Fast Running Blog

New article on CNN.com with a study which indicates that running as you get older does not create joint issues (argument against all those people who ask you if you knees are still good being a runner!).

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/23/hm.running.aging/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/23/hm.running.aging/index.html)

Interesting.  I saw that too but figured I would let one of our Master's runners post it...  ;)

By way of bragging. This fact was known to Sasha Science for the last couple of years. Refer to the principles outlined in

http://fastrunningblog.com/forum/index.php/topic,465.0.html

Interesting article, but there are a few things about it that bug me: running every other day so you can "rest" your joints, running "moderately" as in less than 5 miles, stretching so that you don't get injured, and cross training so you don't stress your joints. All of those concepts have not been shown to be safe or conclusive and the general tone of the article seems to perpetuate the fallacious idea that aging means cutting back. Baloney. The reason to build a base over years of consistent training is to reach a level of fitness that can be both exhausted and recovered from in one day (night). We run, not ride bikes or swim, because it builds the muscles and supportive structures necessary to survive (ie: walk, stand, sit and, yes, run). If you need two days to recover, cut back until you've reached a consistent level of stress from which you can recover every day. Especially as we age we need to condition our bodies for everyday exhaustion. That's why we run! And what's with this "moderate" level of exercise? Using two ladies who run maybe five miles a day, three days a week as fitness models makes me want to throw up. C'mon! They're only fifty... and ultimately their training is the exact opposite of what Sasha and others on this blog champion. It's nice that the article says running can be good for you as you age, but it bothers me that it focuses and perpetuates the practice of "sissy" running. I'm 57 and expect to run 3000 miles this year. The benefits I'll derive from that are completely different from the ones sissy runners enjoy. In my opinion, the article says one nice thing and perpetuates a whole bunch of half truths. What's really good for you as you age is to run hard. Anybody that tells you differently is trying to sell you something.
 

I understand what you're saying Fredrick. I just think that the general direction of the article is not aimed at 'serious runners', but the general public who needs encouragement and a suggested avenue to stay fit and healthy. Overtraining appears to me to be hinting at things like increasing mileage too quickly, not 'cutting back' as you get older, but certainly as we get older we need to be smart about our training as we are more susceptable to injury than our younger associates. I'm not quite 40, but certainly my body doesn't adapt to over-agression as well as my younger body did.

Joan Benoit Samuelson - 2:49:08 at 2008 Boston Olympic Trials. 50 years old. A great example that it is possible to stay competitive even as you get older. And there are many other examples, I'm sure. But I agree with Jeff - this article is more for the average runner looking to stay fit, not necessarily push their limits. If you publish an article saying you will get the most benefit from running 10+ miles a day, 6 days a week, that will really demotivate a lot of people...maybe even to the point where they have no desire to run at all because the task seems too daunting (of course, they will convert when they join FRB) :) Being a competitive Master's runner is not a goal or even a desire for the more "leisurely" runners in the population. It's just about staying fit and active as you age. Also, "sissy" running is much more beneficial than couch potatoing.

After rereading my comment, I guess I do sound a little passionate, don't I? It just "bugs" me on so many levels. 1) Every-other-day training programs, of which I have been a victim, are designed for injury. If you can't recover from it overnight, you've probably done too much (speaking in very general terms); so exercise that requires two day's rest is probably causing too much stress and should be reserved for body builders whose goals are looks not function. 2) Physiologists who continue to suggest that you don't have to work hard to benefit from exercise are setting couch potatoes up for failure. You can "start small," but jogging or walking is not the same as running and until you reach a "running threshold" you won't enjoy the benefits that come from fatigue. 3) It's nice that the article says you can run without causing problems to your joints "even into your 70's," but the implied restrictions are still there. It's the same old, "You can run, but don't run too much!" mantra. How much is too much? And why are you placing restrictions on it when you don't have any data to back it up? It's silly. People say, "A man running hard in his 70's could die of a heart attack." So. He could die of a heart attack watching TV. "He might fall and break his hip." He could fall and break his hip going to the bathroom. I should feel vindicated by the article, but honestly, I just feel patronized. I don't know why. Maybe I'm just a grouchy old man.

Allie and Jeff, please pardon my passion. You're helping me understand my frustration. I guess I'm bothered that we're afraid to say to the general population that "If you want different results, you're going to have to change what you're doing." Every diet out there says, "Eat what you want and still lose weight" which we know is not true. We take the same approach with exercise. This article implies "moderate" exercise is good for you even when you're "moderately" old (it didn't address 80-100 year olds-- the fastest growing age group in America), but it also seems to imply that more than "moderate" exercise might not good for you. For some people 10 miles a day might be intimidating, but presented in the right context, for others it might be a challenge. We don't need authority figures saying, "It might be too much," when they don't have data to back that up. High miles to me isn't as much about being competitive as it is being really fit. This segment of the population finally has the time all you young parents, students and wage earners wish you had to run and we're saying, "Don't do too much." Can you imagine what things would be like if we could get our aging population to put in significant and consistent, daily miles? Let's not do anything to discourage that.

Okay, I've said enough. I'll try to be quiet and let the rest of you speak.

Again Fredrick, I hear what you're saying, but one only has to look at the source of the article -- CNN. Its reaching a broad audience about a topic in a general sense. I doubt that you'd see the same sorts of comments on an article from something like The Science of Running or another more topic specific source. Given the audience, I think the article is appropriate, its just that at FRB we're a different audience. It would be much akin to a group of physicists investigating an article written in Discover Magazine.

As an older runner myself, I completely agree with Frederick.  Why back off when you get older, you're just giving in to the idea of the long decline.  Step it up a notch when you reach 50, that's what I say.

Great conversation and I love the passion for running.  I agree with Fredrick that as a conditioned runner you can continue to pursue lofty goals and mileage as you get older (I am still getting faster and putting in more mileage myself).  But as indicated in the article and mentioned already, demonstrating to the general public that they should not be afraid to get out and stay active is not a bad thing and should not be viewed as demeaning to current older runners.  Having worked with several folks to begin an active lifestyle, I do agree that you have to start small to: 1) Find the motivation and avoid burnout,  2) Avoid injury, 3) Set realistic goals for improvement, 4) Have fun! 

I merely wanted to have my "general public" friends and family to realize that being a runner does not mean that I will end up with bad knees and joints as I get older. 

Keep on running (and running, and running....)

There's a fellow in our community, Bill Borla, who is 69 years old and runs everyday.  I'm not sure his daily mileage, but he passes the middle school every single day at the exact same time, sometimes on his own and sometimes with a running partner.  Some days he's jogging, other days he's got an impressive tempo pace going- we're talking in rain, sleet, negative windchill, or snow.  I have yet to beat him in a race in anything between 5-10k.  Most recently, he kept close to a 6:30 pace on a hilly 10k course through snow.  The thing that impresses me most...at the end of a race, I'm more tired and sore than he is.  Perhaps he's a freak of nature, but I'm beginning to think that most people either lack the consistency to maintain fitness and strength or use age as an excuse to prematurely shut things down.  Most folks I know who have given up running (I'll only speak for my family) amazed me that they could even run in the first place with they're inconsistent schedules (2-3 days per/week) and excess body weight (of course it is tough on the joints if you weigh 200 and try to run hard 1-3 days per/week).  If I ever exceed 200 again, I'll head straight for the swimming pool and take advantage of body fat and "fun noodles". 

I think a 3 hour marathon at the age of 70 would not be any more a freak of nature than 2:30 at the age of 25 if we had a culture of health and a mindset of achievement.

When people have warned me about ruining my knees I just reply with "so I shouldn't run, because in the future I MAY not be able to run as much?". So be it then, I get injured less often running 90mile weeks than when I was running 20miles a week as a sophomore in high school. Why? Consistency and patience. Don't worry about these articles sending the wrong message. I know a lot of people who have started running and they know they can come to me for advice without fear of being mocked, they don't resort to articles on CNN. Encourage but don't be preachy...or elitist.

I just say, "I'd rather have bad knees than a bad heart".

Hey, I'm one of those "older" runners.  I am also in the "large" catagory, I weigh 195.  I also have had my share of injuries over the last year.  That said I just basicly enjoy running 6 days a week for 45-60 miles a week. Yes I need to be careful about interval training and two a days.  Yes I am at higher risk for injury, but you know what- my worst injury ,ruptured achilles, came from playing baseball.  Serious, regular running can be done by almost anyone with the time and motivation regardless of age.  I am not really much of a runner but enjoy myself immensly none the less.

This is a great discussion. You are all bringing so many good insights! Every once in a while don't you just want to shout, "The FRB rules!"