Mr. Obvious wrote:Yes, plus the very basic mistake that 1500 is almost twice as long as 800, so the proportional slowing is not comparing 1s in the 800 to 3.4 in the 1500 but would have to involve comparing 1s in the 800 to 3.5/800/1500 or 1.81s.
err...
who mentioned anything about "proportional slowing" ?!
simple concept : at elite level, if your sole aim is to run you best possible 1k :
1s at 800m is worth ~ 3.5s at 1500m for the 1k
[/quote]
err...
there is no point drivelling on about "energy pathways" or some other pre-med biochemistry without actually attempting to numericise the end result of the biochem - putting some hard numbers on the table...[/quote]
"Numericise"? As long as I have been in research. Never heard this one. Nice work!
How about "quantify"? Now, doesn't that feel better?
Med research wrote:"Numericise"? As long as I have been in research. Never heard this one
you clearly haven't been doing it long
How about "quantify" ?
nope
numericise
is the ancient paradigm
doesn't that feel better
no
my day job doesn't require watching sesame street
bump
ventolin^3 wrote:
my day job doesn't require watching sesame street
And what is that? Walking behind your ox, plowing the fields?
Kaki asked for a 1:45 at 800 pace at Pre. Seems within his reach for 2:12
runner77 wrote:
Kaki asked for a 1:45 at 800 pace at Pre. Seems within his reach for 2:12
If he can handle that pace and then hammer another 200m in 26 seconds, sure.
But given his past performances, I think he runs a 2:13.35 here. Yes, to the hundredth. Worship me next week when I prove to be right.