Have you tried the Mercier Score Calculator...?
16:06 5k for a female is "Equivalent" to a 13:52 5k for a male.
Have you tried the Mercier Score Calculator...?
16:06 5k for a female is "Equivalent" to a 13:52 5k for a male.
mathias wrote:
If you are going by ability you can subtract about 10-11% of your time which gives you a fairly accurate conversion. So its worth somewhere between a 14:20 - 14:30. By the way if you want to know how I get this conversion, I do so by looking at the world records. For track distance runs all of the Women's world records are about 11% slower than the men's WRs.
10k, 26.29 min/29.53 min = 89.0% (11% slower).
5k, 12.622 min/14.186 min = 89.0% (11% slower)
1500m, 3.433 min/3.841 min = 89.4% (10.6% slower)
800m, 1.6835 min/1.888 min = 89.2% (10.8% slower)
Now note that I said if you go by ability. Because there are fewer competitive female distance runners than competitive male distance runners, slower women can be "elite". This is why a lot of people are saying your time is equivalent to a 14:00, because if you factor in depth of the running a 16 minute women's 5k probably would rank you in the same place as 14 minute male 5k. However, in terms of physical ability, I would say the 14 male 5k is better than a 16 female 5k.
This^ is essentially correct. I've done a fair bit of formal research on this topic. It does seem that when men and women train in a highly dedicated way, men are 10-12% faster. However, only about 1/4 as many women as men train hard (even in the U.S. where total male and female "participants" are similar). So 16:06 for a female and a sub 14 for a male might be equally rare and likely to win races; however, for any given level of talent and training, 16:06 for a female probably equates to a mid 14 for a male.
And using world records or other world class performance standards doesn't make much of a difference.
Nutty P
My papers on this are available here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1842663http://www.gvsu.edu/psychology/robert-deaner-16.htmConcerned Citizen wrote:
SserPrun95 wrote:The real rule for truly= performances not just frequency of occurrence is 30sec/mile. It is worth a 14:30ish.
Where do you get that from? I'm genuinely curious.
Just look at the difference between the male and female world records at pretty much every distance event. 12.27 for the 800m, 24.46 at 1500m, 45.44 at 3000, 1:33.8 at 5000m, 3:14 at 10000m, 7:25 at half marathon, 11:26 at the marathon. All work out to be a pace ~25-35 sec slower/mile than their male counterparts. Thus ~30sec/mile.
16:06 is about 20th on the NCAA D1 women's outdoor performance list this year. 13:45 is about 20th on the men's list. Obviously, men's college running is deeper than women's college running, but I still have a hard time seeing 16:06 as being very far away from equivalent to a 14:00 performance. Maybe 14:15 at worst.
16:06 is about 20th on the NCAA D1 women's outdoor performance list this year. 13:45 is about 20th on the men's list. Obviously, men's college running is deeper than women's college running, but I still have a hard time seeing 16:06 as being very far away from equivalent to a 14:00 performance. Maybe 14:15 at worst.
You cannot compare male & female times linearly like many of the posters here make the mistake of. The difference is actually exponential. This is because the top females have straighter bodies (less curves), i.e. bodies shaped more like men which give them an advantage over the other women. The men have no such advantage.
umm... wrote:
You cannot compare male & female times linearly like many of the posters here make the mistake of. The difference is actually exponential. This is because the top females have straighter bodies (less curves), i.e. bodies shaped more like men which give them an advantage over the other women. The men have no such advantage.
Bigger lungs, more powerful heart, stronger legs . . .
16:06 = 14:19
(966s/851s) = 1.135 x slower than female world record (14:11)
1.135x 757s (12:37s WR) = 14:19
Easy really
The 11% rule is about right but the women are 'thinner' then the men (drop off more rapidly) so that at the level of good 5000 college marks, 12% is probably a better point of comparison. However, your ratio means that you subtract 11%, not that you divide by 111%, so by your method
11% (10% less time)=> 14:28
12% (11% less time)=> 14:20+
13% (12% less time)=> 14:13
guys in high school run 14:30 occasionally. girls in high school do not run 16:06. i would say its equivalent to somewhere in the 13:45-13:55 range. even look at the D1 nationals 5k results, 16:04 was 7th for women, 13:51 was 7th for men. so pretty close.
yes indeed wrote:
guys in high school run 14:30 occasionally. girls in high school do not run 16:06. i would say its equivalent to somewhere in the 13:45-13:55 range. even look at the D1 nationals 5k results, 16:04 was 7th for women, 13:51 was 7th for men. so pretty close.
Now that we have girls that are much faster than 16:06 in high school, I think it’s safe to say the ~11% rule works pretty well.
I use the 10 sec per lap rule. A girl is generally going to be 10 sec per 400, or 40 sec per mile slower than a man. So a 16:06 would equal about 14:00 ish.
Equivalent to me means where she ranks. So it is around 13:45 for a guy. That is the general rule of thumb. You always hear announcers stating that somebody ranks 10th in the US or 25th in the world. They make the same statement during the opposite gender race. They don’t compare them to the world record on a percentage basis.
I'm comparing men to women via 150th all time, which is Ingrid Kristiansen on the women's side at 14:37, which was prior to the EPO era and I believe clean, and 12:55 high for the men, which I believe is credible simply because while many of the men faster than that were likely doping (absolutely the same for the women under 14:37), there are quite a few around this time that were probably not doping, whether that is Lagat at 12:53 (he ran 12:59 with a 51 close, beating Bekele, so he could have likely been close to the world record at his peak) or Solinsky, Mottram, or Ritz.
150 14:37.33 Ingrid Kristiansen NOR 21.03.56 1 Stockholm 05.08.1986
That is 13.16% slower than 12:55 (if memory serves) and then subtracting whatever that correct number was from 1 and multiplying by 16.1 (for 16:06) gave me 13:58.9.
At first that seems a bit fast when NCAA women are running 15:10s and 15:20s, and not that many men are breaking 14.
But the best NCAA men are running 13:18 or better and it may be that the best men's times are substantially worsened by a lack of fast pro competition. I believe that this shows that more would break 14 and go low 13 if they were running with faster people, as the NCAA women can do with pros more easily, it seems.