Serious - how did people track their mileage before GPS watches and were people so anal about recording every metric

wickedgoogly wrote:

I did most of my running in farmland in the midwest on gravel roads. The general rule of thumb is each intersection is a mile from the next intersection.

Wow. Seems like something out of a movie. (i.e.: Breaking Away).

We used a sextant.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Take your car out and measure the distance. Also, just having a good sense of pace.

Right.

Currently, in the post-Internet era, I use Google Maps to measure the distance and the clock in my kitchen to measure time. So the distance is accurate to only 0.1 mile and the time is accurate to only 1 minute. That's good enough.

wickedgoogly wrote:

I did most of my running in farmland in the midwest on gravel roads. The general rule of thumb is each intersection is a mile from the next intersection.

The main intersections in US cities that are on a north-south grid are also one mile apart. This is because they follow square-mile survey blocks called sections.

I used to use a calibrated odometer on my bike to measure road routes. I had mile mark locations memorized for my main routes leading away from the house, so I basically only did it once. I'd know the my mile splits leading away and coming back, and, usually just estimate the in between miles (using time) on a loop if the route was flat.

For trails, distance can easily be overestimated if you assume you don't slow down much, so I'd always be collecting new trail maps. Trail maps usually show distances between intersections.

Some road maps also show distances between some intersections, such as on back roads, but I'd often have to break out a ruler to measure routes on paper maps.

DanM wrote:

Measured the distances on a paper street map and confirmed it using my car odometer. Used a cheap wristwatch to keep time.

That worked well for 20 years or so!

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Take your car out and measure the distance. Also, just having a good sense of pace.

I did this and found it very limiting. I ran the same routes all the time. Once I had 1-2 7 mile routes I did those all the time. I would hesitate to develop any variations because I’d want to have the data.

wickedgoogly wrote:

I did most of my running in farmland in the midwest on gravel roads. The general rule of thumb is each intersection is a mile from the next intersection.

^ this is the credited response.

No GPS watch to this day, late-30s, ca. 8 hours/week running in summer. I live in Alaska, where I run almost exclusively on hilly trails (plus tracks for speedwork), so I really don't see the need to guess at mileage. But when I visit family in the rural Midwest, outside of Kalamazoo, Michigan... not only is it 1.0 miles between intersections (or 0.5, or 1.5, etc., depending upon how that part of the grid is laid out), but you can also get intermediate splits off of the house addresses. Like on a 1-mile block, you go from 6000 ML Ave. to 7000 ML Ave. Judging from (my guess at) pace while I'm running, then as confirmed after the fact from Gmap-pedometer, the house at 6200 ML Ave. is 0.2 miles into that block; at 6400 ML is 0.4 miles; etc. It's actually super handy.

(For running on trails, FWIW, I log nearly everything as either a 9min mile, if it's a flattish/rolling hills trail and I'm moving well, or a 10min mile, if it's a warmup or larger hills. I have further approximations/refinements for going up mountains. Bottom line, I just want a guess for tracking total mileage on that pair of trail shoes, and if I'm within 10%, that's totally fine by me.)

... oh, I should also admit that I have three known-distance loops on neighborhood streets, which I use for shakeout runs, and log them accordingly (and accurately). But, like, it's a shakeout run; it truly doesn't matter if I start out at 9min or 8min pace, so long as I feel decent by the end.

Well from reading this thread I gathher: it is perfectly fine to measure a routine with a bike or car, and spray paint markers on the road, then do some arithmetic afterwards to work out splits. But HEAVEN FORBID you would succumb to this new fangled GPS technology young kids of today use. Ok...

I used to drive routes with my car and use the odometer to determine distance.

I just ask my KGB minders what their car odometer says

A good friend of mine, who has been running for probably 30 years:

"99% of the running I do is on one of about 4 different routes. Why do I need a GPS watch to tell me how far it is or what pace I'm doing? I know exactly where I am at any given point during my run, mileage wise. All I have to do is look down at my $15 watch and I can tell my pace. When I want to run faster, I do. When I feel I am running too fast, I slow down. This is not complicated"

distance wheel wrote:

For workouts that weren't on the track, my coach used to either measure distance by his car or would measure with a distance wheel. For summer training, we would just run on time and divide that time either by 7.5 or 8 minutes depending on individual's talent to get mileage.

"Talent to get mileage"???

Running higher mileage isn't a talent.

Higher mileage is required for top performance for those having less talent than those with better genetics.

I know guys who can break 3 hours in marathon with 40 mpw and many more who put in 70+ and could never break 3 hour barrier or even 40 minutes for 10k.

There is no "talent" to running 80 mile weeks if can't even run a tempo run at 7 minute pace.

HITHEREYOU wrote:

Well from reading this thread I gathher: it is perfectly fine to measure a routine with a bike or car, and spray paint markers on the road, then do some arithmetic afterwards to work out splits. But HEAVEN FORBID you would succumb to this new fangled GPS technology young kids of today use. Ok...

Right.

I still don't use a GPS watch or map runs online.

If I do an easy run, it's measured in minutes. Go 30, 40 minutes or so and run easy.

For a tempo run, I go out a certain amount of minutes and come back a few minutes faster.

For intervals, I'll find landmarks, like street signs or telephone poles and run back and forth for an estimated quarter mile or half mile. The key is using the same markers next time for comparison.

Using GPS is fine if you want to.

But even if you're training to race, it doesn't help you prepare to race any faster.

Back in the 1970s when I was in my 30s and running well, I lived in Buffalo. The distance around the most popular park (Delaware Park) was known, and because enough races were run in the park there were start and finish marks (all on certified courses) and a lot of accurate but uncertified distances as well. Actually I remember that one loop around the park was certified and thus could be used for longer races, where I just counted up the number of laps I needed and then added whatever offset was necessary.

(At the time, I was the chief course measurer in the area and would lay down marks of convenience if people wanted them, using a calibrated bicycle -- always on the curb in brown paint, just a mark, so you did have to know which mark it was, but most of the serious runners did.)

In those days, too, there were bicycle odometers (CatEye was a common one), and with some simple calibration they were plenty good enough to get a distance that wouldn't be off by more than a few dozen yards, if that.

Also, the courses for many of the road races were near the park, or used part of the park, so you could jump onto a race course, many of which had the same discreet marks every mile. And the Skylon Marathon start was near the park, so you could run an out-and-back along the marathon course if you wanted to.

Urban running has its drawbacks, but Buffalo was an amazing urban running site.

I started running when mapquest and other services were getting to be commonly used. These were used a lot for road routes. State Parks usually have measured trails, so the distances they list were taken on faith. Even with these 2 things, I remember my mom driving the course for the local turkey trot when I was like 15, trying to figure out where the mile markers were to plan a race.

For metrics people usually recorded mileage, time, pace, and perceived effort. Some people had heart rate monitors, but the data from them was pretty wonky.

D=rt

Circa 2006, probably my best year, I needed to do mile repeats. There was a small lake on the trails that I ran several days a week. I started at one pole, ran around the lake and kept going to a tree which was right about 5:20. I knew it was a mile by feel. I ran those laps for many workouts. Came back in 2008 with a measuring wheel and was 3’ less than a mile.

I was in such great tune with my body that I knew what 5/ 5:30 and so on up to 7:30 pace felt like, and all I needed was a cheap watch for overall time to get mileage.

High school in the 90’s: my coach lived directly across the street from me—he knew the landmarks. “Run to the boathouse at the lake and return.” That was 7 miles, timed by the clock on the oven. You think my parents were going to spend $50 on a timex Ironman watch?!?!

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Take your car out and measure the distance. Also, just having a good sense of pace.

Exactly. I still do the 'pace estimate' on trails because GPS sucks in the woods/switchbacks, and you can't drive a car on them (the good ones anyway). I have found my 'guesstimates' running in unfamiliar places before I got a GPS watch were usually relatively close (+/- 5%) when I went back and measured on Google maps or wheeled it with a bike after the run. That's close enough for easy runs. Intervals you go run a pre-measured out, flat stretch or loop. I've also seen neighborhoods near high schools with mileage markers spray painted on the streets.