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

Phone books used to have maps of the city in them. I used this to map out most of my runs in HS. This was before personal computers were in every household.

Alan

Prior to GPS I'd measure my most common routes with my car odometer. Then you'd just time yourself with a regular watch and divide time/miles to get your average pace. Then, if I'd run on a an unmeasured route, I'd estimate the mileage based on my average pace from past runs, with the time from the run. For intervals you'd have either find a track or used a car measured route. Car + watch + simple math gave you all the data you needed.

I do love what GPS brings to the table. But I will say, I did used to run more by feel back then and I definitely obsesses less over pace, time, segments other GPS running-geek data than I do now.

If I was forced to either keep GPS and all the details versus give it up and go back to running based on feel, I'd keep the GPS. I love having a GPS. That being said, it's a great idea to leave it at home once in a while and do a run with nothing but your imagination and how you feel, to guide you.

I agree there were huge benefits mentally to not having GPS. Through college, I never ran with a GPS watch. One of my teammates got one of those early ones you strapped to your upper arm. We all thought it worked like crap and they barely used it. We obsessed way less over pace which was probably good because it was quite hilly where I went to school.

In high school we way overestimated all of our run distances. But at the end of the day we did just fine.

It's amazing how quickly you become reliant on technology but how before it came out I would have never imagined needing or even wanting it.

This is exactly my point, now people run with Stryd food pods, gps, heart rate monitors and whatever other stupid stuff they are willing to spend money on. And it takes away from the whole point of running because instead of focusing on how you feel you get anal about all the metrics and it pisses me off. Just run, and don't over analyze everything. How can I convince my running group mates to F off with all the tech on their runs??

Here in the sierra nevada foothills we ran on lots of trails and very little road. Coaches used a surveyor's wheel several times on all trails to measure distance, its pretty darn accurate when averaged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor%27s_wheel

When I ran XC in junior high in the early 80s, we were only supposed to run a max of 45 min every day. That was the only reason we would wear a watch on an easy run. We never cared about what splits were on an easy run. The only time we cared about pace was when we ran a workout on the track or ran a race.

When I got back into running in the very early days of Garmin, I would run at the park where the local running club put in 1/4 mi markers. That pretty much ruined it for me as I would track every 1/4 mi on easy runs. On long runs, I would try to hang with someone who had a big Garmin and get splits from them. I broke down in the early 2010s and bought a Garmin.

Every now and then I will try to do my easy runs on a route that I know the mileage and not turn on my Garmin. It never works. I am addicted to splits even though I don't race anymore. I do miss the days when an easy run was just a run with friends.

jtface wrote:

It's not pre-GPS, but I don't own a fancy watch, so I just use manometer.

Using the wrong tool for the job...measuring pressure with a manometer will require you to use bernouli's principle and solve a very complex derivative. Much better to go with the sextant as the other poster suggested.

for those of you who need a physics remediation:

.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Phone books used to have maps of the city in them. I used this to map out most of my runs in HS. This was before personal computers were in every household.

Alan

Yep. And when I traveled to an unfamiliar city, the first thing I'd do upon arriving at the hotel was pull out the phone book and start mapping out my run for the following morning.

Now I pull up Google Maps and do the same thing, but somehow the sense of adventure isn't quite the same.

jksparky wrote:

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.

The previous poster is clearly talking about the different paces (7.5 or 8, etc.) depending on individual's talent. If they are faster they would divide by the lower pace to calculate the mileage.

amkelley wrote:

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.

“post-internet era,”? You’re posting on the internet during the internet era, but somehow in a future after the internet is gone? That’s amazing.

Can you please tell us, besides the elimination of the internet, what other marvelous things await us in the future?

Hey, it's a tool. It's nice that running can keep up with the rest of the world in terms of devices that provide measurable feedback and metrics. That's called staying current, relevant, and in tune with the times. Many users expect that, use it, and even under certain circumstances, benefit from it.

It doesn't have to be used to the exclusion of feel, perceived effort, etc.

My gut feeling is that it really doesn't matter all that much. Whatever keeps you interested. THere's an infinite number of ways to botch up a training program, if it even matters to you to try to improve, and one could do that with or without a device that gives you a steady stream of information.

I’m on my fourth house, and I’ve made it priority to live near running trails. Fortunately I have had trails in my area that are marked, so as long as I know the distance to the first mile marker, it’s pretty easy to know the overall distance.

I just started wearing a GPS watch recently. Of course I won’t be qualifying for anything better than Boston, so pace isn’t quite as important for me.

I still run via the oven clock. I stretch a bit in the kitchen until it changes to the next minute, then I leisurely walk outside, walk a bit up the street counting to 60, then start on that next minute. I look at the clock when I get back, and remove a minute.

Close enough then, close enough now.

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...

Honestly - and overlooking the tendentious phrasing and misspellings here - I think that's correct. The key word here, imho, is afterwards. If you're working out your splits after the fact, that's descriptive. If you're getting them in real-time with a GPS watch, that really, really runs the danger of being prescriptive - "oh, that mile was 8:30, that's 'bad.'" I have no doubt that my easier runs are easier, and I have an easier time not pushing when I don't need to be pushing - which, for most runners, is going to be most of the time - if I'm just going by feel during the run.

one of these ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opisometer

back in the late 70s ...

I had no idea such a thing existed (although it obviously makes a ton of sense); that's fascinating. Thanks.

Just measured it on google maps and had a few loops of 3-4-5-6-++ miles. If i was somewhere new, I just went off time. Pretty easy

Ok Here is my rant....

I hate my friggin GPS watch.. started running as an adult.. ran for 27 years without gps.. simply estimated my mileage only worried about specific distances during track sessions or road races..... all my running buddies have GPS watches now so I got one... Garmin Insticnt .. I also thought it would be cool in the mountains hiking or trail running.

Every time I run with multiple people my watch shows courses shorter.. now if it was just one guy I would try and argue w him and say my watch is the right one but it always seems mine is the shortest.. a 12 miler on there watch can be 10.8 on mine.. It pisses me off. .. a $300 watch should be friggin accurate!!

I just did Pemi loop this week... (Almost 3 times as long as it took the FKT guy!!!! ). at 11 hours my watch dies. It was fully charged to begin the day. I don't care how much pinging a watch does I should be able to get a full day in with it!!

Anyway I wish I could ditch it but I now find myself addicted to it.. Oh and I always am racing the last mile of a run now to get my average pace lower on the run... ugh!!!!!!

I'm older than most, and don't run every day. Off days, I have a skierg machine. Look it up.

When I skierg, I 'ski' to a distance, not a time. Sometimes, I try to get TO that distance in a certain time, but if I'm not feeling it, I don't. I simply ski to 5K or 10K, whatever.

Same as I run. I have courses I run, and I might check the time before and after to get a rough idea the speed I was going. If I add on, or come up with some other course, I just sort of pay attention to the time. What's it matter, anyway?

I race a 5K now and then, and assume the course is somewhat accurate. If it's the same course I ran last year, I can compare. Just run, as they say.