He is. They moved it to the 4th so Cruz could run both.
He is. They moved it to the 4th so Cruz could run both.
Cooper Teare running 4:02 in Boulder a couple weeks ago in the sun on what looked like a warm day with no crowd. Had the benefit of better pacing though
1:48.93 for John Lester, with 53 mid/54 mid 400m splits, 80 at 600m . Paced for first 400m.
The sub 4 in Colorado remains very elusive. I think it will be a while before we ever see it.
If you want to do it at low altitude you have to go through the entire process of setting up an official race at these obscure locations like tonight in Grand Junction and the past attempt in La Junta, and then hoping for good weather. These one-offs are few and far between.
There was also the St. Vrain people offering big money for a sub 4--BUT--it's been held in April which is bad timing for the big time professionals and April weather on the front range will very likely be not ideal. Anything short of perfect weather and you can almost forget it.
That leaves CU indoor track, where the current record was set. You need a CU stud to be in 3:55 shape in January/February. Very difficult task to lower that over another full second.
I've watched the St. Vrain attempts over the years, I've come to the conclusion that we need a pretty elite miler, like 3:52 or faster to come to Colorado in nearly top form to break 4:00.0 here. Maybe even 3:50 or faster. I'm not sure it's ever going to happen.
Anyone have the other womens times?
Gabe Jennings's Teeth wrote:
I think you mean TEAM COBURN
Haha true
CO Coach wrote:
Nonsense! wrote:
COVID must have infected Runerspace and Flosports. Niether seems to be able to broadcast a live track event without it turning into a steaming pile of sh!t.
Another FAIL!
I'm willing to forgive network issues and technical problems, but the camera work? At one point the camera was focusing on a water bottle near the finish line while the women were on their third lap on the back straight. It's like seriously, you can't follow these people around the track for 4 and a half minutes?
haha. I think he fell asleep.
I agree. 3:55 is the minimum fitness, if you can run at altitude, if you have perfect pacing, etc.
How do you get some 3:50 guy to come do it? Money of course. St. Vrain had money, but nobody showed up. if you don't go sub 4 you leave with nothing. It's too big a gamble, but I do hope they can continue to offer that money in future years, somebody will show up eventually
It would be better not to cover a race with professionals like this with such incompetence because it makes this sport look childish.
Wouldn't be surprised to see Drew Hunter take a shot at the in-CO mile record this summer.
His recent 3:57 at approx 3700' ele in Spearfish, South Dakota would be sub-4 in Grand Junction, maybe even in Boulder.
Would be very happy to see Team Boss & TinMan Elite have an intersquad meet back in Grand Junction next month.
Regardless, who would have thought that Colorado Mesa University in Grand Junction would be the epicenter for track and field in the US, even if just for an hour?
Not quite as tough as some of you making it out to be. This looked like any poorly paced race. Had McDonald been out in 2 minutes, I am sure that he would have run 3:58.
Working Stiff wrote:
Cooper Teare running 4:02 in Boulder a couple weeks ago in the sun on what looked like a warm day with no crowd. Had the benefit of better pacing though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_6QBYmsApc&t=382s
Lol at the Karen
3700 feet is sea level as far as performance goes.
tangerine tango2 wrote:
3700 feet is sea level as far as performance goes.
Are you just spitballing here, or do you have evidence to go with that claim? For the last 30 years or so, the NCAA has effectively said anything below 3000 feet is effectively sea level, but not 3700 feet. Interestingly, the NCAA Mountain Region for cross country is altitude-based. I'm not sure what the lowest school is--elevation-wise--in the region, but I it goes below 3700 feet since Texas Tech is included in the region at about 3250 feet.
past his prime wrote:
tangerine tango2 wrote:
3700 feet is sea level as far as performance goes.
Are you just spitballing here, or do you have evidence to go with that claim? For the last 30 years or so, the NCAA has effectively said anything below 3000 feet is effectively sea level, but not 3700 feet. Interestingly, the NCAA Mountain Region for cross country is altitude-based. I'm not sure what the lowest school is--elevation-wise--in the region, but I it goes below 3700 feet since Texas Tech is included in the region at about 3250 feet.
o The term low altitude refers to sites that are below 1500 meters (4920 ft). These sites are where most of the 7.5 billion of the world’s population reside. It is also the sites for most of the world’s athletics competitions. There are negligible physiological effects of hypobaria-hypoxia at this altitude.
o The reduction in PO2 at altitude affects the partial pressure gradient between the blood and the tissues and thus oxygen delivery. PO2 must fall below 131 mmHg (1500 meters [Table 1])) before VO2 max is affected. This explains the decrease in endurance sports performance at high altitude and above.
Altitude (meters) PB (mmHg) PO2 (mmHg)
0 (sea level) 760 159.2
1000 674 141.2
2000 596 124.9
3000 526 110.2
4000 462 96.9
9000 231 48.4
Table 1. Altitude and its effects on atmospheric (barometric) pressure and O2 partial pressure.
o Above 1500 meters (4921 ft), the decline in maximal aerobic power due to altitude exposure equals approximately 3% per 300 meters; this effect is absent below 1500 meters.
albanese wrote:
o The term low altitude refers to sites that are below 1500 meters (4920 ft). These sites are where most of the 7.5 billion of the world’s population reside. It is also the sites for most of the world’s athletics competitions. There are negligible physiological effects of hypobaria-hypoxia at this altitude.
o The reduction in PO2 at altitude affects the partial pressure gradient between the blood and the tissues and thus oxygen delivery. PO2 must fall below 131 mmHg (1500 meters [Table 1])) before VO2 max is affected. This explains the decrease in endurance sports performance at high altitude and above.
Altitude (meters) PB (mmHg) PO2 (mmHg)
0 (sea level) 760 159.2
1000 674 141.2
2000 596 124.9
3000 526 110.2
4000 462 96.9
9000 231 48.4
Table 1. Altitude and its effects on atmospheric (barometric) pressure and O2 partial pressure.
o Above 1500 meters (4921 ft), the decline in maximal aerobic power due to altitude exposure equals approximately 3% per 300 meters; this effect is absent below 1500 meters.
Looks like 1500m is more a measure of convenience than a well-established fact. The Albuquerque Convention Center is barely over 1500m of elevation, yet the howling about running distance at altitude commences as soon as a USATF or NCAA indoor championship event is scheduled for that venue.
The NCAA altitude conversions--which aren't necessarily the final word on any of this but do have some research behind them--go down to 3000 feet of elevation.
3700 feet is "altitude" but it's miniscule. I've raced in spearfish, SD. We did not alter our race plans on account of altitude, we paced just like we would at literal sea level. And while running it felt like sea level.
The plot of altitude versus performance decline is not linear. For example, in the mile if you get a 2.5 second performance decrease at 4500 feet, double that to 9000 feet and the performance decline will be more than 5 seconds.
I thought there was a chart somewhere (can't find it) that showed altitude effect based on distance raced. I think there wan an advantage to sprinting at higher altitude. As the distance increased, the altitude advantage gradually disappears and becomes a disadvantage in the longer events. From my memory, the break-even point was somewhere between the 800m and mile. Does anyone remember this?
There are charts, but none are definitive. One of the issues here is that altitude is only one factor that's in play. Air pressure is another factor, and that changes all day long, every day. So, conditions could be much better at 6000 feet of elevation at one time and place than they are at 4000 feet of elevation at a different time and place.
Generally speaking, yes, sprinting is easier at altitude because there is less air to push through (and there are NCAA altitude conversions for this, too). I believe, though, the "break-even" point is somewhere between 400 and 800 meters. It's generally regarded as tougher, though only slightly so, to run an 800 at altitude. And, the NCAA altitude conversions give a slight break for competing at altitude in the 800.