View Single Post
Old 05-28-20, 04:11 AM
  #10  
Tony P.
Full Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked 281 Times in 162 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
No, no. He meant you reach your peak, whatever that is. Maybe that's a 10 minute mile. It matters in a way where you start. If you start at your peak, it's downhill from there. But for those untrained or only moderately trained, that 6-8 year span seems about right. There's another caveat: one also goes downhill with age. Obviously pros age out in their mid 30s no matter how they train. We see really good riders in the Under 23 group, and they've been training since they were kids. I started training in my early 50s and peaked at about 60, held it OK until about 63 and then it's been downhill ever since even though I've continued to train. My guess is that happens to pretty much everyone, no matter their age. Hence age groupers.

So your example is incorrect except for a tiny subset combining age and talent. If you can run a mile in 4:10 and you're over say 25, that's it. A person who runs a mile in 6:00 has a decent change of hitting 5:00, depending on age and training state and also of course, talent.
I agree with what you're saying and most of everyone else, as well. But there is so much variability I don't believe it's analytically correct to predict. Sorry, but I don't believe you can say you would have peaked at about 50 if you started in your early 40s, or about 40 if you started in your early 30s, or about 30 if you started in your early 20s, or about 20 if you started in your early teens.
Tony P. is offline