suite heatedly conversing in a unique but impenetrable language made up from equal parts of English, German, Spanish, and split times.

Others came close. Barry Brown is of honored memory, his 2:15:15 record (at St. Paulin 1984) a landmark. Then two other distinctive characters emerged. The first was Dave Clark, a dapper, bespectacled Englishman who looked and acted more like a brainy boffin in a James Bond movie than a top athlete. He had three New York wins, with a best of 2:17:30. His supreme performance, however, was 2:21:04 in the stifling New York humidity of 1984, the year Orlando Pizzolato won despite stopping several times to walk. Clark’s masters win was worth 2:15. That’s an informed opinion, since I too was on that wilting road, wading through what seemed to be viscous waves of hot fog to finish second to Clark in 2:26, after having won Boston six months earlier into a headwind in 2:20.

If anyone coped, it would be the meticulously prepared Clark. His two-day prerace routine, which I once witnessed by sharing a hotel room, was like a surgeon preparing for brain surgery, and extended to hanging a little barometer out of the hotel window and charting its readings.

If Clark seemed like the scientist who discovered the secret of electricity, Kjell-Erik Stahl was the galvanized body. The Swedish automaton, in the 1980s years before and after he turned 40, cranked out sub-2:20 marathons almost weekly, like some prototype Volvo being test-driven to destruction. Amazingly, over 50 now, he is still going. It’s the more amazing, since in many races he was stopped in the early miles by disrhythmic heart palpitations. Kjell would simply wait in his patient and unemotional Swedish way until normal service was resumed and then lope off to record yet another sub-2:20.

“T lost two minutes, 12 seconds this race,” he would tell me afterwards. He must love running, but he always appeared to maintain an outlook on life of such unrelieved melancholy that he could have played in Ingmar Bergman movies without make-up.

“Kjell, how are you?” I unwisely greeted him once in a crowded elevator. There was a long pause while he gave himself a systematic mental medical review. “Oh… well, at least I do not think I am ill.”

For Kjell, that was an upbeat moment. I was doing some TV commentary in those days and used to have nightmares about having to interview Kjell.

NORM GREEN

Norm Green remembers Piet Van Alphen with admiration. “He was the only runner older than myself ever to beat me,” he says.

A generous man with a boyish enthusiasm for his sport, Green can still reel off all the top performers, usually giving you their percentage ratings on the

age-graded tables. His own marathon bests put him on the brink of the very greatest: 97.99 percent for his 2:27:42 at Twin Cities at age 55; and 96.8 percent (I forget the hundredths; unlike Norm, I’m bad at figures) for 2:25:51 at age 52. It was always chastening to be following in the dynamic footsteps of the cropheaded, tidily bearded minister of religion from Wayne, Pennsylvania. I remember now my delight at 1:10:15 at the Philadelphia Half-Marathon at 50 was dampened by discovering that Norm in a previous year had

© PHOTO RUN run only a few seconds slower at 55 (1:10:23).

He is a feisty racer. Aggressive would not be the right word; it’s more kind of irrepressibly positive, as if he knows that Providence is on his side. He studies the sport with an equal zest, like a 10-year-old discovering the delights

of baseball scores.

If admire his running, I’m in awe of his memory for figures. A good young

runner, Norm did not take up the sport again until his late 40s. He discovered a talent as remarkable as the commitment he was willing to give to it. Norm achieved the rare satisfaction of recording his set of lifetime personal records in 1983-84 when he was over 51. One of my abiding memories is of returning after an evening meal to the track at Eugene during the WAVA world championships in 1989, walking under the stand and suddenly seeing Norm Green flying around the top bend, sparkling in the floodlights, that quick stride flicking out under the barrel chest, poised and positive, looking every year of 21.

Prostate cancer did what age and competitors had failed to do: slow him down. His running was interrupted for over a year. When we talked recently, we enjoyed one of those ritualistic kvetches that are common consolation among fading running friends.

“Nobody used to pass me after the first mile of arace,” Norm tells me. “Now they do, and I can’t do anything about it.”

“Hills,” I say. “I used to look forward to hills, as the place I could break almost anyone. Now people pass me going uphill, and it drives me crazy.”

© PHOTO RUN,

Norm Green at the 1988 Philly Distance Run.

Roger Robinson MASTERS OF THE MARATHON B19

“My body will not take the training,” says Norm. “Thirty miles a week is max.”

“The cardiovascular system wants 10 times the work,” I say, “but every time Icrank it up, the knees or tendons go.”

“The weight went up with the treatment,” says Norm.

“The weight went up with the injury,” I say.

And so on. Nevertheless, Norm was just back from Barbados, where he had been on business for the WAVA region he represents and had managed to find a road race. “A long five miles,” he says, precise as ever. He finished in the top 20 percent of the field, age 65. Now retired from his full-time role in the church, Norm holds at least six demanding administrative positions (I lost count even of those) on USATF and WAVA, puts out newsletters, keeps the statistics, is membership chair, treasurer, delegate, on and on.

His zest and willingness to work are undiminished. So, as I read him, is the sense of giving service by using his God-given talents to the full. Fifty years ago his career as an official would have been the only outlet for a man over 45. Masters running made it possible for Norm Green not only to keep the sport’s records, but also to know that he has one of the most honored places in them.

PRISCILLA WELCH

Twenty years ago she was a smoker and couch potato, living on remote British military posts. Today (as I write, on November 19, 1997), she is busy closing the sale on a big house in Longmont, near Boulder, Colorado, preparing for the move higher up into the Rockies. She is celebrating exactly five years of clean health since treatment for breast cancer, and she remains unchallenged in marathon history as the greatest female master of all time.

“Risk!” said Katherine Mansfield. “Risk everything!”

“Tf you do not like your life,” said H. G. Wells, “change it.”

Prompted and supported by her husband Dave, Priscilla Welch risked becoming a runner, and their lives were transformed. None of us knew her when she raced into sixth place in the 1984 Olympic Marathon at Los Angeles. She was 39. She had begun running at 35. We soon knew her very well as she traveled the world in pursuit of the best competition, consistently confirmed her standing as one of the world’s open elites, and, almost incidentally, compiled a set of over-40 records that still look impregnable. (““Well,” she says, not

‘© PHOTO RUN

20 i MARATHON & BEYON March/April 1998

wanting to overlook one of her best friends, “Lorraine [Moller] got the four mile [record], but that was a soft one anyway.”)

TKO TIME She won New York outright at age 42, Pag = c = 5 — |

socking it to the race authorities who had TANDEM COMPUTERS declined to invite her as one of the elite.

She blacked a few other eyes, too, in her cheery, no-nonsense way, including the British selectors who had declared her “too old” shortly before she ran 2:26:51, atage 42, in the 1987 London Marathon. It is still the second fastest time by any British woman, and has continued to be beyond the eager grasp of third-ranked Liz McColgan.

Priscilla won the New York City Marathon masters title on two other occasions (1985, 1989). She has that course’s three fastest masters times, and the situation is similar at Boston, Chicago, Columbus, London, and most of the important shorter —rororu road races. Priscilla Welch set the female masThe cancer ended any prospects of ters marathon world record at the over-5Orecords, but she is moving through 1987 London Marathon. that age group contented and, now, healthy. ae “T’m fit, living a healthy balance, happy with the house and the dogs, busy with the move. And I often help at Race for the Cure events.”

Dave and Priscilla travel less than in the nomadic days of the late-80s when they were liable to show up in New Zealand for a few weeks’ training (we had them as our wedding guests as a result). Dave, still more in need of motion, has become a formidable skier and unforgettably skilled and powerful masseur. I call him “Deep Thumbs” or “Jack the Rubber.” Cilla retains her very English mix of vitality, common sense, and quick wit, but is not seeking and striving as she did. “I have had two careers, and I don’t want to be over-committed now,” she says.

Because she is in many ways so accessible and even ordinary, so unpretentious and so articulate, Priscilla Welch has inspired more women than probably any other elite runner. You can change your life, if you are willing to work as hard as Cilla and Dave did to do it. Their transition from a secure military life to the demands and fragility of the freelance runner’s, from Britain to Colorado, from one kind of marriage to another, was not easy. Risk isn’t.

Roger Robinson MASTERS OF THE MARATHON fi 21

DEREK TURNBULL

“Feel like rattlin’ yer dags down to the corner?” Derek asked nonchalantly. And without waiting for a reply, he took off, lengthened that fluid, flexible stride over roots and hillocks and reached the trail gateway at what must have been sub-70 second 400 speed.

To know Derek Turnbull, visit Tussock Creek in the pastoral far south of New Zealand, where he and his wife Pat run a farm of about 3,000 sheep, and a sideline in entertaining passing travelers, especially runners.

He claims always that his running is just his hobby, a break from farm work, but to see him on his land, striding the paddocks in a battered check bush shirt, e»oronus driving the even more battered truck ahead of a work gang of yelping border collies, manhandling big ewes in preparation for shearing or dipping, fixing fences, milking cows, feeding the warm milk to the pigs, is to understand that when he goes loping off into the hills for his relaxation, his other life as a runner grows also at some deep level from these green, river-flat pastures. One large area of the land has been preserved untouched as native bush and bequeathed to the nation. “Turnbull’s Bush” may in the long term be a more lasting memorial than Turnbull’s records and Turnbull’s medals.

Derek’s homespun philosophy and laconic style make him a memorably quirky character in the usually earnest context of prerace seminars. You meet the same droll modesty at home over the bacon (ample) and eggs (several).

“T don’t know about all this aerobic business,” he says. “I don’t train. I just run—when I feel, where I feel, and how I feel.”

A week on the farm reveals that following what he feels produces a perfectly balanced program of distance, tempo, quality, and rest. He may run for relaxation, but the relaxation includes stretches when you rattle your dags very vigorously. “Dags” in New Zealand are the long tassles of wool that hang behind an unshorn sheep, heavy with dried droppings. When the sheep runs, its dags clatter together. So “rattle your dags” means “hurry it along”; or, you might say, if Derek wasn’t listening, “after adequate aerobic warm-up, include some controlled anaerobic repetitions.”

He resists scientific descriptions of running as stubbornly as he refuses to master any of the computer and telecommunication technology imported by the savvy Pat for her various editorial, church, and genealogical work. She also keeps an exquisite garden, holds church services in the farmhouse, reads extensively, keeps close contact with all their children and grandchildren, and works

on the farm as needed. This year she seriously hurt a hip by a fall from the truck. My own contribution to the land’s continuous demands on human labor is to collect the eggs.

The Fastest Old Man in the World is the title of the enthralling half-hour movie about Derek. As guest speaker at its premiere, I pointed out that he has been earning that description since masters running became organized in the 1970s. In age-group after age-group he has swept world records from 800 meters to the marathon, collecting gold medals at the rate of one a day at WAVA championships whenever the demands of the farm allow him to travel, and thrashing tens of thousands of much younger runners in major marathons from London to Adelaide.

The two performances that put him indubitably among the very greatest marathon masters are his age 60 and 65 records. In 1987 he decided to try for the first sub-2:40 by a runner over 60. The 2:38:46 he ran at Adelaide that year stands with the performances of Foster and Van Alphen as truly epoch-making. It was also, after 48 years of running, a personal record.

Then, in 1992, when he turned 65, came the run that is the centerpiece of the movie, the 2:42 he gutted out on a windy day in London. If you are inclined to think Turnbull floats easily along on some Arcadian cloud of rustic magic, watch his concentration, effort, and stress in movie footage from the race. You realize that the droll, genial hobbyist who runs as he feels coexists with a will of iron, a capacity for total commitment, and a rare resilience to the pain of hard running.

“I’m not specially talented,” he says. “T’ve been running since I was 13. Never did much good. I just haven’t slowed down.” It’s true. His 880/800 times stayed around 2:06 from 1945 to 1985, and he still runs sub-2:30 at age 70.

“He always had his running shoes with him,” laughs Pat. “When we were courting, he used to take me to the cinema and then run home.”

The shoes were possibly the same ones I

: Su AY him wearing as he lined up for the New PHOTO RUN York City Marathon in 1990—mud-stained, Derek Turnbull competing at flattened, and see-through. He ran 2:47:25 in the World Veteran Games. them at aged 63. Utterly without pretension,

Roger Robinson MASTERS OF THE MARATHON fi 23

Derek enjoys the glamorous races overseas for their carnival atmosphere and the fun of travel, but they mean no more to him than some local mid-week road run for Invercargill Harriers in a field of 30, who all gather in the same pub afterwards.

Foster, Welch, Campbell, and others have all stopped, or were stopped. Only Turnbull seems indestructible. Even in 1997, at 70, he retains his amazing ability to come off a wet farm winter of little running and race himself to fitness in a few weeks. When I last stayed on the farm two years ago, he had turned to triathlons, racing on his bike on Wednesday evenings and driving to the swimming pool at 6:00 every morning. Then he had some health problems and Pat’s injury was a complication.

As aresult, his preparations for the August 1997 WAVA championships in Durban were minimal. They stopped in Wellington on the journey, and I joined him for the last two miles of a half-marathon. “It’s my longest run for three years,” he grunted, and it showed. He looked listless, lacking the usual sinewy spring in the stride. Three weeks later in Durban he won every race he entered. He’s like the annual miracle on his land that brings the apparently dead earth into renewed life. Or perhaps, as he would much prefer to put it, it was just time to rattle his dags.

JOHN CAMPBELL

I first raced John Campbell in 1969. It was a track two-miles on a chill, blustery evening in his home city of Dunedin, the “Edinburgh of the South,” settled mainly by rugged Scots with names like Campbell. He was, I heard, a tough, hard-training 19-year-old who had just gained selection for New Zealand’s crosscountry team. It would be close. [had done some sub9s in those days, but it was my first major track race after only four months in New Zealand. Being 10 years older, I politely let the eager youngster do the

} ‘~ © leading. He plugged and scowled away into the wind, epnoro nun shoulders heaving as if he were hauling laden nets over the side of his fishing trawler, while I lurked in the lee and ran away over the last 600 yards. It never happened like that again.

Ihave never seen John Campbell race with less than the total self-punishing commitment he showed that night. For him the purpose of life is work. It was a compulsion he acquired young, taking responsibility as the eldest son in a large family with a father who spent time in the pub.

A few years ago, researching a feature on John, I revisited Ravensbourne, a working-class suburb perched on a wind-swept hillside outside Dunedin. The streets where John at the age of 10 worked before school as a milk-delivery boy are steep, angular, and exposed. At 6:00 in the morning they could be bitter. The sea off the Taieri Rivermouth where he started his adult life trawling for flounder and red cod is stormy and cold. He once survived several hours when the boat capsized and his skipper drowned.

Every time we meet, John is preoccupied with work. At different times it has been his fishing, his bread-delivery round, his fish-and-chips takeaway, his corner convenience store, his professional running, his mountain ski and tourist lodge. The day’s schedule is always unremitting. His capacity for intense training is legendary, his self-discipline unwavering.

Yet it would be wrong to think of Campbell as only a joyless toiler. When we first chatted after that race in 1969, his young eyes gleamed when I told him about the world cross-country championship (or “international” as it was then). He was idealistic about representing New Zealand. He still is. Anyone who collected his autograph in his great years on the American circuit will note that he invariably signed as “John Campbell, New Zealand,” not “2:11:04” or“‘World Record Holder” or “Adidas,” though the shoe company did supply the postcards. His pride in his country, admiration for heroes like Foster and Turnbull, his sheer love of running, all spring from a romantic streak in this rigorous man.

“T’’ll tell you what,” he said as we ran together around Auckland’s foreshore in 1991 (5:45 miles for an hour and a half). “Auckland’s a magic place. Great for training. And you can sail out to an island and run onit. There’s no one there. The water’s calm in the gulf. I want a boat, house, income; maybe a farm? I’m always looking at businesses and investments.”

The mix of idealism and pragmatism is typically Campbell—or typically Dunedin, where aspiring immigrants from the Scottish highlands have always had to work hard for their dreams, and where the southerly wind blows cold off the Antarctic. Whatever drives him, no masters runner, even Priscilla Welch, has compiled a catalog of achievements like Campbell’s in the two years after he turned 40 in February of 1989: 2:14:19 and 2:11:04 at Boston, 2:16:15 and 2:14:34 at New York, wins at Los Angeles, masters records on over 30 courses, masters world bests at every recognized distance from four miles to the marathon, three minutes carved from the world half-marathon mark (1:02:28 at Philadelphia in 1990), every top master of his generation comprehensively put away (Cuevas, Tibaduiza, Navarro, Marczac, Waigwa) and defeats handed to elite younger runners like Hussein, Garcia, and de Castella. It was awesome, a kind of audacious, unceasing odyssey.

Perhaps that perturbed spirit is now at rest, but I doubt it. It’s been a year or two since we got one of those tentative evening phone calls announcing that

Roger Robinson MASTERS OF THE MARATHON #25

John Campbell on his way to a masters win in the 1989 New York City Marathon.

John was half an hour away on one of his habitual all-day drives and would be glad of a bed. He’s a bit of a hobo, who also (another contradiction) enjoys a comfortable hearth.

Last seen, John was almost single-handedly managing and maintaining his tourist lodge, cleaning the 30 or 40 units during the day and cooking meals at night. He can never find staff who come up to his standards of commitment. And, yes, he was running, an hour or two in the middle of the working day, on roads and trails that climb the steep slopes of the cluster of volcanic peaks in New Zealand’s central North Island.

His next-door neighbor is Mount Ruapehu, whose i spectacular eruptions were seen on the world’s telea ls. ___ visions in 1996. It’s country tough enough to chal- ‘ertoronun lenge even John Campbell’s need to strive, yet able to provide what he calls the “magic” that he also seeks as he labors.

AHMED SALAH AND OTHERS

A few masters remain, though I feel embarrassed at reducing such fine athletes and, in several cases, good friends, to a footnote.

Sister Marion Irvine has run six of America’s best 10 marathons by women over 50 (information courtesy of Norm Green). Her 2:51:01 at age 51 famously qualified her to take part in the 1984 Olympic Marathon Trials. She has revised for the better concepts of female middle age, and of school principals, and of nuns. She also tells brilliant nun jokes.

Shirley Matson ran slightly faster, 2:50:26 at age 50. Evy Palm of Sweden also leaps from the lists with her 2:38:00 at age 48. Ron Robertson (yet another New Zealander) is rewriting Turnbull’s 55-59 records, though not yet in the marathon. Fay Bradley of Washington, D.C., is on the brink of some remarkable over-60 running when he passes that birthday early in 1998. Clive Davies of Oregon, with 2:42:44 at 64 and 2:42:49 at 66 is barely in the shadow of Turnbull.

And in the over-70 group, surpassing even the 3:03:05 that Davies ran in 1987, is John Keston, who ran 3:00:58 at age 71 at Twin Cities. Like Davies,

At age 71, John Keston continues to set records, including a 3:00:58 at the Twin Cities Marathon.

Oregon-based and originally from Britain, Keston was a Shakespearean actor. I look forward to meeting him and dropping in a few well-rehearsed quotations, like, “Though Ilook old, yetam I strong and lusty” or (cheating a little) “the three-hour traffic of our stage.”

Shakespeare is always good for an ending, but there is more. Olympic medalist (1988) and World Cup

On November | in Chuson, Korea, he ran with the leaders for most of the distance before fading to a 2:15 12th place. In Monte Carlo on November 23 he ran 2:12:44. In 1996 he reputedly broke John Campbell’s masters marathon record. If he did, his accomplishment has gained no recognition,.and no one I have talked to can confirm or deny it.

But in 1985 I was doing TV commentary when Ahmed went within a whisker of breaking the world marathon record. Maybe as a master he has done it. In the ever-moving drama of our sport, the final curtain never comes i down. )

New Marathon & Beyond Web Site Up and Running

The new M&B Web site is up and running. Stop by and check us out. Here are some of the new features:

° “Chat” Room ° News You Can Use (running tips, nutritional articles, etc.)

* Runner’s Library

or link to it from the Human Kinetics site at http: 7 www.humankinetics.com/

Send us your comments for our “Readers Say. . .” section. E-mail us at

mé&b @hkusa.com.

You can reach the M&B site directly at http: 7 www.marathonandbeyond.com/

Roger Robinson MASTERS OF THE MARATHON @& 27

SPECIAL MASTERS SECTION

Use It or Lose it

Can We Slow the Effects of Physical Decline as We Age?

LAA a

OUR LONG-distance running performances generally peak when you

are somewhere between the early 20s and the mid-30s. After that, there is an inevitable decline in performance that starts well before middle age and continues throughout the rest of life. That’s the bad news.

The good news is that one of the beneficial consequences of a lifelong commitment to running is that over the years you’ Il experience a slower rate of decline with age in the physiological functions related to performance than do your sedentary friends or those who train minimally. There appears to be wisdom in the saying “Use it or lose it.” Just how much can you expect performance to decline over the years? What causes this decline? Is the decline the same for men and women?

CONFOUNDING FACTORS

Before detailing some of the changes that occur in performance as we age, let’s briefly consider several factors that complicate the issue. The primary problem is that it is difficult to separate the effects on performance that are directly attributable to aging from those that are due to disease, disuse, or other factors. It is also difficult to identify how evolving social environments and scientific advances in training and equipment may have affected performance times across ages.

Bortz and Bortz (1996) propose that changes in athletic performance records with age may be a possible biomarker of aging, that is, a way of identifying changes due to the aging process, independent of the influences of disease or reduced activity. For example, an individual capable of setting a world record

is in an elite group that is highly motivated, highly trained, and probably influenced minimally by factors other than aging. However, even using performance records as a method for isolating changes due to aging does not eliminate potentially confounding factors. World records have continued to improve over the decades, the result of advanced training methods, increased competitive opportunities, and improved equipment and facilities, and these factors may affect age-related records in inconsistent ways.

Another problem is that most of the data available is from a cross-section of the running population and not from longitudinal changes in individuals over time. Cross-sectional data may not be fully representative of how an individual’s performance will change.

It is also not possible to identify directly how injuries may influence decrements in performance with age. Koplan et al. (1995) surveyed more than 500 finishers of a 10K road race 10 years after the race and found that 56 percent of the entrants were still running, and 81 percent were still exercising regularly. Fifty-three percent reported at least one injury during the 10-year period, and 30 percent had had at least one injury requiring medical care. Of those who stopped running, 31 percent of the men and 17 percent of the women cited injury as the primary reason. It is likely that some amount of the decrease in performance with age is the result of injury, but data is not available to document the exact nature of any effect.

The possible confounding influence on performance data of the factors just mentioned suggests that we should consider with some caution the conclusions that follow, especially when generalizing the results to individual runners.

CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE WITH AGE

As a general rule, distance-running performance times increase with age, and the rate of decline becomes greater somewhere in the age range of 55 to 65. Substantial individual variations exist in the rate of decline. Figures 1 and 2 on page 30 illustrate the change in performance with age, showing the pattern of change in running times for the top male and top female finishers at each age in the 1997 Boston Marathon.

The curving gray lines are based on best-fit equations for the data, and the two straight, colored lines in each figure can approximate the pattern of change. Between ages 30 and 55, the change averaged 1.3 minutes per year (0.9 percent) for men, with an average decline in performance of 3.7 minutes per year (1.8 percent) between ages 55 and 75. For women, the performance time changes with age were slightly greater, averaging 2.7 minutes per year between ages 30 and 55 (1.5 percent) and 7.6 minutes per year between 55 and 64 (3.4 percent).

1997 Boston Marathon o 240 Top Male Finisher For Each Age Time (min)

Figure 1.

Time Top Female Finisher For Each Age

(min)

1997 Boston Marathon

20 30 40 50 60 70

Figure 2.

The number of women in the 55 to 64 age bracket was relatively small, and the changes cited here may not be representative of what would be found in a larger sample. The pattern of change with age is similar for this data to that found in most research studies, though the exact rate of change varies.

These marathon results are somewhat higher than the 0.5 percent decline described for age-group records by Bortz (1996) between ages 35 and 60.

Between ages 55 and 75 their data show an average change of about 2 percent per year. Joyner (1993) cites several studies finding 6 to 9 percent decrements per decade (0.6 to 0.9 percent per year) until the mid-50s, with accelerated rates of decline in later years. In another study (Evans et al. 1994), the best 10K times by age in three road races were averaged over a five-year period, and performance times were found to change quadradically with age. Average changes between 30 and 55 were approximately 1.1 percent per year for men and 1.3 percent per year for women, and between 55 and 75 the changes were 2.1 percent per year for men and 3.3 percent per year for women.

Analysis of 50K to 200K running age-group world records shows similar, but slightly higher, results compared to those just presented for the marathon. Between ages 40 and 55 there is an average 1.5 percent decrement in performance per year for men, and from age 55 to 75 the decrement is 3.3 percent per year. For women, the decline is 2.3 percent per year from ages 40 to 55, and data beyond age 55 is so variable that no consistent trends can be identified.

These rates of change may be higher than those for shorter distances because of the increased demands ultradistance running puts on the structural and physiological systems in the body, which reduces the pool of runners attempting to run those distances and perhaps exaggerates the affects of aging.

From these various data we can conclude that those who remain fit and free of major injuries or disease can still expect a decline in performance that will average at least 0.5 percent per year between age 35 and 60. Those who train less intensely as years go by, or who are afflicted with periods of injury or disease, can probably expect faster decrements in performance, as high as 1 to 2 percent per year. After an approximate age of 60, the rate of decline is likely to increase. While the data cited here show slightly faster rates of decline for women compared to men, this may be an artifact influenced by the fewer number of women competing regularly in long-distance events over the past few decades compared to men.

PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR PERFORMANCE

The physiological factors that are generally thought to affect changes in performance with age are the same as those thought to be the major determinants of distance running performance: maximal oxygen uptake (VO,max), the percent of VO,max at race pace, the workload where lactate accumulation exceeds a designated level (“lactate threshold”), and running economy (VO,submax). A more detailed discussion of these factors can be found in articles by Joyner (1993), Sjodin (1985), and Daniels (1985). VO,max is the maximum amount of oxygen that can be consumed during intense exercise, and considerable variability in VO,max can exist between runners. VO,max can be altered

Keith Williams USEITORLOSEIT m 31

with training, but a variety of genetic factors also have an effect on the maximal level that any individual can attain.

Running economy is the rate of oxygen consumption at submaximal levels, and it can vary by as much as 30 percent between individuals (Daniels 1985). A lower VO,submax at a given speed would be an advantage in distance running. Economy is probably primarily important as it relates to VO,max during running at a given speed, though Sjodin (1985) cited studies that suggested that marathoners were more economical than runners concentrating on shorter distances.

Both running economy and VO,max affect the percentage of VO,max utilized at a given speed. High correlations have been found between performance time and the percent VO,max used when running at race pace. Depending on the length of the race, runners may sustain somewhere between 65 and 98 percent of VO,max over the course of the race, with longer races run at a lower percentage of VO,max and slower runners using a lower percentage of maximum aerobic capacity (Joyner 1993; Sjodin 1985).

As one’s running speed increases, changes occur in the energy sources utilized, and at some point a chemical substance called lactate begins to accumulate in the blood. The point at which this occurs has frequently, and sometimes controversially, been called the “lactate threshold.” The specific mechanism of these changes continues to be debated; but of practical importance is the fact that a well-trained runner can sustain a fraction of his VO,max that is slightly above the lactate threshold pace, and there seems to be a strong relationship between the threshold pace and performance (Sjodin 1985).

CHANGES IN PHYSIOLOGICAL FACTORS WITH AGE

As we age, our VO,max decreases, which seems to be closely linked with the decline seen in performance. Studies examining changes in VO,max with age have shown that it declines at the rate of 9 to 15 percent per decade in sedentary individuals, while those who continue active training show a change that is as little as half that much (Joyner 1993; Evan et al. 1995; Trappe et al. 1996).

Pollock (1987) examined 24 masters track athletes in a 10-year follow-up study and found only a nonsignificant 3 percent change in VO,max for a subgroup that had remained competitive over the 10-year period. Other runners who continued training but did not compete showed a greater decline. Runners who remained competitive in their 60s did show a greater decline at some point, leading the authors to conclude that within the age range of 60 to 65 some reduction in VO,max is inevitable. This greater change after age 60 is consistent with the increased rate of decline in performance at ages above 60 that we discussed earlier.

Trappe et al. (1996) studied 53 former elite male runners 22 years after initial tests and found a decrease averaging 6 percent per decade—or 0.6 percent per year—for a group who continued a high-level of training, a 10 percent decline for a group who ran for fitness, and a 15 percent decrease for a group not engaged in any regular physical activity. Evans et al. (1995) found an approximate 1-percent per year decrease in VO,max in highly trained women ranging in age from 23 to 56.

With sedentary individuals, the decrease in VO,max is due at least in part to a decrease in maximum heart rate and stroke volume. There is some data to suggest that stroke volume may be maintained or even increased in active runners (Pollock 1987). Other factors, such as a decline in peripheral oxygen extraction and a reduction in lean body mass or muscle mass, may also be involved (Joyner 1993; Fleg and Lakatta 1988). A decrease in heart rate with age seems certain to be associated with the age-related decrease in VO,max, but the exact nature of the effect of age on other factors affecting oxygen delivery to the muscles in trained runners is not as clear (Evans 1995; Pollock 1987; Rivera et al. 1989).

Joyner (1993) cited evidence suggesting that the lactate threshold remains at the same speed as one ages, and that by maintaining training, older individuals may prevent or eliminate the usual age-related decline in skeletal muscle oxidative capacity. In contrast, Evans et al. (1995) found the running speed associated with lactate threshold to decrease with age and concluded that the change in lactate threshold was an important factor in the decline in performance between the ages of approximately 20 and 65. Allen etal. (1985) matched eight masters runners (average age = 56) with younger runners (average age = 25) on the basis of 10K performance times. The older runners, despite a lower VO,max, were able to match the paces of the younger runners because they ran at race pace with higher lactate levels and at a higher percentage of VO,max. Though it is not clear whether the speed associated with lactate threshold changes with age, it appears that lactate levels are still important in determining performance levels in older individuals.

Joyner (1993) concluded that running economy does not change with age, based on available literature, with Allen et al. (1985) reporting a similar finding. Trappe et al. (1995) found similar results for active runners, but higher submaximal oxygen consumption in the group of former elite runners who were no longer physically active.

Evans et al. (1995) found significantly higher oxygen consumption in a group of older women (mean age = 52) compared to a younger group (mean age = 30), concluding that running economy did not play a major role in agerelated declines in 10K performance. Overall, there does not appear to be evidence that changes in running economy are important in explaining the

Keith Williams USEITORLOSEIT &® 33

decline in performance with age, though little information is available for older subjects (60+) or those who run longer distances (SOK+).

Physiological changes that might be specific to runners who engage in ultradistance running have not been examined in detail. It is likely that changes for this group will parallel those found for 10K and marathon runners, though itis also probable that muscle, bone, and soft tissue fatigue or failure will begin to have a greater influence on performance in the longer distances. While a great deal of research has been done to examine the influence of repetitive loads on body tissues, almost all of the studies have simulated conditions less extreme than those involved in ultradistance running. As a result, specific information is not available.

SUMMARY

The reductions in performance for age-group records cited by Bortz (1996) suggest a minimum rate of decline in performance of 0.5 percent per year between ages 35 and 65.

This rate of decrease is similar in magnitude to the 5 percent per decade decline in VO,max that appears to occur even for highly-trained individuals.

While a decline in performance averaging as low or lower than 0.5 percent per year is possible, for most runners the rate is probably higher, affected by changes in training intensity, motivation, injury, and other related factors.

Depending on the level of training continued over the years, the decline may range anywhere from 0.5 percent to 2 percent or more per year, and after age 60, the rate of decline will probably increase. It appears that these performance declines are directly related to changes in some of the physiological factors that are important to performance, most notably VO,max.

Continued training as one advances in years appears to have the beneficial effect of reducing the usual decline with age of some of the physiological functions that are important to performance. Additionally, continued training should bring with it additional health benefits that will help active run- “| ners maintain a better quality of life into their later years. Ab

REFERENCES

Allen, W.; Seals, D.; Hurley, B.F.; Ehasni, A.; and Hagberg, J. 1985. Lactate threshold and distance-running performance in young and older endurance athletes. J. Appl. Physiol., 58(4):1281-1284.

Bortz, W. M. IV, and Bortz, W. M. II. 1996. How fast do we age? Exercise performance over time as a biomarker. Journal of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 51(5):M223-225.

Daniels, J.T. 1985.A physiologist’s view of running economy. Med. Sci. Sprts. Exerc. 17(3):332338.

Evans, S. L.; Davy, K. P.; Stevenson, E. T.; and Seals, D. R. 1995. Physiological determinants of 10-km performance in highly trained female runners of different ages. J. Appl. Physiol. 78(5):1931-1941.

Evans, S.; Stevenson, E.; Keith, H.; and Seals, D. 1994. Endurance running performance in women: influence of age in relation to men (Abstract). Med. Sci. Sprts. Exerc. 26(5):S137.

Fleg, J., and Lakatta, E. 1988. Role of muscle loss in the age-associated reduction in VO,max. J. Appl. Physiol,65(3):1147-1151.

Joyner, M. (1993). Physiological limiting factors and distance running: influence of gender and age on record performances. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 21:103-133.

Koplan, J.; Rothenberg, R.; and Jones, E. 1995, The natural history of exercise: a 10-year followup of a cohort of runners. Med. Sci. Sprts. Exerc. 27(8):1180-1184.

Pollock, M.; Foster, C.; Knapp, D.; Rod, J.; and Schmidt, D. 1987. Effect of age and training on aerobic capacity and body composition of master athletes. J. Appl. Physiol. 62(2):725-731.

Rivera, A.; Pells III, A.; Sady, S.; Sady, M.; Cullinane, E.; and Thompson, P. 1989. Physiological factors associated with the lower maximal oxygen consumption of master runners. J. Appl. Physiol. 66(2):949-954.

in, B., and Svendenhag, J. 1985. Applied physiology of marathon running. Sprts. Med. 2:83—

among distance runners: a 20-year follow-up study. J. Appl. Physiol. 78(3):823-829. Trappe, S. W.; Costill, D. L.; Vukovich, M. D.; Jones, J.; and Melham, T. 1996. Aging among elite distance runners: a 22-year longitudinal study. J. Appl. Physiol. 80(1):285-290.

FREE HEART RATE MONITOR BUYERS GUIDE

OVER 30 DIFFERENT MONITORS DESCRIBED POLAR – CARDIOSPORT – BIOSIG – ACUMEN CATEYE – SENSOR DYNAMICS AND MORE

Our exclusive Buyers Guide describes over 30 Heart Rate Monitors, how they work, how to use them, advantages and disadvantages, features of each model, etc. We include a discount price list showing lowest prices.

NOBODY SELLS FOR LESS – WE GUARANTEE IT 90 DAY PRICE PROTECTION GUARANTEE 30 DAY MONEY BACK SATISFACTION GUARANTEE WRITE OR CALL FOR FREE BUYERS GUIDE WE WILL ALSO SEND OUR FREE CATALOG LISTING OVER 250 HEALTH AND FITNESS PRODUCTS CREATIVE HEALTH PRODUCTS

5148 SADDLE RIDGE ROAD, PLMOUTH, MI 48170

Keith Williams USEITORLOSEIT ® 35

Everything Is Relative

eure Our Ree Times Slow as We Age, But WAVA Puts Us Back in the Hunt.

BE ACH PERSON has a peak in life relative to various skills, after which those skills diminish. This fact is as immutable as gravity. It is also observable that an older individual who begins a long-distance running program steadily improves—for a time—before gradually succumbing to the inevitable slowing down process. For some runners, the diminution of their road racing prowess in their 40s is devastating—to the point that they actually give up their beloved running and racing.

Thanks to the gradual, scientific, and statistical creation of age-graded tables, culminating in the 1994 WAVA (World Association of Veteran Athletes) tables, masters and veteran road racers, and especially marathoners, can hand themselves a new lease on their racing lives.

The WAVA approach to judging and comparing performances has revived many a supposedly flagging marathon career. Let me share my own marathoning history with you, for it parallels—and is infused by—the gradual development of age-graded tables.

HOW IT ALL STARTED

Inever considered myself much of a runner. I never finished a high school mile, and I always ended up nearly last in the compulsory cross-country runs in New Zealand. I was about as much a running animal as roadkill.

My life as a runner began in 1975 at the age of 51 when I was talked into joining a local joggers’ club. I arrived wearing a stout pair of walking shoes complete with thick, corrugated crepe rubber soles. I was advised that if I found the going too tough, not to worry. I could “just fall off the pace and return back to base.”

Fortunately for my overall fitness, I had spent the previous10 years religiously doing what was known as the “SBX program,” which consisted of five

© 1998 28 by F Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

minutes of calisthenics followed by six minutes of running in place or running one mile. I surprised the other club members by staying with them until the turnaround point. At the turnaround, the club split into two: the joggers and the speedsters. My reptilian competitive urge was aroused as I saw the speedsters disappear over a hill. Too late, I took off after them and almost caught them before they reached the clubrooms.

During the next four years I jogged with the slow group every Sunday at a confirmed jogging pace and usually 6 to 7 miles. My weekly total mileage over this period was approximately 12 to 15 miles. I never kept a running log and I never raced.

Attendance at the club began to fall away until there were only two of us left. The other fellow had been part of the speedster faction so he made a regular practice of running with me for a while and then upping the pace to leave me for dead. I found, however, that I could keep up with him if I tried. Eventually, we folded up the club, and I joined the newly formed Wellington Marathon

Circumstances found me with time on my hands over Christmas 1978. I read some literature on the marathon and decided to try one. The Wellington Handicap Marathon was scheduled for January 27. This allowed for three weeks of training. I catapulted from 20-mile weeks to weeks of 45, 62, and 42 miles, respectively. A week before the race, which was two loops of a local course, I decided to do a one-loop time-trial. Puffing like an old bull, it took me two hours. Obviously, there was no way I was going to break four hours, so I told my wife and daughter there was no need to meet me until after the noon hour, since my handicapped group (those who had neverruna marathon before) went off at 8:00 a.m.

Alas, my wife arrived too late to see me finish. I had come across the finish line second male. Thad run 3:35:10, taking first prize in the M50 age group and second place based on handicap. (Certainly, I do not recommend this type of training for first-time marathoners.)

I decided, for statistical reasons, to break down my performance, which I have also done after each of my subsequent 39 marathons. At age 54, on January 27, 1979, Iran 3:35:10 this way:

1st 1OK = 48 minutes

2nd 10K = 50 minutes

3rd 10K = 52 minutes

4th 10K = 53 minutes

Final 2.2K = 12.2 minutes

First half of race = 103 minutes Second half of race = 112 minutes

Bill Childs EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE 37

THE DISCOVERY OF MEASURING PERFORMANCE

Fast-forward to the end of May, 1981. By then, I had completed nine marathons, and at age 57, I had scored a Ist in my age group twice, a 2nd five times, and a 16th in the 1981 World Veteran Championships. I had also discovered an

age-standard times for men and women with instructions on how to calculate performance percentage based on age.

To calculate performance, you convert an individual’s race time to seconds and divide that number by the AST (age-standard time) in the seconds table of the race distance that corresponds to the individual’s age, and then multiply the answer by 100 to express the performance as a percentage.

The author of the tables contended that runners scoring about 85 percent generally took the major placing in race events. Unfortunately, these tables were deficient, as the standards were not based upon ultimate human performance, and sufficient quality statistics had not been employed in their preparation.

Over the first two years of my self-study, my marathon race times decreased from 3:35:10 to 3:09:25; my performances were obviously improving as I learned more about how to train and race properly. This initial improvement curve supported the medical claim that no matter how old one is when commencing a running program, initially times and performances will improve with training. A study of first-time marathoners done at this time indicated that on average the improvement during the initial years amounted to 28 minutes over the marathon distance.

My evaluations of performance measurement had by this time led me to the conclusion that the future of road racing in general, and marathon racing in particular, lay in perfecting a set of tables that would fairly rate the performance of men and women of all ages in the same race event, which would prevent them from becoming discouraged by advancing age and diminishing returns. This concept neatly obliterates the natural handicaps of age and sex. Of course, I was neither the first nor the only observer of the scene to come to this conclusion.

In 1986 I read Tim Noakes’s compendium of a book, Lore of Running. A scientist and human performance specialist at the University of Cape Town Medical School, Noakes describes how he plotted the five-year world marathon and the 90K Comrades records and constructed an age-graded table based on his findings. Noakes concluded, “The best records are set by athletes who come closest to the physiological limits set by their age, and the weaker records are not representative of the true physiological limits at that age.” At the time of his work, Noakes did not have a sufficient number of quality records available to be able to prepare a companion table for women. “Hopefully, some time in the future this handicapping index will become a feature of all running events,” he stated.

THE DARK AGES: 5-YEAR AGE-GROUPS

Let’s assume that the 1994 WAVA tables are suitable for the purposes of the Noakes prediction. Is the 5-year age-group category system in current use ready for the dustbin? It has already been established that race times steadily decrease after age 40. The rate of decrease accelerates with advancing age. When plotted, it follows a smooth curve. Noakes observed that the slope of the fall in performance with age is quite similar to the curve monitoring the reduction in VO,max with age.

Using the perfect athlete with a marathon time of 2:06:50 who keeps a constant level of health and running fitness, it is predicted from these findings that his marathon time at age 40 will be 2:08:58, at 50 it will be 2:18:55, at 70 it increases to 2:48:11, and at 80 it slows to 3:13:37. If he lives to be 100, the anticipated marathon finishing time increases to 7:39:52.

We know the human body does not age in 5-year increments. Nor does it age in yearly increments. It ages with every beat of the heart. Why, then, persist with 5-year age-groups in road racing events that oblige individuals to be compared on time with younger competitors?

The WAVA tables make it possible to measure performance at daily intervals. The inclusion of performance ratings in race results would enable runners to compare their performance with the rest of the field. This, of course, is not the case at present.

For masters runners, times become increasingly irrelevant as they age. If you take any race result sheet that is sorted in terms of time, from first to last, and then sort it in terms of performance, the results will illustrate why. For example, I placed about 800″ on the basis of time in the 1987 Honolulu Marathon. But on checking the performances of the first 100 runners to finish, based on the WAVA standards, my performance was about the 34″ best. At the 1994 San Francisco Marathon (my worst marathon time ever), I placed third in the 70+ age group. There were only nine in the age group, and some could well have been over 80 years of age. At the 1995 London Marathon, based on time, I finished roughly 13,000″ out of about 26,000. Had I been able to see the results

Bill Childs EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE m 39

listed in order of performance, my time at the age of 71 would have had some meaning. Race times thus become entirely dependent on the age of the body that produces them. If the present age groups are maintained, performance percentages should, at the least, be published adjacent to race times.

Ihave determined that for accurate grading, a computer program must be capable of daily grading, sorting, and printing out performance percentages correct to two decimal places.

Consider a specific example of a situation where even a yearly or monthly grading would be unlikely to yield a fair result. It occurred at the 1994 Honolulu Marathon. The first four competitors in the M70—74 age-group crossed the finish line within the space of one minute, 57 seconds. A one-year difference at this age would increase a competitor’s time by 2 minutes and 33 seconds. Only three seconds separated the first two finishers.

A second example involving the same marathon illustrates the need to develop an appreciation of performance. Carla Beurskens from the Netherlands set the course record (2:31:01) in 1986 at age 34. Eight years later, at near the age of 43, she was for the eighth time the overall women’s winner. Her time was 2:37:06. By using the 1994 WAVA tables, her time could have been predicted to within roughly a minute. She likely is unaware that based on the tables, her 1994 performance, although 6 minutes slower, was superior to her time in 1986. Had she performed at the same level in 1986, she would have set a course record 1 minute and 26 seconds faster than she did. Based on the tables, her 1986 records translate to 91.96 percent performance, while the 1994 effort comes in at 92.83 percent.

A HISTORY OF AGE-GRADING TABLES

The first set of tables to cover every track, field, and road event was introduced by American Chuck Phillips in 1983. Three years later National Masters News, the official world and U.S. publication for the sport, staged the first-ever agegraded track and field meet in Los Angeles.

Back in 1975, professor L. E. Bottiger of Stockholm’s Karolinska Hospital suggested the study of athletic records for the effects of age on human performance capacity. Professor Bottiger plotted cross-country skiing and running records against age. In longer races, he found that best performances were achieved at 31 to 36 years of age and fell uniformly 5 to 10 percent per decade after that.

South African Willie Loedolff from Pretoria noted the regular, predictable decline and suggested that it could be used as a system for age-handicapping in long-distance races. As mentioned earlier, in 1983 Tim Noakes plotted age records covering world marathons and the Comrades ultramarathon and constructed a table of age-graded performances for each distance. He predicted— and hoped—that sometime in the future all race results would be corrected for age performance. His 1983 research of male performances up to and including age 65 is very nearly identical to the 1994 WAVA tables for men.

In 1988 the World Association of Veteran Athletes, under the leadership of then vice president Bob Fine, encouraged and supported the development and standardization for masters competitions. Records are now available from 10 veteran World Championships and 25 years of intense age-group 5-year competition.

In 1989, a complete set of masters age-graded tables was compiled and published by WAVA and National Masters News. They were considered a good first effort. A commission was given to the WAVA Age-Graded Subcommittee in 1991 toupgrade their 1989 effort. The 1994 tables are better for three reasons:

1. More performance data were used.

2. Every aspect of every event was examined in a much more exhaustive analysis than before.

3. Comparisons and cross-over analyses were extensively done to ensure that all elements of the tables were compatible and that the packaging as a whole was logical and continuous.

The age-graded tables confirm that after your 30s, your times deteriorate faster and faster. The 1994 standards set the existing outstanding performances at or near 100 percent. Most present veteran world records are well below the 100-percent standard because the graph used to determine the age standards employs only the very best of world records, those deemed closest to maximum human performance. This is fair because it evenly lowers the performance of all age divisions in between, and consequently it will be very rare for any athlete to exceed 100 percent. John Campbell’s 1990 2:11:04 at Boston at age 41 is rated at only 99 percent, for example, and Derek Turnbull’s marathon record of 2:38:46 for the 60 age-group scores 95.3 percent.

The only areas where the number of records was considered insufficient for high degrees of reliability are in the 80 to 99 and very young age divisions. The older athletes were found not to be improving as muchas some theories say they should. This is understandable because only a tiny minority of gifted elite runners can hope to maintain the performance flair path throughout their life span. The elite are not necessarily blessed with normal health over a full life span. The majority of individuals throughout the world are dead by age 77.

The manner in which the tables have been constructed makes nonsense of any belief that performances calculated from them will be unfairly skewed in favor of older runners because of fewer records and less depth of competition at older age levels. Younger runners should be advantaged because the tables

Bill Childs EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE ® 41

cannot adjust for health problems in aging runners. Older runners will also be competing against exceptional record levels set by outstanding elite runners to whom the years have been kind.

The women’s results, which were worked out entirely separately from the men’s, were compared to the men’s. Inconsistencies there caused minor but complete reworks of most women’s events. WAVA claims there is a wellthought-out and defensible reason for each entry in the tables.

Compared to the 1989 age-graded tables, in the 1994 revision the age 30 to 49 standards are generally more difficult and the age 70 standards generally easier. This was not done on purpose, but was due to the athletes posting worldclass performances well into their 30s, and the fact that the older athletes are not improving as much as some theories said they should/would. The WAVA age-graded tables were developed in 5-year increments. This was done because WAVA’s only official use of the age factors at this time is for the scoring of multi-events that are contested in 5-year age groups.

WHAT ARE AGE-GRADED TABLES, ANYWAY?

We’ ve been speaking of age-graded tables as though they are second nature to runners. Of course, except for hard-core masters runners who race frequently, they aren’t. Let’s simplify the concept:

Age-graded tables are a series of “age factors” and “age standards” that can be used to compare performances at different ages in track and field, longdistance running, and race-walking events. Age-graded tables show how much a typical person’s athletic performance improves during youth and declines during aging. The performances vary by event distances. Separate factors and standards are published for each sex covering ages 8 to 100. The purpose of agegraded tables is twofold:

1. To “correct” a person’s performance, no matter what his or her age, to what it would have been (or will be) in their prime years. By so doing, all kinds of interesting comparisons can be made. You can compare your performance to other people of any age, including open-class athletes.

. To provide each individual with a percentage value that enables him to judge his performance in any event without bias to age or sex. No matter how old an athlete gets, this performance percentage will always be judged against the standard of one’s age. As your performances decline with age, so do the world standards that the tables use to calculate your percentage, giving a true measure of your performance. The standards correspond approximately to world record marks for a person of that age and sex in that particular event (see Achievement Levels on page 43).

ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS

100 percent = Approximate world-record level Over 90 percent = World-class level

Over 80 percent = National-class level

Over 70 percent =Regional-class level

Over 60 percent = Local-class level

What Are the Advantages of Age-Graded Tables? Age-graded tables can be used to do the following:

. Keep track of your progress over the years.

. Compare your own performances in a given event.

. Compare your own performance in different events.

. Compare your progress in the current year.

. Set (realistic) goals for the current year and future years.

Compare back to your best-ever performance in an event.

. Compare your performance to people of any age. . Estimate your anticipated performance in new events. . Compare performances of older and younger individuals in the same or

different events.

. Select the best performance in an event among all age groups.

. Select the best overall performance in an event among all age groups. . Select outstanding athletes.

. Give recognition to good performances in the younger and older groups. . Enable athletes at the upper end of their age groups to compete on an

equal level with those at the lower end of their age groups.

. Make the competition more interesting and exciting.

. Make awards more meaningful.

. Establish medal standards.

. Score multi-events (decathlon, pentathlon, etc.) using standard IAAF

scoring tables.

HOW TO USE THE 1994 WAVA AGE-GRADED TABLES

At the end of this article (see pages 47-53), we present the WAVA tables for long-distance running (LDR) with a brief explanation of their use and application. NextI’dlike to walk you through some of the calculations that are possible using the tables.

Calculating Age Performance Percent

1. Convert your race time to seconds.

2. Select the standard time for the distance from the appropriate male or female table.

3. Divide the standard time by your race time.

4. Multiply your result by 100 to convert to a percentage of the world record for your age.

For example, the performance calculation for a 60-year-old woman who completes a marathon in 4:15:25 looks like this:

1. 4:15:25 = 15,325 seconds.

2. The WAVA age standard for the marathon for a female age 60 is 10,273 seconds (2:51:13).

3. 10,273 divided by 15,325 = 0.6743.

4. 0.6743 X 100 = 67.43 percent.

The performance calculation for a 50-year-old male who completes a halfmarathon in 1:34:28 looks like this:

1. 1:34:28 = 5,668 seconds.

2. The WAVA age standard for the half-marathon for a 50-year-old male is 3,955 seconds (1:05:55).

3. 3,955 divided by 5,668 = 0.6978.

4. 0.6978 X 100 = 69.78 percent.

Extrapolating Back in Time

In what time could the 60-year-old woman have completed the same marathon when in her prime years of between 20 to 36 years of age?

1. She scored 67.43 percent of a world champion at age 60.

2. She should have been capable of scoring 67.43 percent of “open class” (OC) standard for a female.

3. The OC standard time for the marathon distance from the female table is 8,331 seconds.

4. (8,331 divided by 67.43) < 100 = 12,355 seconds.

5. 12,355 seconds = 3:25:55.

Extrapolating Forward in Time

How long will it take the 50-year-old male to complete his half-marathon when he is 70, assuming he has not developed arthritis, high blood pressure, stuffed up both knees, or suffered a stroke over the intervening years?

. At age 70 he should still be capable of completing his half-marathon at 69.78 percent. 2. The half-marathon standard time for age 70 from the male table is 4,792 seconds. 3. (4,792 divided by 69.78) X 100 = 6,867 seconds. 4. 6,867 seconds = 1:54:27.

Yearly age standards are a good measure, but quarterly standards are an improvement. Daily standards are essential if performances are to be used for merit awards.

interpolating Age Standards

To create quarterly standards between the ages of 50 and 51 on the male table, follow this procedure:

1. The marathon standard at age 50 is 8,335.

2. The marathon standard at age 51 is 8,403.

3. Over this year period, the time increase is 8403 — 8335 = 68 seconds.

4. The quarterly increase is 68, which divided by 4 is 17 seconds per quarter.

The 50 and 51 standards can now have the quarterly increments inserted as below: RETRAIN EES OT ERE ENT PALS NE OI EMRE ED SL MS

Age Standard 50 8,335 50.25 8352 50 5 8,369 50.75 8,386 5 8,403

The entire WAVA table can be interpolated in this manner, which provides a total of 332 age divisions.

Let us now assume that a male aged 50 years, 10 months runs the marathon distance in 3:10:30. On the yearly scale, his performance would be 8,335 divided by 11,430 = .7292 or 72.92 percent. On the quarterly scale his performance would be 8,386 divided by 11,430 = .7341 or 73.41 percent. The above calculations show that the 0.49 percent performance increase is equivalent to 51 seconds, which is a significant amount. This illustrates clearly the stupidity of trying to measure one’s performance by times achieved under the 5-year age group system.

There are a number of excellent track and field software programs available, but the two I have examined are designed for multi-event meetings for scoring requirements needing only 5-yearly and yearly age increments. For road racing merit awards, a program interpolated to daily standards that prints out results correct to two decimal places is necessary. In 1995, I arranged for such a program to be developed. It would have sorted differently the four M70 Honolulu Marathon competitors, had merit awards been based on performance.

THE WAVA MALE AND FEMALE TABLES FOR LDR

The tables covering long-distance running (LDR) standards compiled for men and women are supplied at the end of this article courtesy of WAVA. I suggest that readers use these tables to practice manual calculations. They record times in seconds for each distance named by the headings at the top of each column. The age represented by each standard may be found by reference to the left-hand column. OC stands for “open class” standard for all prime ages at which individuals can set OC world records. The OC age varies with race distance.

For example, the male marathon OC age spans from 20 to 37 years. The male table records the OC standard for these ages as 7,610 seconds. When converted to hours, minutes, and seconds, this is 2:06:50, the current world record. Therefore, for a 20 to 37 year old to score 100 percent, he must achieve the same world-record time.

The female table OC marathon age spans ages 20 to 36 years. The OC standard time from the female table is 8,331 seconds and when converted is 2:18:51. This is considered to be the standard required for a woman to achieve near the ultimate in female performance and is approximately 10 percent slower than the men’s record. For the marathon, the female table has a 10 percent advantage built into all standard times. In this manner, female and male percentages are calculated to be equivalent. Races based on percent performance needn’t require separate male and female divisions; that is, a 70-percent | female performance is the equal of a 70-percent male performance. A

Note: Runners interested in the computer programs that have been developed by John Caughley and Bill Childs can purchase copies from John Caughley at 164 High Street South, Carterton, 5951 New Zealand. Phone/fax: 64 (06) 379-8325; e-mail: caughljo@classnet.wairarapa.ac.nz. Myperfisa program that calculates the performance of your training runs or races of any distance up to 100K. Alternately, one can request the running time needed to achieve a specific performance. Perform is a performance-measuring race management program suitable for clubs. The Perform program costs US$25, and the Myperf program is US$10.

panunuod

9¢EcC 10¢0 L8v8 9008 88S 6v8h = SSO0V ss PEBE cS0E Geese (Vcc GFS8L OLY V668 «GE 88c2~_ =: LZLOL=SovL v8 Ev6L LE8S list. €cO0b 08E 8c0e cl3c 6ccc 8 CYR 86Svl CcO8 8E 88222 ~=LVO0L ~= BES 1882 L6zs liv = (O6E ef/E PO0E beee. =tlee. €8e8 C8by [G88 fe 88¢cc_ |= ZOOL =CLEES = BGBL CSLS Seiy O96E ss VLE [soc 692€ vole Els SOEVl lets GF 88272 = Zv00 TEES |. 887 (GES) O€lp 8h6E OELEe £967 [S22 fANC = 66/) 8 Scy GllS SE 88ccc /VOOL «=JEE8. BG87 CSLG O&ZV.. 8VGE. OEE £960 [She Gate. 0 S6L Oely Gvos ve 88¢72 LyOOL EES gg8Z CSS O&/p Shoe = ELE = E9GC WGfc_ GLle -0S64 Ooly GeOS ce 88272 = Lv00 LEEs 8982 CSLS QO&Zp syee E/E £962 [Sec SZic. =OS621 = O6lY EEOR | Ce 88¢7z += Lv00 LEEs 8982 OSES Oe/V BVGE —sCOEZE £967 ISfc GLICO S62 OGlyl (£698. le 88czz_ = Lv00 [eB SSee CGLS Occy BV6E = OGLE €96¢ USic_ SiG. O.S6L Ooly LE98 0F 88222 = Lv00 l€€8 SSB cSLS O&4p 8y6E ELE £967 ISé2 GélC | =6OGG/L (GLY E98 90 9SSce_ 910 lvvs Lv6L VERBS 96fp 666 SZLE 9662 0842 Pele 8908 Os¢y 9798 61 80L7Z E€EZOL 9058 1008 £285 O€8v = L200 €08E 910E 86/2 8612 «=—OL18 Zcey, 6998 eal vO6c~ ~=EZEOL = 0658 [208 €€6S SL8V coOV. = LESE LOE (e3e Olce = =—9 08 6cyyl 9¢f8 LI CSLEC S8EvOl £698 1918 009 ceov. 60lb O88E LOE LS82 ObeZ =H 8B Vosyl c0ss Ol SQVEZ €8S0 ce8s.—vLZ8B.— G609~—- 00S SOV SEGE SIleé 688 O4cc S128 oely G068 = Gl “£S8EC 99/0 c006 8178 6029 9605 cvey SOQ) GOLE = =8e6e GEC 6 106 v96r 1606. Vl 8verc 96601 91726 8658 ESE9 clés LEEv e607 /€c& O00E Ssec 06E6 £S2S E66 El 196v2 = VBC £876 Sé38 VEG9 BSE 9stv SOcy. =ecce §=6GLOE =ICyc SCV E86. SE 29S LWv6. cl OELSZ 99 8186 LLL6 c9l9 cvSS 9098p 9bEer EVE O8LE O0SC L602 £609 9895 tL 00292 S0LZ cv2Ol §=?@Lv6 = SOL VEES) Solr. EGY. (Z5&. BOE 109C PeCle LOL lvool OL vEEl~ 6892 C8Z0L_ «VE66 = BIbL =H LOD Ev0S “GLY OGLE civVe AeiG LOCC O6PE cOSsOL 6 L@S6Z €PvEL B8LvLL O€SOl £684 0949 L9ES 9S0S C86E L89E 0062 SH9EZ less 6OlLL 8 A100L AOS UVN HOP DOE ASC YVINH AO? WOL AGL Ach OL 0008 0005 35V

(SESSA SE RR SSE RS I PE IO NN REG NSIS HEL EG, ABTS BRT A BARE TOES I

(SGNOD3S NI – ¥Q1) SGYVAGNVLS LN3AW ONINNNAY S.NSINIOAA WAYM

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE &@

Bill Childs

ZEI8C. Lc6cl =

March/April 1998

peanul}uo>

E8S/V ES9SV

86crr Oz0Er SL8lv SL90v S6S6E

SCL8E €68ZE 960LE CEEDE 86SSE

896VE O9EVE CLLEE SOCEE 9S9¢E

OLLZE 8691LE 6ECLE v6LOE LOEOE

02662 68562 LLC6Z 95882 LOS8Z

180¢¢ O9LLZ

SLSOZ 80661 SEE6L S628 v8c8l

E82 O8bZl VOLLL EvL9L 86€9

LOLOL 9185 orss ELGG 910s

88LV 99Sb cSEvL Evy LV6EL

8SLE O8SE 90rE LECE CLOEL

SLs EVOL

COLL €6S91 e119 1995 €€CS

6887 o9sv svcv vee SS9EL

LOVE B9LE 8E67 SLLZ o0sz

60€Z Vel Sv6l LZZL LO9L

ovr OOELL SSLLL vLOl 92801

O0vL 6999

ZSL9L 92951 CLS v6Lr1 68EvL

v90v esle SSVEL OLLE L687

c997ZL 9EvZL 8127 8002 v08l

vegol 6rr lt 0821 SILL SS60

1180 02901 €€SOL 66€0 69201

87821 vOECL

Ecoll S9SLL LOZ 60601 60901

L9EOL 9ELOL S166 v0L6 10S6

LCE6 0916 8668 cv88 1698

8558 6cv8 €0E8 1818 €908

9564 e982 ISc/ CoOy. SOS/

ZL90L S9LOL

6786 cSS6 cL76 8006 65/8

89€8 S818 6008 Cv8L

8692 6SSZ ScvL 9622 LLLL

1902 €S69 0589 6719 1g99

7999 9Lv9 C6E9 LLEQ LEz9

89LL OSL LEEL

6912 8002 vS89 LOL9 9959

Svv9 82E9 9179 LOL9 €009

OL6S 028s EELS 89S 9955

cvs 0¢vs 6VES 18¢s vies

0zr8 0908

8082 LESE 8rEL BELL

0829 87299 7879 EVE 6029

S609 S86S 8248S 9ZLS 9195

6855 voss Leys LES £965

€61S SclS 8S0S £667 O€6r

S09 8179

LEC 87209 0s8s €89S SéSs

86ES LLOS 191s 0S0S ever

cS8V v9lv 0897

6rbrr L8Ev SLEV cS¢v O6Ly

vELV 620v 9¢0r SLOE SC6E

SECO £96S

0825 S09S 6S €8¢S QELS

8L0S SO6r L6Lv v69v S6Sv

OLst 8¢br Oser Eley 00¢v

SEL cLOv LLOv 1S6E V68E

CBE L6zE cvLe V69E LV9E

€S6r ovr

O6sv osvy 8Lev v6ly LLOv

E86€ €68€ LOBE veLE 9V9E

8ZSE ELSES Osre O6EE LEEe

08E 6¢2E IBLE VELE 880€

9V0E 900€ L962 6262 C687

9EOLY L’926E

0°c08€ S°S89€ O’9LSE 8 CLE EGLEE

VL62E Ve CCCE OISLE L780€ ELLOE

E1962 €’L06Z CSS87 0°S08Z V9Sle

GEL 6 1297 OLE9C Vc6S7 VVvSse

Voesz 89877 EVSve O COVE LL6EZ

68S72E ELILE

V’8L0E S°S@67 C8E8C 09527 V’8L97

L919 9 955¢ L662 vsvbz EE6ET

L8VET LS0EZ EV9CT €Ve77 8’S8LZ

OQ 1SLZ SBLLZ S’9807 €°SS07 b’sz0z

6° L661 ELL S’Sv6L €0261L 8°9681

C166 0016

0678 6 16L C8EL 9189 8°6€9

S109 6 V9S1 OOESL 9967 979V

GLEV. SOLvL V’S8E 6 09€ CLEE

GOL 6’S67 cyera CLS 9’8ECL

6127 9°S0Z 8681 vrLl €6S1

v8 €8

6L 8Z LL Se SZ

vl eZ cL LZ OZ

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE a

Bill Childs

Essie c886 =c618 SEAL COS 96SV Ice 909E §G8¢. SP94 GLO OGSI7l GeGkl Gece tL cece = PROOL =coke = =Gb8L OCG c897 L68E 149 062 (692 Slic G/L FL/EL CBE8 El 9G3¢c 8c60l 9068 8802 <68S 98/7 9/65 Sve G96C GWEC OIC. keer 6G LOVL. «=VESR Ol VOSEC = veo0l vies e268 ¢€l09 Viév O80V bree WOE. 618¢ Sicc [ecel 8ftrl L088 It Locve SS860t 911G 8098 60c9 CLOGS (6000 Q46E. SElE 906c ERtc = eet | =6Geeyl | 6606) =6«(OL LLGSé Nevill 686 9968 pSV9 39¢S G60Ey Help. €Sc€ Si0E 89G¢ L£VS6l OVSlL 8rVo 6

vos9c L861 SS66 00v6 Holo SIGS = ef [lep. cOve ecle Life LevOe CGS G686 8

MOOL HOS YUVA HOV AOE ASC YVINH MOC = IWOL Ach ACL OL 0008 0005 J5V

(SGNOD3S NI – Yd) SGYVGNVLS LNSAQ ONINNNAY S.N3SIN. WAWAA

Ely46 §799V GVIGE 990/E 1P9Le CcL62C EGEGL B8EEBl Zegyl = ce9el 16801 £5906 86EcL POLVY 00! VEeVSs 7/650 Lc0ve polce GyGEC 9/86! ECxOL ONES! cEeOcl SOcI| GREG ECOSL 04209 GEESE 66 6409L GEGSE OB00E SSrsc “cllc SIS/l ecevl IvGEl lilt Spool vce 08789

March/April 1998

| | |

panuljuo>

L9L12 =v966 bic8 VOSL 91S cOLV. = «VCE 8026, 8V6c 9E/c . POlC L887 SLL 8798 «6 ZO9LZ = L886 4078 vd CL9S 9997 = VOBE 089€ SC6C SILC (Vie SLE 9’v07 L358. 2 SY 6EvIZ 7186 Svlg S894 6¢9S O€9v = VBE (SOE S06€ 769C {E12 LOOL BEE C158 LV SLCLC BELG £808 9COL 9855 S6SV.. SESE = 7c9e O88¢. VA9C Vile ELL CEBE isrs OV Oclic S996 cc08 6952 vss 19Sb.- 908E LOSE 658¢. = 7S9C 860G = OEL SCE LSES – SY.

8960¢ 656 964 ISL ¥0SS ECSV | BELE OZSE 882 =yEot €80c = ELCL LOE Gee VV “180¢ 7c56 =906/ = ==6SYc = oS very = = OS/E VhSe L182 SI9c. 8906 L804 LGGE G9C8. ev. 69902 9576 6r8L SOvL = vers COV che 6156 L6L7Z 965¢ . £502 = © 969 GEL SO0cek cy: ECSO0Z = 88E6 €6dL EGe7. 98ES Ogry L69E E6VE =: 9L7e ELGG 880C 1.789 Gees 9’V18 lv SLE0E CEG 8EZL OOEL LVES 867 OL9E 89E LSL7 655C vc0c 1219 LCE 8808 =Or

O9E0e 99¢6. 7897 GVcL OES LOEV SPIE = WHE LELC lyse 6004. £099 SUE L608. 6& O9€0Z c6l6 LEgZ 66LZ ELCS LEev 619E O¢vVE 812 £¢9¢ S66] 879 €S0E OGL. 9& | O9E0¢ 0616 O19L LIL LECS LOEY = S6SE 26EE =669C = (90S = 2861 —s LED £967 bic6L LE | O9€0Z 0616 OL9Z vLLL SECS 96cV 6LSE O8€e 189¢ 68bc 3961 1979 VL87 OO8E 9E O9E0Z 0616 OL9Z vLiL SECS 96cr . GLSE O8€E O894 O8yc oO! =PelLo 6822 SL GE

O9E0Z 0616 OISE Vite SECS 96¢y 6/S5E O8€e O89¢.. O8Vc. c96l =el9 6822 VSEL VE O9€0Z 0616 OL9Z vLLL SECS 96¢V. GAGE O8€e 089 «698hc «692961 = B19 6822 VOLE €& O9E0Z 0616 OI9L. LIL SECS 96¢v = 6 LSE O8—e 0892 98rc 29Gl V8l9 687 ViBlE Ce O9E0Z 0616 OL9Z, VELL SECG 96chp 645E O8EE O89¢. O8yc =C9GL =U BLO 6822 VBL Le O9E0Z 0616 OL9E = VALE SECS 96¢h = G LSE O8EE O89 98hc C9Bl BIO 687 VSEe OF

O9E0Z 0616 OL9Z VLIL SECS 96¢v_ GSE OSE 0802 O8he. =C96l = 819 6822 V8LL 30

€6S02 S876 l69Z COCL — {66¢5 [Sev VIE COVE TLEe SiGe “2/60. Cleo US8cl. Vsti ol 19L0Z = E9E6 “SEL cel 6EES C8Ev = BIE GWVE OCLC leGc O66) 9179 6 €62 G28e- Sk 99602 646 ZE8/_00VL 68€S Oc. O89& FAVE 1SZz HSSZ_ | 900G . 2 Vso S’VOE OC6L Al GIClé VLGG.. Veol l6rZ 6S Sor. =6LIZE =—GOSE. = BHIZSss«ESZ = SOC =O OLE 8864 Ol 8lSlZ vLL6 1S08 cool ECGS SCoy. VOLE ES55 C187 LO09C -6V0C §=—0:169 SESE S608 SL

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE 51

Bill Childs

S98ZZ 60527 COLL E7897 £6797

96192 S06SZ 179sz EvEST LZOSZ

CC8VC 82Sb2 6EEVC vOLv VLBET

LO9ET LSE SUEZ CVOET EV8C~

SGC LLveZ 68222 LLL? SE6LZ

Z6L2L Legcl 69rzl LLEZL 8SLZL

61021 v8sll cSLth ECOL 96r11

I8ELL LOCLL OSLLL ZvOLL O60!

Lvg0L vrLol 87901 vssol cav0l

SLEOL 0620 90201 Ecol cvool

cc90L v8v0l OSEOL 6L2OL Le00L

L166 v986 SS/6 L796 cVS6

9v6 cSE6 09726 0416 1806

6668 8168 6€88 1928 v898

7198 lvs8 Lvs €0v8 SEES

ScOOlL S686 89/6 vv96 €7S6

SLV6 60€6 S0@6 vOL6 S006

vl68 S788 8€Z8 £598 6958

L678 Slv8 Ores L978 v6l8

9218 6508 £662 8c6L S982

OvEL boc BSL L90L 8169

6689 1¢89 Svl9 0299 4659

LESS 8909 cova 6€€9 8209

1eco S919 OLL9 9509 £009

€S6S v06S SS8S 808S LOLS

Sv0s 6L6v Sl6v €S8V coLy

LELv €897 Lear 08sv OEsy

very 6Ery S6EV cSEV Oley

LLev cECy S6LV LS\V LCLy

2800 €S0v Ocor L86E SS6E

69lV 90LV 979V L8Sv 6¢St

LLvy Levy LLEV 6cev L8¢v

82h 961LV vSly ELLY €LOv

9E€0v o00r V96E 6¢6E V68E

C98E O€8e 66LE B9LE tele

€6LE vee S69E 8V9E cO9E

LOSE O@SE L8ve Creve vOvE

OEE GEESE. E0EE Léce 6EZE

60¢E O8LE Cale veLe 960€

OLOE SVOE OZOE S662 LL6Z

CGE OLE leve LB8EE SEE

90EE 692E CECE 96LE LOLE

6ZLE L60€ L90€ 9E0E ZO0E

6262 C567 9262 0062 VL8~

0582 L787 £082 0822 89/2

S8LZ 8rL~ ELLE 8297 vVy9z

VI9T v8S~ SSSZ LSE 6672

vLbe 6rre Seve Love LLET

9SET VEET ELEC £622 ELEC

VSCE SECC EGE 6612 18Lz

9°COET & CLEC 8 cv7z LVLez L98Lé

OLOL VIEL? ECL 8°8802 8°S907

6 vv0~ 6207 100d V’v86l 0’S961

OLv6L v’6c6l VcLel LS68L E8281

97981 VLvsl 6OLESL 6918L C081

VCC8 S862 GSLL CSL E0EL

VOIL O’169 6129 v’ES9 SED

9819 €°c09 v’98S LOLS v’SSS

CLS &L6S QELS 1005 6987

vvly CCV c0sv €8erl LOD

000S 39V

OCLLL £8601 Lysol COOL £9501

9’vv0L LCEOL VLcol 8°6001 L866

9°886 £86 6896 v’6S6 1056

v’Lv6 6°CE6 S’Vé6 €916 €°806

£006 7 E68 6°S88 £828 9128

vl €Z CL LZ OL

v9 Eo c Eo

6S 8S LG 9S SS

vs eS CS 1s 0s

“March/April 1998