There was truth in this article,just not the whole truth.It is important to listen to your body and not worsen a injury,but in contrast to this article are all the new info that elderly people benefit more from interval training and weight lifting than long slow aerobics.Don't tell David Radcliff,Graham Johnson,Bumpy Jones,etc. not to compete.not to mention that 90 year old backstroker from Japan who is still really fast.
If you take health issues off the table, that article is bull****. I'm only 42, but certainly expect to be competing when I'm over 50. I'm not naive enough to think I'll be faster than my 42-year-old self, in the same way I'm nowhere near my 22-year-old self. But, I'll sure be racing the guy next to me, regardless of his age and doing my best to slow down how fast I slow down.
The article was probably written by one of those ninnies who believe that little kids should be given "participation awards" and not place-based awards. Life is called survival of the fittest for a reason.:bitching:
That would be tough, to have to keep your HR below 120. I know an older athlete -- he was an incredible triathlete -- who is in a similar situation. He had to give up the sport b/c the threat of passing out while swimming (if his HR got too high) was too likely. He still runs though.
I'm a little torn by the article, in the absence of some malady. Part of me is of the "age is just a number" or "age is no excuse" mentality. On the other hand, certainly I won't be as fast in (say) 30 years as now. Age takes a toll, and there is something to be said for making your peace with that and setting/adjusting your goals to be realistic.
I can definitely see how being too obsessive about beating my younger self (or other youngsters) could lead to injuries...or estrangement from my wife. :)
Awards for participation have a very important role in encouraging, um, partcipation. It make kids happy, no one is hurt by it, and winners always get something extra. Winning is nice but not the Holy Grail.
Perhaps you have been watching too much "Survivorman" or "Man vs. Wild."
Never seen them ... but watching a lot of people getting crushed in the real world by real competition in practically all facets of their lives -- most notably their professional lives these days with increasing global competition. In my business, winning pretty much is the only thing not just "nice" -- if we don't win the next customer engagement and the next one and the next one, people lose jobs, livelihoods, etc.
The sooner we teach our kids that they're competing in all aspects of their lives, the better off they'll be.
This article seems to encourage "giving up" at a comparatively youthful 50. I just don't subscribe to rolling over so young.
Agree with this:
"Older, Wiser, Slower After 50, Avid Athletes Find That to Stay Healthy,
They Must Let Go of the Need to Win"
However, you need to add in at the end of that sentence,
provided you have an aortic aneurysm or other life threatening malady."
The author of this article realized that if he did not change his way of thinking due to his health condition he could die. And for those of us are are given the green light health-wise? Just roll over and go quietly?
I am 60 and I will never be as fast as I was at 30,but that is irrelevant.I just want to be faster than last year when possible and get slower more slowly than my rivals/friends.The rule of thumb used to be athletic performance diminished 1%/yr after age 30.Masters swimmers have thrown that on it's ear.By that formula my 100M BR should have been over 1:36(1:14 at 30)instead at Nats I went a 1:16.83.Granted there have been rule changes in BR and I was in a LZR,but I was Faster than 1:36 the second 100 of my 200(1:30.24.) I'm not saying this for self aggrandizement,there are lots of post 50 Masters with more impressive swims for age than that.I'm just saying that swimming to compete "keeps me young".I can be sure that ,for myself anyway,if I was swimming only for fitness my 100M BR time would be closer to 1:36 than to 1:16 and my fitness would by proportional.I said on another thread that when I want to slack off I think"Bob Strand" to motivate myself.Without competition to motivate me I suspect I'd swim 1500 yd 3-4 X/wk at a leisurely pace,if I didn't have something better to do.
I am 60 and I will never be as fast as I was at 30,but that is irrelevant.I just want to be faster than last year when possible and get slower more slowly than my rivals/friends.The rule of thumb used to be athletic performance diminished 1%/yr after age 30.Masters swimmers have thrown that on it's ear.
That is funny because I am swimming much faster now than I was in my middle 20s when I first competing in USMS back in '04. In fact, I am swimming on par to my first year of college. Also, I am swimming much much much faster than last year. Of course, I contribute that to stepping up my training, dropping about 70 lbs from 18 months ago, consistency with my dryland, and just motivation to get in shape. There are alot of late 20 to 30 something swimmers who competed at the WCT and US Open who are erasing that rule of thumb. It is truly inspiring to hear about a 31 year old beating Jessica Hardy at the US Open. Or, that 28 200 breaststroker who just made her first World Champ team.
one of those ninnies who believe that little kids should be given "participation awards"
I am one of those ninines. Awards for participation have a very important role in encouraging, um, partcipation. It make kids happy, no one is hurt by it, and winners always get something extra. Winning is nice but not the Holy Grail.
Life is called survival of the fittest for a reason
Perhaps you have been watching too much "Survivorman" or "Man vs. Wild."
Ande -
Thanks for the post. Interesting read. Found it amusing that all the swimmers quoted mentioned still "competing" whether it be in their heads, or just being able to do something noone else can.
