I wonder how many horse races and swimming events Ventolin^3 has watched on TV? Were some of these events even on SATELLITE TV?
I wonder how many horse races and swimming events Ventolin^3 has watched on TV? Were some of these events even on SATELLITE TV?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
I wonder how many horse races and swimming events Ventolin^3 has watched on TV? Were some of these events even on SATELLITE TV?
I wonder if it works for races with horses swimming?
the smartest letsrunner wrote:
kartelite wrote:I'm pretty confident both my french and english grammar is better than yours in any language.
HAHAHAHAHAHA: You're pretty confident that both your French and English grammar *IS* better than mine?
I know you tried to correct yourself later (but were still wrong), but when you can't even form a grammatically correct sentence in BRAGGING about your grammar (a sad activity in and of itself, even for you), you're really done.
I had originally written "my french grammar is," then added "and english" and didn't change the verb, which I immediately picked up upon proofreading. Normally I don't correct trivial mistakes but I knew you'd jump on that.
And, I was "still wrong" with writing "french and english grammar are"? What planet are you living on?
Anyway, you're just a sad person. And stop using all caps, it furthers the tantrum image.
By the way, I do agree with your critiques (though not the tone) of Ventolin's extrapolation methods. I have a good bit of modeling experience myself (two grad degrees in quantitative fields and work in finance) and know the dangers of "fitting" methods based on formulae.
A question I posed on letsrun probably 7 or 8 years ago was something like whether it was possible for Athlete A to have faster 800m and 5k PR's, while Athlete B has a faster 1500m PR when both ran all three events to their potential. We could even modify the extreme events to 100m and marathon. If the answer is yes, it discredits application of the extrapolation principle to distance running.
kartelite wrote:
We could even modify the extreme events to 100m and marathon. If the answer is yes, it discredits application of the extrapolation principle to distance running.
Extrapolation sort of works, doesn't it (i.e. if you're good at 800 and 5000 you'll be good in the mile)? Ventolin just puts too much faith in it.
An Historian wrote:
kartelite wrote:We could even modify the extreme events to 100m and marathon. If the answer is yes, it discredits application of the extrapolation principle to distance running.
Extrapolation sort of works, doesn't it (i.e. if you're good at 800 and 5000 you'll be good in the mile)? Ventolin just puts too much faith in it.
Perhaps we should start betting? How long will it take before ventolin, in an even more hysterical voice, starts calling you names?
OK, I can admit when I'm fighting the wrong fight and being nitpicky. This is one of those times. Trying to get in a tangle about your grammar isn't really a good use of our time, and I'll admit you clearly know what you're saying. Sorry for getting worked up about it.
really amused wrote:
Perhaps we should start betting? How long will it take before ventolin, in an even more hysterical voice, starts calling you names?
I guess he tired himself out...even v^3 has to sleep sometime.
An Historian wrote:
kartelite wrote:We could even modify the extreme events to 100m and marathon. If the answer is yes, it discredits application of the extrapolation principle to distance running.
Extrapolation sort of works, doesn't it (i.e. if you're good at 800 and 5000 you'll be good in the mile)? Ventolin just puts too much faith in it.
I agree with the general principle, but not with the precision or certainty with which he makes his claims.
In fact, I think the formula he uses generally does a pretty good job of indicating what someone should be able to run for a distance when both shorter AND longer distance times are known. However, I don't think it can be applied in cases such as predicting 10k from someone's 400m and 1500m PR's, as there are other factors at play that could affect times (body size, natural speed, individual physiological quirks that kick in around certain speeds/distances).
It wouldn't surprise me if some high school 800m specialists may run 51/1:55. I'd bet that some elite marathoners would also run that, but the marathoner would smoke the high schooler in a 5k. Ventolin is positing that the marathoner, by virtue of his good natural speed and superior marathoning endurance, should run faster than 1:55, perhaps considerably so. I'm not so sure it works like that, because I'm not convinced the "endurance" he has from marathon training is any more applicable to capitalizing on his 51 second speed than the high schooler's 800m-specific training.
Basically, Ventolin's extrapolation goes smack in the face of event specifity theory, as by his reasoning all one needs to do to improve one's middle distance times is to maintain one's top-end speed while improving the marathon time as much as possible.
I have even bigger issues with his calculations on what someone "could have run" with more even pacing, someone to break the wind, etc.
kartelite wrote:
An Historian wrote:Extrapolation sort of works, doesn't it (i.e. if you're good at 800 and 5000 you'll be good in the mile)? Ventolin just puts too much faith in it.
I agree with the general principle, but not with the precision or certainty with which he makes his claims.
In fact, I think the formula he uses generally does a pretty good job of indicating what someone should be able to run for a distance when both shorter AND longer distance times are known. However, I don't think it can be applied in cases such as predicting 10k from someone's 400m and 1500m PR's, as there are other factors at play that could affect times (body size, natural speed, individual physiological quirks that kick in around certain speeds/distances).
It wouldn't surprise me if some high school 800m specialists may run 51/1:55. I'd bet that some elite marathoners would also run that, but the marathoner would smoke the high schooler in a 5k. Ventolin is positing that the marathoner, by virtue of his good natural speed and superior marathoning endurance, should run faster than 1:55, perhaps considerably so. I'm not so sure it works like that, because I'm not convinced the "endurance" he has from marathon training is any more applicable to capitalizing on his 51 second speed than the high schooler's 800m-specific training.
Basically, Ventolin's extrapolation goes smack in the face of event specifity theory, as by his reasoning all one needs to do to improve one's middle distance times is to maintain one's top-end speed while improving the marathon time as much as possible.
I have even bigger issues with his calculations on what someone "could have run" with more even pacing, someone to break the wind, etc.
That is basically what I had in mind.
ventolin^3 wrote:
idiot
they are vertebrates with same physiological/biochemical processes
are are you so f***ing stoopid you believe horses don't use the krebs cycle ???
Ventolin, are you so f***ing stoopid you can't recognize that horses have FOUR LEGS and can't be compared to humans with regards to running performances?
Yeah, I think it all stemmed from some confusion early on, my bad.
To clarify something from my post above, it seems like when A < B < C (distances), extrapolating from A and B to get C works on the same principle as using A and C to get B. However, if the formula is a little off for that particular individual or the inputted times weren't an accurate reflection, the inaccuracy in the extrapolated time will be magnified compared to extrapolating a "between" time.
Ventolin is more popular than me on LRC^^
kartelite wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if some high school 800m specialists may run 51/1:55. I'd bet that some elite marathoners would also run that, but the marathoner would smoke the high schooler in a 5k. Ventolin is positing that the marathoner, by virtue of his good natural speed and superior marathoning endurance, should run faster than 1:55, perhaps considerably so. I'm not so sure it works like that, because I'm not convinced the "endurance" he has from marathon training is any more applicable to capitalizing on his 51 second speed than the high schooler's 800m-specific training.
Basically, Ventolin's extrapolation goes smack in the face of event specifity theory, as by his reasoning all one needs to do to improve one's middle distance times is to maintain one's top-end speed while improving the marathon time as much as possible.
Exactly! Because of event specificity, many if not most athletes have a pocket of specialty between the immediately shorter and longer events.
For example, there are several runners who could probably both equal Shaheen (circa 2004) in the 5000 (12:48) and beat him at 1500 (3:33), but I'd venture to say there was nobody alive who could take him in the 3000 at that time (steeple clearly, flat if he'd run it at his peak). Bekele, MAYBE. At the very least, I think we can say his 3000 ability was better than the line connecting the dots of his 1500 and 5000 ability.
Similarly, to explain the fact that Johnny Gray did an eye-popping 1:12.8 600m with a 1:42.6 800 PR, v^3 and his calculator insist that Gray must have had "sub-45 400 speed." WRONG. He was likely not this fast over 400, but had exceptional speed endurance that just isn't captured in v^3's model. Like Shaheen and the student with an 800 faster than his 400 and distance times would predict, there is more to it than ventolin represents.
666EnergyDrink wrote:
I don't think you realize the level of aerobic endurance that is necessary to run back to back 2 back to back 1500's in 3:40.
Watch the video of Komen doing it on youtube. It's truly breathtaking.
Webb is an amazing runner and I think he'll be back to sub 3:50 miles here in a year or two.
Jason
I don't think the human body could ever realize the level of aerobic endurance that is necessary to run back to back 2 back to back 1500's in 3:40.
That would yield a 14:40 6000m. Splitting 5k in 12:13 and continuing.
the smartest letsrunner wrote:Hahahahaha extrapolating a 1'50" 800 and a 3'40" to a 5000 time? I hope you have more than your little horse calculator to go on.
Yes, obviously the training has been done. I would like to know about it
moron
he is lining up for the race & has 1'50/3'40 clockings currently
i'm not interested in what training got him there, i want to know what he can run for 5k now
In case you missed what I said clearly before: "Basically, I would do anything EXCEPT use your little calculator, which has been widely discredited."
imbecile
give me a clocking
i want to know what this guy can possibly expect for 5k
put up or shut up
There has been egregious misuse of the term EXTRApolation in this thread. What you have described is INTERpolation, which is indeed far less vulnerable to minor fluctuations in the modeling scheme used.
the smartest letsrunner wrote:Yes, that's what I'm saying. Wrong.
Don't be obtuse. Of course they do. However, individuals vary within species and between activities in glycolysis, and certainly species differ
complete moron
mammals don't differ in use of glycolysis
it is first port of call of glycogen breakdown & varies not at all in species or individuals unless they have an inborn error of metabolism
this shows you are an idiot with no scientific knowledge
Well, it's how I make my living, and I happen to make a very, very good living, while you are trying to supplement yours by flogging a horse calculator online
a pissant who spends inputting data into someone's programme
don't flatter yourself numbskull
Here's a clue: velocity falls off FAR faster in swimming than in running. Just off the top of my head...
Running:
800 1'41"
1600 3:25"
Swimming
200 1'42"
400 3'40"
But your horsie calculator doesn't capture this. And you blithely state that it's all the same.
You're too easy. I await your next name-calling tantrum, which I will easily refute.
Here's a clue: velocity falls off FAR faster in running in running. Just off the top of my head, using events of very comparable durations. (You can exclude the sprints if you want - your calculator's weakness still holds.
Running:
400 43"
800 1'41"
1600 3:43"
Swimming
100 46"
200 1'42"
400 3'40"
But your horsie calculator doesn't capture this. And you blithely state that it's all the same.
For christ's sake, get it through your head. Comparing velocities between events, a runner with a roughly 1:2.2 ratio (as in the WRs) is clearly quite solid moving up between these distances, whereas a swimmer with the same ratio is comparatively weak. It is simply in defiance of reason to use the same formula in completely different sports to extrapolate from representative performances.
You're too easy. I await your next name-calling tantrum, which I will easily refute
idiot
it is clear you have no clue whatsoever
relative drop off means nothing - it all gets worked out
ian thorpe is considered greatest overall male freestyle swimmer of all time
he swam high-48/1'44-flat/3'40-flat in different years
49.00 / 3'40.00 ->1'44.00
48.75 / 3'40.00 ->1'43.75
look him up
the smartest letsrunner wrote:Exactly! Because of event specificity, many if not most athletes have a pocket of specialty between the immediately shorter and longer events.
For example, there are several runners who could probably both equal Shaheen (circa 2004) in the 5000 (12:48) and beat him at 1500 (3:33), but I'd venture to say there was nobody alive who could take him in the 3000 at that time (steeple clearly, flat if he'd run it at his peak). Bekele, MAYBE. At the very least, I think we can say his 3000 ability was better than the line connecting the dots of his 1500 and 5000 ability
eh ?
what are you drivelling about ???
3'33/12'48 ->7'26.1
if you are a steeplechaser, you expect to run 25 - 30s slower than your 3k flat ->7'51 - 7'56
Similarly, to explain the fact that Johnny Gray did an eye-popping 1:12.8 600m with a 1:42.6 800 PR, v^3 and his calculator insist that Gray must have had "sub-45 400 speed." WRONG. He was likely not this fast over 400, but had exceptional speed endurance that just isn't captured in v^3's model. Like Shaheen and the student with an 800 faster than his 400 and distance times would predict, there is more to it than ventolin represents.
learn to read idiot
his zurich run effectively solo, wouda been more like 1'42.1 if he'd had ideal pacing with gap to pacer no more than 2m to the bell
that brings his 400m upto low-45
kartelite wrote:However, I don't think it can be applied in cases such as predicting 10k from someone's 400m and 1500m PR's, as there are other factors at play that could affect times (body size, natural speed, individual physiological quirks that kick in around certain speeds/distances)
those quirks shoud manifest in their 400 & 1500 as well, obviously to an extrapolated level compared to their 10k
It wouldn't surprise me if some high school 800m specialists may run 51/1:55. I'd bet that some elite marathoners would also run that, but the marathoner would smoke the high schooler in a 5k. Ventolin is positing that the marathoner, by virtue of his good natural speed and superior marathoning endurance, should run faster than 1:55, perhaps considerably so. I'm not so sure it works like that, because I'm not convinced the "endurance" he has from marathon training is any more applicable to capitalizing on his 51 second speed than the high schooler's 800m-specific training...
eh ??
51/1'55 ->15'34
i woudn't expect a high-school kid's endurance to last anywhere close to 5k distance, so he woud get nowhere close but i'd expect the experienced, mature M guy to get close
Basically, Ventolin's extrapolation goes smack in the face of event specifity theory, as by his reasoning all one needs to do to improve one's middle distance times is to maintain one's top-end speed while improving the marathon time as much as possible
no
i've never mentioned ever about how anyone shoud improve
obviously, if one can somewhat maintain speed but improve endurance your times will improve - that is simply goal of training
I have even bigger issues with his calculations on what someone "could have run" with more even pacing, someone to break the wind, etc.
your problem
if you can refute this : go ahead
http://users.erols.com/jimsue/running/racing/drafting.htmAnother researcher to study the benefits of drafting was Californian Chester R. Kyle (1979). His calculations suggest that at world-record mile pace, a runner running 2 m behind the lead runner would save about 1.66 seconds per lap, which generally confirms Pugh's estimations