Forum > Running
Podcast interview
Coyote Mas Loco:
I was interviewed last week for a podcast. Definitely, I'm not the most articulate guy out there! But gave it a good go.
I was interviewed last week for a podcast. Most of the first 55 or 56 minutes is about recent track meets, but the main interview is at about 57 minutes on.
http://1609pod.libsyn.com/lap-43-roger-regales-us-with-road-running-tales
Most of the first hour is talk about recent track meets and events by the hosts but they brought me in for some of that. The main part of the interview starts at about 57 minutes.
Arrojo:
That was great! Much better than my interview with Masterstrack.com. I wear the Asics GT-2000 too! Impressive list of races, but you left out that little rainy April race. I think the age-graded times are not all that hogwash. They work for me; my age-graded times are close to what I used to run back in the day. Maybe at the 90% level the times break down. How do those folks know you?
Coyote Mas Loco:
Thanks, glad you liked it. GT 2000s are a great workhorse shoes, I usually get 600-700 miles a pair. re: Boston, they've had a series of interviews of Boston finishers (I think 3 in a row) and probably wanted to move on from that topic. They usually alternate weekly between having a guest or just the two of them talking about track and running for an hour or so. Evan is an OT marathon qualifier. Age grading is interesting for sure and I think everyone ages differently so some people spike late, some excel early. For me even if I'd started at 15 or 16 and had great coaching (like Lydiard) at the time I don't think I'd have been anywhere near or under 14:00 for 5000, but somehow--clean living, altitude, and xc skiing and some dumb luck--I haven't slowed much or at all in 15 years.
I got to know them through another forum, not unlike Coolrunning Competitive from back in the day.
Arrojo:
--- Quote from: Coyote Mas Loco on June 18, 2018, 07:48:00 AM ---Age grading is interesting for sure and I think everyone ages differently so some people spike late, some excel early. For me even if I'd started at 15 or 16 and had great coaching (like Lydiard) at the time I don't think I'd have been anywhere near or under 14:00 for 5000, but somehow--clean living, altitude, and xc skiing and some dumb luck--I haven't slowed much or at all in 15 years.
--- End quote ---
I dare say you are an outlier. To not slow down between 45-60 is quite unusual. I think most of us do slow down at a rate consistent with the age-grading tables. I'd be curious to see if other 90th percentile athletes experience what you have done. I hit close to 90% on the sprints, and the age-graded times are still consistent for me (though I've only been doing 100m and 200m for 15 years or so).
If you are running close to the same times you were 15 years ago, I am sure your WAVA %'s are skyrocketing. You don't think with great coaching, clean living, altitude, xc skiing and luck you couldn't come close to 14:00 as a 27 year old? I bet you could've. No way to prove this.
Coyote Mas Loco:
--- Quote from: Arrojo on June 18, 2018, 09:28:32 AM ---I dare say you are an outlier. To not slow down between 45-60 is quite unusual. I think most of us do slow down at a rate consistent with the age-grading tables. I'd be curious to see if other 90th percentile athletes experience what you have done. I hit close to 90% on the sprints, and the age-graded times are still consistent for me (though I've only been doing 100m and 200m for 15 years or so).
If you are running close to the same times you were 15 years ago, I am sure your WAVA %'s are skyrocketing. You don't think with great coaching, clean living, altitude, xc skiing and luck you couldn't come close to 14:00 as a 27 year old? I bet you could've. No way to prove this.
--- End quote ---
Yes, seem to be an outlier and hope the trend continues--if I can keep this up another few years I'll be in Ed Whitlock territory--he's one who set running aside for decades and picked it up as he got older.
I did sort of a double check, going back to my misspent youth (at least college) and through all the years, and here's sort of an age grade breakdown (using the percentages of my best races based on that era).
19-24 - 83.9% (2 mile--indoors, so probably would have been 4-5 sec faster outdoors, really underachieved at that age due late start as a runner (age 19), overtrained, poor nutrition, spotty or outdated coaching)
25-34 - 85.4% (marathon at age 25) - I think I could have done better across the board with more mileage, some good coaching and with a training group, and running was kind of back seat to grad school/career but kept going for the love of it.
35-44 - 84.8% (mile at age 40) - injured much of this time (like hobbling 7 of 10 years), family, career, and all that; ran pretty moderate mileage (usually not more than 40-50 mpw when healthy)
45-54 - 85.6% (half marathon at age 51) - ran consistently for half the year but xc skied all winter; this was the age when a lot my peers dropped off due to injury, loss of interest, life, untimely death :(
55-59 - 91% (10K at 59) - I jumped into the 87-89% range at 55-56 and was knocking on 90% for several years; diet changes and retiring from xc ski racing, not to mention moving to higher altitude helped put me over. I now race at close to college age weight and weekly mileage is near to peak years in my early and mid-20s (60-80 mpw).
60 - 90% to 92% (8K to half marathon), running times close to last year.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version