just ranting
3000 to 2 mile conversion 1/28/2008 7:29AM Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
My friends keep converting their 3000m times to 2mile times incorrectly. They either add 35 seconds or just add another 200m at the same pace they held for 3000m. I'm happy that they're running well and so I didn't tell them they should add more like 40-45 seconds. It's not a big deal, but it's just been a little irritating to me that they think they're running sometimes 10 seconds faster than they really are, especially when they're bragging to me about it. Can anyone relate?

http://www-verio.iaaf.org/newsfiles/22153.pdf

http://www-verio.iaaf.org/downloads/scoringTables/index.html
mid western runner
RE: 3000 to 2 mile conversion 1/28/2008 7:47AM - in reply to just ranting Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
No. You are ticked that they are faster than you and leave you behind in workouts and in races. They inaccurately convert their 3000m times to a 2 mile and now it makes it seem like YOU are even slower. Sucks to be you. Stop being such a whiny little baby, train harder, get faster, and BEAT THEM so you won't have to worry about it.
just ranting
RE: 3000 to 2 mile conversion 1/28/2008 8:02AM - in reply to mid western runner Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Ha! I haven't even run a 3000m this season, and they don't "beat" me in workouts because we go to different schools.
mid western runner
RE: 3000 to 2 mile conversion 1/28/2008 8:10AM - in reply to just ranting Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

just ranting wrote:

Ha! I haven't even run a 3000m this season, and they don't "beat" me in workouts because we go to different schools.


A little more clarification. Thanks. those grapes must be especially sour since you are getting thrashed by "friends" at a rival school.
jz shore
RE: 3000 to 2 mile conversion 1/28/2008 9:07AM - in reply to just ranting Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
would anyone care to explain why this is? I see the IAAF chart of conversions, but adding 45 seconds from a 3k to a 2 mile doensn't make any logical sense to me.

It seems ridiculous to say you couldn't hold the same pace, or maybe say 2 seconds slower, for an extra 200 meters. If you're running 70 second pace, and fade in the last 200 to 72 second pace, it would seem to me like you'd add about 40 seconds (the two extra plus three more seconds to reach two miles)

this assumes a plausible scenario, that someone fades (in my opinion harder than you normally would having to run an extra 200)...where could 5 more seconds possibly come from?

and at faster paces (say 9:00 3200 pace, which is 67.5) the amount you add is even less, in the neighborhood of 37

the IAAF tables are pointing more toward 42-44 seconds....I can't see why. what am I missing?
Two miler
RE: 3000 to 2 mile conversion 1/28/2008 10:43AM - in reply to jz shore Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Conversion is 37-38 for elite males, or 38-39 for elite females
darkness
RE: 3000 to 2 mile conversion 1/28/2008 12:03PM - in reply to Two miler Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
To go 3000m to 2 miles -> divide 3k time by .926

To go 2 miles to 3000m -> multiply 2mi time by .926

To get your 2 mi equivalent from a 3200m time ->
divide 3200 time by .9941
Multiply by .9941 to get a 3200 time from a 2 mile time.

These work well and are accepted by statisticians as legitimate ways to convert/compare times in the 1500/1600/Mile and 3000/3200/2 mile.

Note that this conversion factor equates a 3:26.00 1500m with a 3:42.46 Mile.

Also note that an 8:30 3k (typical college level) converts to a 9:10.76 2-mile and a 9:07.51 3200m.
wineturtle
RE: 3000 to 2 mile conversion 1/28/2008 12:28PM - in reply to Two miler Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Two miler wrote:

Conversion is 37-38 for elite males, or 38-39 for elite females

I'm happy with this.
I say let the Two miler suggested numbers be the Official Let's Run Conversion.