Altitude conversions aren’t real

It may not be exact, particularly for athletes living at altitude, but I've been on these boards long enough to remember an identical thread in 2015 after a then-unknown Sorratos ran 4:05 at altitude with the conversion of 3:55 seeming laughable. He went on to run 3:55 that year ago sea level.

If it were up to me I would set conversion at about .9/1000ft as the high end starting at say 3000ft? So 7000ft would be 6.3s. I could see .85-.89 though. For me personally while was in college the altitude got to me more in the 800 than the mile (percentage wise) yet there was no conversion for it.

LR does not understand altitude. Some get it, a lot never will.

At the 2022 coaches convention it was proposed to get rid of altitude conversions and flat track conversions. After the conversation I thought the proposal would definitely pass. But it wasn’t even close. About 80% voted against it. I found it interesting given that only 5% of track programs are at altitude, and most programs compete the majority of their meets on banked or oversized tracks. But a couple coaches made points that I think convinced everyone else. With differing budgets and schools being confined to geographic locations, taking away conversions takes away opportunities. And this doesn’t just impact the national qualifying list, it impacts the conference seeding, ncaa outdoor prelims qualifying, etc.

I agree that there isn’t a perfect conversion. And having the top 5 current mile seeds be altitude run times seems suspect. But when I look at number 6 and 7 (Carson Williams and Elliott Cook), I don’t think they could run 3:59 at New Mexico or Provo, or 3:57, 4:01, or 4:03 in Flagstaff. So that’s enough for me to think that even if it’s not perfect it’s close enough.

Could not find this unknown Sorratos, therefore he does not exist

Why do you think BYU used to only run in Provo on last chance weekend with their own rabbits- rather than go to sea level with real west coast last chance meets with other talented runners not in a conference champs? Duh .

The conversions work for sea level athletes traveling to altitude. Generally, athletes from altitude can't hit the conversions at sea level. There are always exceptions, but I agree Nico won't go sub-3:50 at sea level.

But I'd be happy to be wrong.

Go to 7000 feet and run 3:57. Then come back and tell us about it.

If we’re going to have altitude conversions why don’t we have humidity, heat, or dew point conversions for states in the south during outdoor? Seriously. It’s the exact same concept.

because byu wasn't in a conference. while everyone else was having conference meets their only option for a meet was a home meet. had nothing to do with altitude. of all the altitude schools byu probably races at sea level the most. travel and budget isn't an issue for them.

Acute response to altitude varies widely for those not adapted to it.

I was born and raised at sea-level and would always get rekt when going to Mammoth to ski. In my 20s when I started racing bikes i figured I'd always be horrible at altitude, but once I moved to altitude (6250') and adapted I was actually a massive responder to it and excelled in those conditions.

Anyway, I wonder what Kwemoi's 3:30 in Nairobi back in 2017 converts to. Per NCAA would that be a WR?

Because the O2 is missing every day at altitude but you (presumably) have nice days and bad days where you race. Seriously. It’s not the sane concept.

No, you missed the point. The point is that conversions aren't perfect and may not be completely accurate down to the exact second for every individual in every case, but still hold true generally. Read no further than babaganosh's point about Sorratos.

There were discussions about this during the 2023 coaches convention. They're about as likely to scrap all conversions as they are to add heat/humidity conversions, which is to say highly unlikely for either.

However, as someone who has ran in both the southeast and high in the Rockies, I do affirm that for distance runners a heat conversion would be reasonable.

That’s why it would be based on the dew point at the time of the race because (presumably) if the weather is warm the day of the race then it doesn’t matter what the temperature was any other day. Maybe it’s not the exact same but it does have a similar effect on performance.

I agree I think the conversion is a stretch, I'm sure he would've run faster at sea level but no way Nico is running 3:48 yet. I think it would make more sense to just run your event with the conditions you have and your time is your time. Conversions can vary depending on an athletes running economy so there's no way to really tell exactly what the conversion is. If they won't count conversions for records then I don't think they should count them for rankings or PR's either, cause that shows that even the NCAA still doesn't have full trust in them.

As a college runner I would absolutely concur here. I spent a month at 7000 ft and fully expected to be "drowning in oxygen" as they say when I returned home. Nope. 105 real feel is unquestionably more difficult, and most importantly it's almost impossible to "adapt" to. I grew up here and July runs never get any easier.

I ran High School in the early 1970's at 5000 elevation. I never thought much about it then but I did perform better when our team traveled to much lower elevations. Go figure...