Help me figure out WEIGHT-GRADED Marathon Equivalencies. Don't post a complaint without a solution!

thejeff wrote:

Someone posted an interesting idea: if you add a pound for every minute of a marathon, you would end up with equivalent marathon performances. Therefore a 2:30 marathon (150 minutes) by a 150lb runner would be the same as a 3:30 marathon (210 minutes) by a 210lb runner. We all agree that the 2:30 marathon here is significantly harder.

However, with the right metrics, I think this is an interesting idea. Here is my metric:

First 2:05 hours = 100lbs. Then, add 90 seconds per pound. Therefore:

2:05 at 100lbs

2:35 at 145lbs

3:05 at 190lbs

3:35 at 235lbs

4:05 at 280lbs

...are all roughly equally difficult. (I really hope my math is right, lol)

Thoughts? Do you have a better idea? I am assuming an optimal age for these runners, obviously, and this metric is independent from age.

Why should this exist? These efforts aren't comparable just because some turd had a hard time humpin' out a 'thon.

Fair question. Why do age groups exist?

thejeff wrote:

doot doot wrote:

Why should this exist? These efforts aren't comparable just because some turd had a hard time humpin' out a 'thon.

Fair question. Why do age groups exist?

Maybe based on the assumption that aging is an inevitable process in healthy athletes but obesity isn't?

doot doot wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Fair question. Why do age groups exist?

Maybe based on the assumption that aging is an inevitable process in healthy athletes but obesity isn't?

Why are you equating higher weights with obesity? Some people have more bone mass than others. Some have more muscle mass.

You need age, gender AND weight from all racers. Actual racing history and typical running mileage would be helpful, but not necessary. Then read the book below, that will set you on the correct path. I find it an interesting subject, but without real data, you are wasting your time trying to curve fit vague ideas, not hard facts.

https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Handbook-Fitting-Sandra-Arlinghaus/dp/0849301432/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1/146-4771183-5390202?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=D8F6WBHPMZCDXWVJ36WC

thejeff wrote:

doot doot wrote:

Maybe based on the assumption that aging is an inevitable process in healthy athletes but obesity isn't?

Why are you equating higher weights with obesity? Some people have more bone mass than others. Some have more muscle mass.

Because he thinks fast running is a genetically acquired gift. It's a lot of people's way of thinking that you have to be born with the ideal body type to be great, it's their way of self selecting out of the sport while also giving an excuse for doing so.

thejeff wrote:

doot doot wrote:

Maybe based on the assumption that aging is an inevitable process in healthy athletes but obesity isn't?

Why are you equating higher weights with obesity? Some people have more bone mass than others. Some have more muscle mass.

This is true but I just don't think weight should be a basis for comparison to faster performances. Sort of apples and oranges IMO. All the relevant information is captured by the time itseld. Anyway, carry on.

It would make more sense to me if you used bmi instead of weight. Then make a full chart with bmi along the x axis and time along the y axis. Set it up so that a diagonal line is the equivalency

French Dawg wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Why are you equating higher weights with obesity? Some people have more bone mass than others. Some have more muscle mass.

Because he thinks fast running is a genetically acquired gift. It's a lot of people's way of thinking that you have to be born with the ideal body type to be great, it's their way of self selecting out of the sport while also giving an excuse for doing so.

Look at Dr. Freud. How come nobody loves me?

I was too small to play safety in the NFL so I had to play to my "strengths." Now I sit in mom's basement taking out my frustration on Strava fatties between runs just to get through the day. 😢

I already know this is a double digit IQ idea because everyone with even basic cognitive skill could determine that ideal weight grading would be based on some sort of skewed bell curve and not this weird linear regression line you are dreaming up.

It would also obviously involve a height-weight ratio as ideal weights differ for tall and short runners.

An easier and more accurate metric would be shoulder circumference since fat doesn't gather as substantially there, but it does have a good correlation with the body structure and weight of healthy people. But we would need data to start working with it.

If you wanted a more entertaining and all encompassing fitness metric then I would use our local 5k fall race called the Pimp-KIN run. It is a 5k where you can remove 30 seconds from your time for each repetition of a bench press at a certain percentage of your body weight (based on gender).

You need to factor in height. So BMI is best. With all the data out there I'm surprised nobody has created this yet

It's all relative to height and BMI. Basically factor how many pounds OVERweight someone is and grade from there. Add in optimal height vs. over (or under) optimal height someone is and use that as another variable.

BMI would be a better measure, but it's not a straight line. Check out this study and the chart showing optimal BMI for various distances.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090183

First you say 60 seconds per pound, then you say 90 seconds per pound. Next, you will realize if it was 120 seconds per pound, fatties like you would be world class, so you'll say that.

Sara Palin wrote:

First you say 60 seconds per pound, then you say 90 seconds per pound. Next, you will realize if it was 120 seconds per pound, fatties like you would be world class, so you'll say that.

1. I didn't say :60/pound. Someone else did.

2. If you did a little simple math, you would see that the real difference between the two was the 2:05 for the first 100lbs.

3. I'm not fat; I'm big boned.

4. Enjoy your day at school today. Good luck on your cursive writing test.

thejeff wrote:

Sara Palin wrote:

First you say 60 seconds per pound, then you say 90 seconds per pound. Next, you will realize if it was 120 seconds per pound, fatties like you would be world class, so you'll say that.

1. I didn't say :60/pound. Someone else did.

2. If you did a little simple math, you would see that the real difference between the two was the 2:05 for the first 100lbs.

3. I'm not fat; I'm big boned.

4. Enjoy your day at school today. Good luck on your cursive writing test.

i used to think i was big boned.

then i stopped eating like a pig and running more and realized i was just fat.

there is no such thing as big boned.

yep.................. wrote:

thejeff wrote:

1. I didn't say :60/pound. Someone else did.

2. If you did a little simple math, you would see that the real difference between the two was the 2:05 for the first 100lbs.

3. I'm not fat; I'm big boned.

4. Enjoy your day at school today. Good luck on your cursive writing test.

i used to think i was big boned.

then i stopped eating like a pig and running more and realized i was just fat.

there is no such thing as big boned.

You believe that everyone has bones of the same size and density, then?

thejeff wrote:

Someone posted an interesting idea: if you add a pound for every minute of a marathon, you would end up with equivalent marathon performances. Therefore a 2:30 marathon (150 minutes) by a 150lb runner would be the same as a 3:30 marathon (210 minutes) by a 210lb runner. We all agree that the 2:30 marathon here is significantly harder.

However, with the right metrics, I think this is an interesting idea. Here is my metric:

First 2:05 hours = 100lbs. Then, add 90 seconds per pound. Therefore:

2:05 at 100lbs

2:35 at 145lbs

3:05 at 190lbs

3:35 at 235lbs

4:05 at 280lbs

...are all roughly equally difficult. (I really hope my math is right, lol)

Thoughts? Do you have a better idea? I am assuming an optimal age for these runners, obviously, and this metric is independent from age.

come on, jeff, give me some credit.

Make America Fat Again wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Someone posted an interesting idea: if you add a pound for every minute of a marathon, you would end up with equivalent marathon performances. Therefore a 2:30 marathon (150 minutes) by a 150lb runner would be the same as a 3:30 marathon (210 minutes) by a 210lb runner. We all agree that the 2:30 marathon here is significantly harder.

However, with the right metrics, I think this is an interesting idea. Here is my metric:

First 2:05 hours = 100lbs. Then, add 90 seconds per pound. Therefore:

2:05 at 100lbs

2:35 at 145lbs

3:05 at 190lbs

3:35 at 235lbs

4:05 at 280lbs

...are all roughly equally difficult. (I really hope my math is right, lol)

Thoughts? Do you have a better idea? I am assuming an optimal age for these runners, obviously, and this metric is independent from age.

come on, jeff, give me some credit.

I didn't want to embarrass you by saying that you think a 60 pound man should be able to finish a marathon in 60 minutes :-)