| Hobby Forum Index » Running » How long does it take to peak on times... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mark Cleary... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This is a question that has come up as folks start running and wonder
how long do they improve before they begin to taper and get slower.
Obviously the variables are too many to discuss but I think in general
those who begin and simply keep at it steady it is about 4-5 years.
I have run since I was in high school at 17 but then only to stay in
shape for baseball. I ran for the 3 years I played college baseball and
then decide I like running just to run. I have never had any speed at
either sprinting or distance. I simply could go a long time slow and not
stop.
I guess I never keep track of my miles until I was 25 years old. Then I
began running races for the first time. My first race ever official was
a 5K I ran 22 years ago I believe I ran in about 21 minutes. Then over
the next 5 years I improved. I manage to get the 5K down to 18:40 PR and
a 10k to 38:06. I ran my first marathon in 1988 in 3:16 an my fastest
in 1992 3;06 ( negative split too). Since that time I have simply never
run that fast again. I have usually been consistent in the marathon the
worst time 3:27 in 1998. I did manage to run and average 2800 miles a
year in the 1990s and all it did was make me able to run long and slow.
Many runners putting in those miles could run marathons in the 2:45
range or 34 min 10k but not me.
It seems to me that after about 4- 5 years of training and racing you
peak and that is going to be it. In my case I never had any speed my
best mile time is around 5:40. I think in general this peaking of times
is probably consistent with most ages but I am not sure. i throw this
out just because those starting want ideas on how things progress.
On item that I think was in my favor for the marathon was I have 8 years
of gradual running more miles before I ever ran the marathon. I did not
ever think about doing one until maybe 1 year before I did CHicago in
1988. I had the base and had run 3 half-marathons and did about 4 20
milers before the race. I think I did well at 3:16 for my first marathon
and really was only able to shave 10 minutes off that 4 years later.
I think some runners start running with the idea to run a marathon to
say they did it. That is ok but I also have seen them burn and not
continue to run. In fact they would do a marathon and then take weeks
off of running. I usually ran the next day after a marathon 3-5 miles
s-l=o=w. Some would never start again. I also know those who keep at it
for years and years going all over doing them, I am not in that camp either
Long boring post but I am just running at the fingers.
--
Deacon Mark Cleary
Epiphany Roman Catholic Church |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| pithydoug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 15, 9:58 pm, Mark Cleary <mclear... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: This is a question that has come up as folks start running and wonder
how long do they improve before they begin to taper and get slower.
Obviously the variables are too many to discuss but I think in general
those who begin and simply keep at it steady it is about 4-5 years.
The numbers I heard from the third stall at at the bus station was
5-10 years of improvement. The variables that control the length of
improvement are numerous. FWIW, In my experience the primary reason
that people stop improving in the 4-5 range is about being self
taught with minimal knowledge on how to set short, medium and long
term goals. like trying to cut down the redwood tree with a serrated
knife during lunch hour.
In way it's like losing weight. At first the improvements are large
and then smaller and smaller. To get to that ideal weight takes a lot
of homework, self control and time. The willingness to make small
improvements over long time. Pretty damn hard with Type A people. 
The Oprah's with personal coachs/nutritionists get closer their goals.
As Noakes says in his 11th law of training, "train with a coach."
I've heard it stated less politely, 'only a fool coaches himself."
I had similar experiences as you with marathon times. 3:33 for first,
3:09 for second and then inched down to 3:06. I also coached myself
but had some great mentors with coaching experience. My achilles was
training time. I could only run about 50 miles a week while raising a
family and a 50-60 hour work week. To go faster I needed to train more
and that wasn't going to happen. I learned early how to use quality.
I feel those that continued to improve past the 5th year had more
liberty with the controlling variables rather than a physical
roadblock.
All opinion from my expereinces, any others?
-D |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Hurley... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 16, 12:40 am, pithydoug <dfre... at (no spam) hvc.rr.com> wrote:
snip
Quote: This is a question that has come up as folks start running and wonder
how long do they improve before they begin to taper and get slower.
Obviously the variables are too many to discuss but I think in general
those who begin and simply keep at it steady it is about 4-5 years.
The numbers I heard from the third stall at at the bus station was
5-10 years of improvement. The variables that control the length of
improvement are numerous. FWIW, In my experience the primary reason
that people stop improving in the 4-5 range is about being self
taught with minimal knowledge on how to set short, medium and long
term goals.
....
Quote: I feel those that continued to improve past the 5th year had more
liberty with the controlling variables rather than a physical
roadblock.
All opinion from my expereinces, any others?
-D
For once ( kidding ) I gotta say you nailed this topic. The third
stall at the bus station ... TMI. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| runsrealfast... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: I feel those that continued to improve past the 5th year had more
liberty with the controlling variables rather than a physical
roadblock.
All opinion from my expereinces, any others?
It all depends in my mind on what you consider improvement. Yes I know
we are talking about speed but we have to think about speed in what
sense. Personally I doubt I will even be as fast as I was during my
high school and college days. However, I have learned how to run
longer distances faster now that i have gotten older. I would say I am
a improved runner in that regard. Although I will never run a sub 50
second 400 meters again, I might be able to best my 5k/10k times even
in my 30's.
JOhn |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| pithydoug... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 16, 2:23 pm, runsrealfast <runsrealf... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: I feel those that continued to improve past the 5th year had more
liberty with the controlling variables rather than a physical
roadblock.
All opinion from my expereinces, any others?
It all depends in my mind on what you consider improvement. Yes I know
we are talking about speed but we have to think about speed in what
sense. Personally I doubt I will even be as fast as I was during my
high school and college days. However, I have learned how to run
longer distances faster now that i have gotten older. I would say I am
a improved runner in that regard. Although I will never run a sub 50
second 400 meters again, I might be able to best my 5k/10k times even
in my 30's.
JOhn
I guess you can always adjust the distance and set some PR if you ran
your first 3.097896 race at 99 It's a PR. Hell I set PR's in ultra
races 15 years after I started. I guess I could move to multiday
races and continue at 25 years.
I really think the intent of the question was to hold the distance
constant and measure the change in speed.
-D |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
