So Sick: Casey Clinger just ran 8:54 at 4,500 feet of altitude!! Crushed field and won by 25+ seconds.

sc42 wrote:

Altitude adjustments are based on the mean effect of that altitude for many individuals.

Are they though? Or is it just some old farts in the NCAA pulling numbers out of their a$$? I've never seen justification for the adjustments.

Great debate going....I'm a former UT high school miler/2-miler...Here's my two cents. Way back in '77 in the BYU Invitational I ran 9:17, still the "official" state TWO MILE record because they made the switch to metrics a few years later. (My time is still in the books) State meet was in mid-May and 3 weeks later with just "maintaining" training I ran 9:01 for two miles at the International Prep Invit. in Chicago. So this is a 16 second drop. I think it points to at least SOME decent time conversion then from altitude to sea level.

Also, while we are at it, I need to get an opinion on this. Also in '77, I ran the mile at the University of Utah outdoor track, (Now where the U of U football Utes play). I ran a 4:14.4 mile. Here's the kicker- Race was at 5,000 ft. elevation (yes, the stadium track was higher up on the "bench" where the campus sits), second place was 4:25, and my last 400 was 60 seconds. Question: What does/would this convert to at sea level? I am thinking it's worth 4:08 or is that wishful thinking?

IMO, you absolutely would've been good for sub-4:10 for the mile and 4:08 for 1600.

Coyote wrote:

Then think of guys like Adam Goucher, Brian Berryhill and Steve Pifer. They never broke 4 at altitude (let alone under 4:01), but ran 3:54-3:55 at sea level, with Berryhill going 3:35 in the 1500, while never breaking 3:45 at altitude.

Berryhill is an excellent example. His redshirt freshman year he ran a race at the Academy against Goucher (like others have said rarely is there a competitive race run at altitude) and won in 4:09.2 (Goucher threw a little tantrum after the race as Berryhill blew past him at the end). A couple weeks later he got second at nationals by a fraction of a second against a bunch of guys that had run sub 4. You can sneer at altitude conversions, but do so at your own peril.

Cool story, bro.

No actually, that is sweet. But 4:08 is fanciful. Official NCAA conversion at BYU's track (~4500 ft) is 5 seconds. I don't think you're gonna get 6 for that extra 500 ft. Add in you were hand timed and you're pushing it to call this sub-4:10 at sea level.

Well it appears that American Fork guys are going to lay the hammer down. Rumor has it C.Clinger, Mckay Johns and Patrick Parker will show no mercy. Say good buy to any 4xmile or 4x1600 national record if they want it. Gonna be a long season here in Utah.

OGGOD!! wrote:

Well it appears that American Fork guys are going to lay the hammer down. Rumor has it C.Clinger, Mckay Johns and Patrick Parker will show no mercy. Say good buy to any 4xmile or 4x1600 national record if they want it. Gonna be a long season here in Utah.

4 for the price of 1? Good buy!

But it sounds like a lot of talk.

Trialswatcher wrote:

Elevation of Utah County

Utah Valley lies at the center of the county, lined by the mountains of the Wasatch Range on the east. Utah Lake occupies a large part of the valley. The elevation ranges from 4,487 feet (1,368 m) above sea level at the lake to 11,928 feet (3,636 m) at the peak of Mount Nebo.

He is completely altitude adjusted

He gets no gap time wise.

This is where he runs all the time.People should now get a clue on adjustments.

You have no clue. There is along history of Utah runners who train in Utah and Salt Lake valley going down to altitude and loping off 10-20 seconds off their 3200 PRs and 5-10 seconds off their mile PRs.

While at a different altitude and only somewhat comparable, have you ever compared the times of Kenyan's at their Kenyan trials to the times they run in the DL and Olympics... They run substantially faster despite "being altitude adjusted", whatever that means.

Just another guy wrote:

Elevation and temperature adjustments are useful guides but acclimatization impacts results.

A HS distance runner fron Houston going to the Simplot games would have found running in the dry thin air next to impossible and the adjustments would hold true, while the locals obviously aren't impacted at all.

On the flip side there were several Houston area outdoor meets yesterday with the 1600m being run in the afternoon in 85F humid weather and full sun,

I dont think those temps really impact the locals (it's been a hot winter) but had somebody like Clinger come down for a meet I guarantee the temps would impact there results.

This is also wrong. I live in a humid climate and workouts times suffer every summer, all summer. You never fully adjust. It's almost as absurd as saying someone running uphill all the time will eventually "adjust" and be capable of running the same times uphill as someone else could run on flat land. There are actual physical factors limiting the body's performance at high altitude or in high heat/humidity climates. The body uses oxygen to run. The body, heart, and CV system work harder in heat and humidity. Despite how much time the body spends in a low altitude environment or high heat/humidity environment, it will always perform better in more optimal conditions.

That being said the adjustment or bump the body receives is idiosyncratic. The NCAA adjustments are simply averages and will vary from person to person. I'd be curious to see if these differences from person to person have been shown to be correlated with a person's home environment, but I'm guessing there is no research to support that claim.

Like someone above said, maybe you can get a job as a scientific adviser for trump. You seem good at manipulating the laws of physics to fit your views.

You're arguing a statistical average is too generous based on your own anecdotal experience.....

Come back with some data or research.

heyyo wrote:

You're arguing a statistical average is too generous based on your own anecdotal experience.....

Come back with some data or research.

So, maybe I've missed it in my google searches,

but I guess my question is where is the underlying data and/or research for the altitude conversions?

When I google NCAA track conversions I can find the tables, but I do not find any explanation of the underlying methodology or (even better) the data set on which these conversions are based.

Can anyone from Utah who's been around the T&F/XC seen explain the rise of the AFHS program? The article below says the coaches have been around since 1998 at least. Where was this program in the last 1990s/early 2000s when mountain view was dominating? What happened to mountain view?I ran at utah HS from 1998-2002 for reference.

googled it wrote:

Good coaching helps

https://sites.google.com/site/timomostert/xccoaches

former utahn kid wrote:

Can anyone from Utah who's been around the T&F/XC seen explain the rise of the AFHS program? The article below says the coaches have been around since 1998 at least. Where was this program in the last 1990s/early 2000s when mountain view was dominating? What happened to mountain view?

I ran at utah HS from 1998-2002 for reference.

googled it wrote:

Good coaching helps

https://sites.google.com/site/timomostert/xccoaches

they started getting more motivated by NXN.

heyyo wrote:

You have no clue. There is along history of Utah runners who train in Utah and Salt Lake valley going down to altitude and loping off 10-20 seconds off their 3200 PRs and 5-10 seconds off their mile PRs.

While at a different altitude and only somewhat comparable, have you ever compared the times of Kenyan's at their Kenyan trials to the times they run in the DL and Olympics... They run substantially faster despite "being altitude adjusted", whatever that means.

I disagree with Trials Watcher that there is NO benefit.

However, I disagree more with you. Many people who live and train and sea-level lop big chunks of time at the big sea-level meets Utah runners attend (e.g. Arcadia). Using them (sea-level runners) as a control group, you can see the benefit of dropping to sea level for Utah runners is not as great as it appears.

I'm someone who lived and trained in Utah Valley for several years before returning to sea level. There is no doubt I could run faster at sea level. But for a 5k it was on the order of 8-10 seconds, not the 20 so generously bestowed by the NCAA.

I don't understand why LR doesn't consider Cheserek's record as the record. Track is great because it's judged by time. No referees to mess things up. Everyone runs the same distance and the clock is never biased.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

heyyo wrote:

You're arguing a statistical average is too generous based on your own anecdotal experience.....

Come back with some data or research.

So, maybe I've missed it in my google searches,

but I guess my question is where is the underlying data and/or research for the altitude conversions?

When I google NCAA track conversions I can find the tables, but I do not find any explanation of the underlying methodology or (even better) the data set on which these conversions are based.

+1 I was going to say the same thing.

I think heyyyo is a HS'er who believes with all his heart his 3200m is worth 10 seconds faster at sea level. This thread is triggering him.

Brie Oakley is another great example. Ran a 16:44 back in the Fall up at @ 5,300' on a flat, fast 5k course, pushed by Lauren Gregory. Then she drops a 15:55 at sea level? Admittedly, it was on the track, but, still, she wasn't pushed in that race, it was a 200 meter track, and a track isn't that much faster than what is essentially a road course anyway, though it is a bit faster.

I don't know the physiological justifications for the drops in times. I just know that there are far too many examples over the years of high altitude runners running much faster at sea level. The general rule of thumb is two seconds per lap from 5,500 to sea level, though that might be too generous for the 1600/mile and not generous enough for the 5k and above.

pizzafaze wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

So, maybe I've missed it in my google searches,

but I guess my question is where is the underlying data and/or research for the altitude conversions?

When I google NCAA track conversions I can find the tables, but I do not find any explanation of the underlying methodology or (even better) the data set on which these conversions are based.

+1 I was going to say the same thing.

I think heyyyo is a HS'er who believes with all his heart his 3200m is worth 10 seconds faster at sea level. This thread is triggering him.

Or maybe you're triggered because you're not a faster runner than you already are at sea level? There's definitely a reason the NCAA gives a significant conversion for altitude, whether you think it's too generous or not (& it might be, though I doubt it)?

Been there, done that wrote:

pizzafaze wrote:

+1 I was going to say the same thing.

I think heyyyo is a HS'er who believes with all his heart his 3200m is worth 10 seconds faster at sea level. This thread is triggering him.

Or maybe you're triggered because you're not a faster runner than you already are at sea level? There's definitely a reason the NCAA gives a significant conversion for altitude, whether you think it's too generous or not (& it might be, though I doubt it)?

Well, I have no doubt that it is faster to run at sea level than it is at altitude.

I just want to see if the conversions are based on good research.

The person said come back with statistics and data instead of anecdote.

I agree it should be based on statistics and data.

Where are they?