Has Training Got Easier as I’ve Got Older?

Has Training Got Easier as I’ve Got Older? From the outside, it probably has.

I do less total work than I once did. I often take longer recoveries between hard efforts, I am more selective about the exercises I use, and I am much less interested in finishing a session simply to prove that I can. There are fewer days where the aim is to accumulate as much work as possible, and fewer occasions where I will push through pain or fatigue just because a program says I should.

I do not think that means my training has become easy. I think it has become more effective.

Neither easier nor harder automatically means better

Easier and harder are often in the eye of the beholder. Someone watching may see fewer repetitions, longer rests and a shorter session and assume the training has been softened. What they may not see is the speed of each repetition, the load being lifted, the intent behind the effort or how the session fits with everything else I have done that week. Neither easier nor harder automatically means better.

One of the problems many Masters athletes encounter is training that has simply been reduced because of their age. A coach might prescribe an open athlete five sets of ten reps, then tell the older athlete to complete three sets because they are getting older. Three sets may be entirely appropriate, but the number itself is not the issue. The problem is the reasoning behind it.

Masters programming should not be open-age programming with a few sets removed. The load, volume, exercise selection, recovery and progression should reflect what the individual athlete needs and can adapt to. That may mean fewer sets, although it could just as easily mean the same volume with longer recovery, a different exercise, a different load or a better arrangement across the week. Age matters, but age alone does not provide the answer.

As I have got older, the margin for getting those decisions wrong has become smaller. When I was younger, I could often tolerate more training than I genuinely needed. I could add repetitions, include another exercise or place hard sessions closer together without always paying an immediate price. Some of that work may have helped, but some of it probably did little more than add fatigue. My body was simply more forgiving.

Those mistakes tend to reveal themselves more quickly now. Too much speed work reduces the quality of the later repetitions and can affect the next session. Unnecessary gym volume may leave me sore for several days. A small pain that is repeatedly ignored can begin to change the way I move and eventually interrupt training altogether.

This has changed the way I judge a session. I am less concerned with how tired I feel at the end and more interested in whether I achieved its purpose. A sprint session should give me exposure to genuine speed. A strength session should improve force production without compromising my running. Conditioning should prepare me for the demands of competition rather than simply demonstrate how much discomfort I can tolerate.

That approach can look easier because much of the work surrounding the important efforts has been removed. I may run fewer repetitions, but the ones I complete need to be fast. I may perform fewer exercises in the gym, but each one should have a clear reason for being there. Longer recovery between efforts allows me to produce the speed, force or power the session is designed to develop.

Some individual efforts are every bit as demanding as they were when I was younger. What has changed is my willingness to add work after the useful part of the session has already been completed. A good sprint session does not become better simply because I add more runs, just as a productive strength session does not automatically improve when I add several more exercises.

Each part of the program has to justify its cost

Each part of the program has to justify its cost. An exercise may be useful in isolation, but if it creates several days of soreness and contributes little to my performance, it may not deserve a place in my training. A session may look impressive on paper, but if it reduces the quality of the next two sessions, the overall week has probably suffered.

The same applies to training priorities. Speed, strength, power, conditioning and work capacity may all matter, but they do not always need equal attention. Trying to push everything forward at once spreads both training time and recovery capacity too widely. At different stages of the year, some qualities need to improve while others only need to be maintained.

Staying healthy is part of this process, although avoiding injury cannot become the sole purpose of training. If I remove every demanding element, I also remove much of the stimulus required to maintain performance. The challenge is to recognise the difference between normal training discomfort and a problem that is worsening, altering movement or failing to settle. Making an adjustment at that point is usually more productive than proving I can complete one more session.

I still want to improve, so the training still needs to challenge me. What I have less room for is work that is unnecessary, badly timed or included without a clear purpose.

Has my training become easier as I have got older? Perhaps it looks that way. There is less wasted work, more recovery and more consideration of how one session affects the next. The important efforts remain demanding, but the total cost is managed more carefully.

Easier and harder are poor measures of training quality or effectiveness. The real aim is to give my body enough reason to adapt while allowing me to stay healthy, train consistently and keep progressing.

Find more BLOG POSTS

Explore COACHING OPTIONS