SPORTSMED SPECIAL SECTION

When Marching Age Slows Your Marathon Times, It’s Time to Explore the Theory of Relativity.

ddictions tend to creep up on most victims slowly. Additionally, it is often claimed that a patient’s recognition of the condition is the first step toward rehabilitation, always assuming the patient requires—or wishes—trehabilitating. This old guy, however, certainly does not wish to be rehabilitated. Woe betide all who try. Attempts to rehabilitate me simply result in argument and anger. This old fellow readily admits to being addicted to and obsessed with percentage age-performance measurements. Verily, I claim that such a simple yet accurate arithmetical statistic must ultimately prove to be the prime, if not the sole, motivator for most ancient marathoners to continue their running and walking fitness activities. As a calculation, I claim, it can be likened to the Hawaiian muumuu dress in that it covers everything and hides nothing.

ADDICTION NOT MY FAULT

I totally blame others for my initial slide into this obsession.

There were three persons in particular who I insist are responsible. The prime culprit is a writer and sports editor. The other two are Arthur Lydiard and Tim Noakes. But it was the research in 1994 by WMA (formerly the World Association of Veteran Athletes) that delivered the coup d’etat. It all began some 25 years ago. A sports editor by the name of Benyo was the first to sin, in or about 1979, by allowing an article to be published concerning the effect of shoe weight on time to complete a marathon. This old guy’s memory is now fading, but I think it appeared in Runner’s World magazine, wherein it claimed that 4 ounces added to the weight of a runner’s shoe increased marathon time by some two minutes. At that period, I was middle aged, had just completed my first marathon, and was keen to discover the true capability and limitations of aging bones.

LYDIARD’S TRANSGRESSION

Second was the opinion expressed in Arthur Lydiard’s book, Running the Lydiard Way, which indicated that times between 2:08 and 2:09 might represent the best time possible for the marathon. I admit to being naturally argumentative and did not believe that assessment. It occurred to me that it might be possible to approximate the fastest time and solve the marathon shoe claim by the fact that marathoners need to lift their body weight over 42.2K.

There already existed much physiological and medical information relating to champion runners and cross-country skiers in various publications by Bernie Dare, David Costill, Derek Clayton, Arthur Lydiard, and human-performance laboratories. I considered that such data, with the aid of calculations using basic physics, could be applied to more closely approximate the ultimate in human potential for the marathon distance. This would involve the maximum sustained rate of human energy output ever recorded, in combination with data such as the highest measurements for the human body’s capacity to store usable supplies of glycogen and fat, the maximum rate of oxygen uptake ever measured (crosscountry skier), the most economic running action ever recorded (Derek Clayton), combined with efficient oxygen usage, the ideal body weight, as well as weather and course considerations. My rough (and maybe highly inaccurate) calculations certainly confirmed that any surplus weight must increase completion time and even seemed to indicate the possibility of a sub-two-hour marathon. I immediately forked out the dough and purchased a lighter pair of running shoes.

2 HOURS, 8 MINUTES PROVED WRONG

Since Lydiard published his book, marathon time has been hammered down from 2:08:33.6 to 2:04:55. Lydiard and his European advisers’ assessments were obviously conservative. In my opinion, Tom Osler’s predicted male marathon record by the year 2050 of 1:56:35 as quoted in Lore of Running was probably the most realistic assessment then on offer. Even today I would like to find updated calculations arrived at by skilled mathematicians or physicists. Most world-class mathematicians—like runners—do their best work when under the age of 30. This old guy peaked in arithmetic at about age 12 and never appeared to progress past that age.

THAT BLOODY SPORTS EDITOR AT IT AGAIN

The sports editor, Devious Dick, offended yet again by further inciting my curiosity about the relative effect of aging. He allowed a set of age-graded long-distance road

tables were included within an article that described how to calculate age-graded running performance. To the best of my memory, these were based on average

times achieved by champion American runners. I was soon discovering that most of the claims made for these tables were correct, although the calculated percentages tended to indicate the record standards set for older veterans (females in particular) were substandard for a fair comparison among age grades.

TIM NOAKES HAS THE RIGHT IDEA

The third culprit was Tim Noakes. I discovered his research only after my 1981 discovery. Noakes had not only published a table from the best records available to him but at the same time demonstrated from his research that if such tables were to be based on ultimate human-performance standards, age-graded performances calculated from such data must prove the ultimate in accuracy. Noakes’s presentation finally convinced me that mathematical calculations to produce accurate running standards, while interesting, are not practical. Noakes’s research was convincing. I was beginning to agree: it could become the accepted practice to include accurate age-performance percentages to supplement finish times and the pecking order within grades. The exploratory basic research as outlined by Noakes had already been completed, and all that now appeared necessary would be sets of age-graded nearultimate world records. I realized that human performance is not absolute because world records are subject to gradual and continual change. By now I was becoming hooked on a mission to discover the capabilities and limitations of aging bones by investigating the practical value of performance percentage measurement.

WMA SEALS MY FATE

In 1994, the World Association of Veteran Athletes (now known as World Masters Athletics, or WMA) commenced updating and thoroughly testing tables of records, thereby closing or at least minimizing any gap between future marathon records and existing world records. Such continuing research toward the ultimate in standards has the effect of reducing subjectivity and improving and maintaining accuracy, particularly between adjacent five-year grades. This was the final straw. I now became obsessed by this age-graded concept. I set about the task of converting my entire running and walking records to the new tables and reprocessing results of old events. These I refined wherever appropriate with daily grading from date of birth by interpolation of the one-year standards. John Caughley’s New Zealand race results presentation program with daily grading made all this work possible and a breeze. The results proved exciting and revealed the overdue need to update world race-management software.

FINISH TIMES MUST BE RELATED TO EXACT AGE

WMA in effect had now furthered Noakes’s research with a commitment to maintain tables with updated world records. The addition of performances to

supplement finish times produced result sheets that were previously not capable of interpretation. It became obvious that published race times not associated with exact age were unfair and do not make sense. This practice had obliterated the efforts of the older participants. Within every set of race results examined, I found numerous examples of tail-end Charlies not only within age grades but also within the total field displaying significantly superior age-graded performances to younger front-runners. I soon recognized the accuracy of these observations, because, when I was able to run, my marathon performances over 40 marathons were slightly better than average (70-plus percent). I now find that at age 81 I can sit back, examine race results produced on the new software, and think that when I was that age I could match that performance and time and still can match the performance even by racewalking.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT

Using results for the above type of comparison is of no real importance. What is of importance is that my personal best performance of 78.05 percent established a benchmark for a lifelong fitness-training target, and it continues to provide the motivation to continue recreational activity in spite of subsequent deteriorating race times and health. I am now a crotchety old crock, but performance measurements have enabled me to assess the effect of arthritis, sciatica, transient ischemic attacks (sometimes referred to as minor strokes), and medication on my benchmark, and so life continues to be worth living.

After severe arthritis and sciatica ruled out further running, I discovered that with the aid of medication I could racewalk. Much to my joy I confirmed, with the aid of John’s new software, that racewalk percentages are equivalent to those for running. I have therefore been able to continue to train, walk my marathons, and retain my 78.05 percent PB benchmark target established back in 1984. Can you really blame me for my addiction?

Before I continue with this saga of my addiction, here is a brief description relating to the design of the software I have been using to enjoy my obsession.

THE WORLD’S BEST SOFTWARE

The race results presentation program, Perform V5.1, contains both the 1994 run and walk tables. It provides the option to hold separate run or walk events or for combined events involving both disciplines. This enables performance comparisons and allows the walkers to compete in the same race. It provides outputs showing order of time against performance. It outputs all age grades from 8 to 100 years and much more. John Caughley’s personal training program, Myperf3, allows you to measure run and walk performances over any training distance and carry out predictions.

RUN AND WALK PERFORMANCES EQUIVALENT

The following results from my own statistics confirmed my belief in the WMA claim of equivalence:

e Average from 40 run marathons (72.07 percent)

e Average from five walked marathons (71.09 percent, which is quite close to the average for those run)

e Average of four run Honolulu Marathons (70.2 percent; all on the same course, so comparisons are extremely fair and accurate)

° Average from three walked Honolulu Marathons (71.5 percent)

¢ Honolulu 2001 Marathon walked (70.83 percent, maintaining 70 percent performance with increasing age)

OBSESSIONS WITH HONOLULU 2001 PERFOMANCES

After racewalking the Honolulu Marathon, I indulged my addiction in investigating the performances of all the elite runners by completely removing all age and sex handicaps from the fastest 1,200 to finish and by reclassifying all as open class males. Their finish places based on time therefore became identical to performance places, thereby rendering results for all veterans and females meaningless and unfair. The study clearly demonstrated that timed events are always competitive, and the inclusion of accurate performance measurements contributes to fairness and the understanding of published results for all veteran and female participants.

I was then able to examine the 1,200 performance statistics in some detail, with all females being treated as males and thereby disadvantaged by some 9 percent or more. The average performance of the 1,200 was 61.2 percent, which corresponded to an average finish time of 3:27:16. There were 87 veteran runners in the first 1,200, with two from the M70 grade. Times varied between 2:15:09 (93.85 percent) and 3:49:46 (55.2 percent).

My walk score of 70.83 percent, based on order of performance, is worth 100th place, with a time equivalent to 2:59:27 at age 25. Not bad, aye.

From the first 1,200 to finish out of 19,217 finishers, the spread of classification results were 0.5 percent scored World Class; 1.3 percent, National Class; 6.9 percent, Regional Class; 35.8 percent, Local Class; 55.5 percent of the 1,200 scored between 60 percent and 55.2 percent. Keep in mind that performance is a percentage of top World Class: over 90 percent is World Class; over 80 percent is National Class; over 70 percent is Regional Class; and over 60 percent is Local Class.

| STUDY THE HONOLULU VETERAN RESULTS

I next moved my attention to a study of the elite veterans. For this purpose, the race-management program was used to rate the first 75 males, the first 75 females to finish together, with the first 10 veterans from every age grade to finish against yours truly in a single run/walk event, making a total of 324 contestants. The performance of the 324 participants ranged between 93.85 percent (2:15:09) and 33.77 percent (10:16:52). Their average finish time was 3:29:08, and their average performance was 68.2 percent. This corresponds to an average age of 53 years, 3 months. If they had been open-grade men (20 to 40 years), their performance of 68.2 percent would have corresponded to a finish time of 3:05:58, relative to the fastest 1,200. The 324th place was a W75 age-graded female. Of these 324 results, 2.5 percent scored World Class; 9.0 percent, National Class; 39.8 percent, Regional Class; and 27.5 percent, Local Class. Also, 13.4 percent scored from 50 percent to 59 percent; 5.6 percent scored from 40 percent to 49 percent; and 2.2 percent scored from 39 percent to the 324th at 33.77 percent.

THE ASPECT | LOVE FAP AM ; Hn. ‘¢

Asa performance addict, I wascom- | f ete

peting in the M75 grade. That year 36 ib ts : male runners were listed in the 75-79 ‘

age grade. I took 17th place on time to finish. Assuming I was the only member of this group to walk the entire distance, by comparing my 70.85 percent walk performance with the other 35 run performances, I would have taken the first performance place. This comparison, however, would not be fair because my performance is based on an age close to 78 years. If I assume we were all young guys aged exactly 75 years, I would have taken the third performance place. The five-year and one-year gaps in most software programs in this

» The author finishes the 1989 Honolulu Marathon in sixth place out of 90 males bperformance of 74.18%.

Courtesy of the Honolulu Marathon

old fellow’s opinion are too wide for accurate percentages within age grades. A one-second difference in finish time between two participants, with Perform software with daily grading, records a performance difference of approximately 0.01 percent between persons of identical age. This is why it has been designed to output results correct to two decimal places. This is the only accurate method for determining the correct pecking order within age grades.

THE PREDICTION ASSET

I used the following records to indicate what my run time might have been at age 20 by assessment against the first 1,200 to finish. I did not run my first marathon until nearly 55 years of age. My personal best performance of 78.05 percent was achieved at age 60. The following results all suggest a sub-threehour marathon:

e Fletcher 1981 Marathon Run: 73.2 percent is equivalent to open class 2:53:17.

¢ Honolulu 1997 Marathon Walk: 72.53 percent is equivalent to open class 2:54:48.

¢ Honolulu 2001 Marathon Walk: 70.83 percent is equivalent to open class 2:59:25.

¢ Hastings 1984 Marathon Run: 78.05 percent (PB) is equivalent to open class 2:42:30.

° World Veteran Championship (1981) Run: 77.1 percent is equivalent to open class 2:44:22.

THE VALUE OF PERFORANCE MOTIVATION

Finally, the following is what my addiction is all about. If someone had told me 20 years ago that I would be delighted if I could achieve a marathon time of 6:26:44 in 2002, I would have retorted that when I get that slow, “I will give it all away.”

Performance measurement has now indicated that such a time would again produce a performance of 70.83 percent, and on the basis of my age, this could again result in about the 100th performance place at this year’s Honolulu Marathon. This became my Honolulu 2002 target, but I would also have been delighted with a score of 68.2 percent (6:41:39). This score would be equal to the average of the elite 424 veterans in 2001 and equivalent to a time of 3:05:58 relative to the first 1,200 in the 2001 event. But, what the hell? Any score will do, provided Tam fit enough to receive one.

In my case, it has been obsession, reason, and experiment. Many recreational master athletes have no idea what to expect when they slow down, especially after

age 65. In this article, I hope I have relayed the message of “no surrender” and a plea to race directors that producing all times relative to exact age is what is needed to keep us old fogies competing and treasuring life and mobility.

WHAT THIS ADDICT LEARNED FROM PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

An accurate watch worn by an astronaut accelerating through space will not agree with the time on the same quality watch worn by an observer on earth, even though the time on both watches is synchronized the moment the astronaut leaves on his flight. The astronaut’s watch will always run slower the faster he travels. If the speed of light were possible, his watch would stop, and relative to his observer on earth he would not age.

I have learned that, like an astronaut, we each carry our own clock, an individual athletic time clock that eventually slows us all relative to age. A personal best pace is achieved only once fitness has been maximized, but a personal best pace rarely corresponds to a personal best performance. Our clocks controlling finish time may temporarily slow on any one day but never stop until death. Like our astronaut’s time, our times are not absolute and need to be compared to a fixed standard to make sense.

A personal best time does not represent one’s best effort unless it also scores a personal best performance. This will rarely happen and is the reason why a personal best performance that is directly relative to exact age is a more informative statistic. Our fitness classification needs to be monitored against a fixed standard, such as a possible maximum for a human of the exact same age and sex. This is what performance percentages are all about.

Now that I am too old to compete with the younger generations, I have discovered a way to compete with my own body clock. A higher percentage score in an event compared with a previous event or events will always amount to the beating of the body’s fitness clock (age-graded time) in all events for which the comparison is valid.

Ihave discovered that in my later years of middle age, between 55 and 65, that pace slowdown is almost insignificant. These are the years between which most of us may enjoy a period of stable health. Those who commence marathon training for the first time when middle aged, I suspect, will find their marathon times steadily reducing over a number of years until such time as their full athletic potential has been established. The body takes time to respond to training, and during this period the benefits from good training will tend to outweigh and mask the behind-the-scenes slowdown caused by nature’s time clock.

Do not be fooled: all creatures without exception follow the arrow of time in that an increase in entropy (disorder) results in gradually progressive breakdown,