Those saying 5:10ish and 18:30ish are right on the money. At these speeds, equivalent miles are about 40 seconds apart. So, a 5:00 girl is pretty equivalent to a 4:20 guy.
Those saying 5:10ish and 18:30ish are right on the money. At these speeds, equivalent miles are about 40 seconds apart. So, a 5:00 girl is pretty equivalent to a 4:20 guy.
The easiest way to do a conversion is to take the male time and to multiply it by 1.12 (the approximate world record female time divided by world record male time). This works for any distance. So in your example, a 4:30 mile by a dude is equivalent to a 5:02 mile by a dudette. The 15:44 5K is equivalent to a 17:32 5K. This same conversion would make a male 2:22 marathon about equal to a female 2:41:17 marathon.
Sidenote: the conversion factor 20 years ago was 1.10. The big theory for the recent decline is that there was a lot more doping back then, and that doping improved chicks by a great percentage than it helped out a guy.
jaguar1 wrote:
No, you can't use the difference between world records to compare any times. The men taper off.... the women at the top physically defy the 'typical woman' (~narrower hips, less body fat) and are therefore able to narrow the 'gap'. It's not just training. Again, I say the difference is 30-40 sec./mi. when comparing faster times and 1 min./mi. when comparing slower times.
Ahh, you must be talking about what we call 'talent.' You're right we men don't have to deal with that, I mean we all have long thin legs, low body fat, the perfect muscle composition, short trunks, high strength, etc.
Is the question about physiological equivalence or statistical equivalence? Physiological equivalence would probably be closer to the ratio of world records. Statistical would be based on the relative competitiveness of the two sexes as a group.
This post was removed.