who don't train as much.

People in their 30's are usually building their businesses and raising young families. People in their 50's have the kids out of the house and more security in their careers which usually means more time available to train.

Kind of my theory there too. When you look at people who race elite in their 20's, the glamour of being on the road, riding with a team or traveling 8-9 months a year gets old. Especially when friends who aren't competing are talking about houses and families, babies and marriages. I'm sure that it gets lonely on the road, and there's just a point where they think *I've made enough money* or *I am sick of sleeping in my car and racing each weekend* that makes people get out.

I think that 40-42 is like that very end echelon cutoff for elite athletes for sports that are aerobic in nature. If you can do things right, there probably isn't a reason why people such as michael phelps or Peter Sagan couldn't compete up until that age. Again, based only if they were solid with no debilitating injuries and had the mental capacity to continue racing.

I like Sven Nys as an example. He's 39, crushed the 'cross scene' but last year stated "I'm giving it all I've got, suffering, and the power isn't there, and i'm not winning." For such a difficult type of racing 39 is probably not a bad age to go at almost the near top. That being said, I'm also hoping that this year *which is his last he reports* just dominates the field and takes everything. But that's another thread discussion ;)

Last edited by: PatrickOfSteele: May 29, 15 17:08

Re: So, age as a limiting factor. Not as important as we assume? [triathlete37] [ In reply to ]

May 29, 15 17:23

Post #25 of 61 (5658 views)

triathlete37 wrote:

Peaked at 38, started doing Tris at age 17, 48 now. My swimming is much better but nagging running injuries force me to miss a week here and there so it's hard to get fast again. I do believe somebody that starts at 40 or 50 will be better later in years than somebody that started early like me.

^This

I started running at 16, and tris at 18. I'm 44 now, and my body screams "uncle!" on some days. I've gotten a lot more wise with regards to nutrition and recovery. Had to.

Not everything is as it seems -Mr. Miyagi

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.