I know a lot of people who give NCAA altitude-converted times as their PRs. Is there validity to this? NCAA lists, for example, use altitude conversions. My 5k PR is a bit faster if I use an altitude-converted time, but I am somehow weary of doing so. What does everyone else think about this topic? Is your mile PR 5 seconds faster if you run it at the University of Colorado or not?
no
No. Go back and do an NCAA altitude conversion of Kip Keino's 1500-meter time at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. Compare that with any time that he ever ran in any other race in his long and storied career.
These conversions are gross generalizations, like heat-index conversions and I-did-a-hard-12-mile-run-yesterday conversions.
That's a good point, but does anyone care to argue the other side. A lot of people maintain that the conversions are not nearly generous enough especially if you weren't raised at altitude.
Keino had the performance of a lifetime at an exceptional meet, where several other athletes ran out of this world for that time. Marks set at Mexico City set the standard the next 20 to 25 years.
Jog my memory--what did Ryun run, and how did that convert to at SL?
Jack Daniels and other researchers have published scads of research to confirm that altitude does affect running performance. So there's that ... or you can go with the tough guys who say altitude is not a factor for them.
B0ulderite wrote:
Jack Daniels and other researchers have published scads of research to confirm that altitude does affect running performance. So there's that ... or you can go with the tough guys who say altitude is not a factor for them.
No shit it slows you down. The question is if the NCAA conversion is to generous.
Everyone agrees that it slows you down. My take on PRs is that it is the fastest you have ever covered a certain distance. A conversion doesn't count.
This is extremely unlikely but say someone ran an NCAA record with the conversion factored in (say a 13.04 5k with altitude adjustment). Would it count as an official record?
What about this wrote:
This is extremely unlikely but say someone ran an NCAA record with the conversion factored in (say a 13.04 5k with altitude adjustment). Would it count as an official record?
no that shouldn't count as a record, but it's fair to qualify with NCAAs. And a runner can legitimately say that a converted xx:xx at distance y is a pr.
NO. You only get the time you actually run. While it may be considered a heck of a performance because it was at altitude, you do not get to deduct time and call it a pr. The performance may theoretically convert to a faster time at sea level. However, to count as a pr, you still have to go there and prove it by actually running the time. If you have great aerobic system but lack the foot speed to run the conversion you may not get it done. However if you have great speed you might beat the conversion and run faster at sea level. But you only get the time you actually run.
When I ran years ago, my season's best at altitude were similar to my sea-level. In my opinion, the conversions were close.
Altitute- 4:03.07 Sea Level 4:03.56
Altitude: 3:44.80 Sea level 3:44.40
I grew up a sea level, and my teammate grew up at altitude. His altitude times were always a lot faster than his sea level bests. I think it's skewed for sea level born athletes--so it doesn't seem to be as accurate for Colorado or Kenyan (or any other native high altitude) born athletes
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Official Suzhou Diamond League Discussion Thread (7-9 am ET+ Instant Reaction show at 9:05 am ET)
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
Article: Director of BU track and field, cross country steps down following abuse allegations