Pat Casey 3:59.76

those living and training at altitude should have a much lower conversion than those living and training at sea level and going up to altitude to race, yet the NCAA has one conversion. Keino was born and trained at altitude, he never ran that time at sea level and even if he was in the best shape of his life at the time was not going to run that much faster at sea level (maybe a world record, maybe not, but no mid 3:20s). This was a terrific performance for Casey and he is a top contender for NCAA's, particularly if you factor in the lack of competition. Altitude benefits runners at races under 800m and harms them above that. At 800m, it is more or less neutral.

Actually Casey BENEFITS from altitude cuz he's a widebody and the lessened air resistance translates into good time for him. He's a 4:04.76 guy at best down in the lowlands.

Oh, by the way, he validated his performance with a solo 1:47.56 auto qualifier this evening. The kids is a MACHINE!!! Go Bobcats!

The altitude factor wrote:

There's no one on the plannet [sic] running PR's from 800m and up at altitude.

I just mentioned two prominent examples -- Olympic gold medalists at 800 and 1500 who both set lifetime PRs (one of which was a world record) at a much higher altitude than that of Bozeman, Montana, and who both ran many slower races at sea level. Of course, many other runners set PRs at a wide range of altitudes; whether they would run faster at sea-level or below is a different matter, but the precise optimal altitude will not be the same for all runners at all distances.

People who insist that a certain increase in altitude necessarily slows times in middle-distance races by some certain amount, and purport to come up with "equivalent" sea-level performances, do so against substantial evidence to the contrary. Some of those people are simply ignorant about the complexities and trade-offs in running middle-distance races at various altitudes; others, however, should know better. For example, Tim Noakes, in his well-known doorstop "Lore of Running," states that, in winning the 1500 in Mexico City at 2200m altitude, "Keino ran the equivalent of a 3:42 mile at sea level." Keino, however, never came within ten seconds of a 3:42 mile at sea level, and nobody in the 42+ years since that performance -- including many much faster milers than Keino -- has managed to run that purported sea-level "equivalent," either. So in what sense can Keino's performance reasonably be considered the "equivalent" of a 3:42 mile at sea level? Proclaiming Keino's indisputably great performance to be the equivalent of a 3:42 sea-level mile is letting hyperbolic story-telling (a common malady among sports fans) get in the way of good science.

So what's a 3:59:++ in Bozeman worth at sea level? Who knows? For someone who is not acclimated to 5,000 feet (which, by the way, is generally considered by physiologists to be at the low end of "moderate" or "medium" altitude, not "high" altitude), it could signal a fitness level of several seconds faster, although there can be significant differences among unacclimated runners reflecting, for example, differences in running economy (which generally increases as altitude increases). For someone like Keino, however, it may signal nothing significantly better than a 3:59:++ at sea level.

Avocado's Number wrote:

I just mentioned two prominent examples ... People who insist that a certain increase in altitude necessarily slows times in middle-distance races by some certain amount, and purport to come up with "equivalent" sea-level performances, do so against substantial evidence to the contrary. Some of those people are simply ignorant about the complexities and trade-offs in running middle-distance races at various altitudes; others, however, should know better. For example... proclaiming Keino's indisputably great performance to be the equivalent of a 3:42 sea-level mile is letting hyperbolic story-telling (a common malady among sports fans) get in the way of good science.

Well... you are relying on argument by example, which is certainly not considered good science. "People who insist that a certain increase in altitude necessarily slows times in middle-distance races by some certain amount, and purport to come up with "equivalent" sea-level performances" are using data to determine the average decline in performance as elevation increases. They of course recognize that there is variation around this average. The fact that not every single individual experiences exactly the same handicap at 500 feet does not change the fact that virtually everyone runs significantly slower.

In layman's terms, I've run in that field house and it feels like your freaking lungs are on fire by the 4th lap. It sucks!

sc42 wrote:

Well... you are relying on argument by example, which is certainly not considered good science.

Actually, it's considered the very best science to counter a statement like "There's no one on the plannet [sic] running PR's from 800m and up at altitude," since a single example falsifies the statement.

There's nothing wrong with praising a performance for what it actually is rather than what some people think it is "equivalent" to. I think that Keino's performance in 1968 was one of the outstanding Olympic track and field performances of all time, greatly underappreciated by many Americans who seemed to think that Jim Ryun was simply cheated out of a gold medal by the IOC's decision to have the Games in a location that was less favorable to some sea-level athletes. But I don't think that Keino ran the "equivalent" of 3:42 mile sea-level mile. Not even close.

Reports about altitude-adjusted times are often not just goofy speculation, but also flatly incorrect. Look at the headline of the local newspaper reporting on Casey's outstanding performance:

"World's Fastest Time"? Of course not. It was, however, within a couple of seconds of the world's fastest time of the new year at that time -- very impressive for a solo run by a young college guy in a little meet in Montana.

Avocado's Number, sc42 is an actual scientist. One of the leaders in his field who understands the scientific method and statistical analysis.

Why does Northern Arizona University travel to the University of Washington every year to qualify for NCAAs? Why don't they simply have rabbited races and use the "too gracious" qualifying standard to save travel money and race at home? They have a great oversized track and can make a race just with their distance squad!

Why did Pat Casey barely qualify for nationals with an altitude adjusted time last year, but end up placing 3rd in a field of "real" sub 4 minute milers. While to me these are compelling arguments, I don't consider them of and by themselves significant. I don't know if the altitude adjustment is too much or too little, but certainly I don't present the headline of a local paper as significant evidence. A sample size of one performance by Kip Keino in 1968? We could match anecdotal example by example, but I would rather consider scientists' work.

You may or may not be a world renowned exercise scientist. If you are not, feel free to attain the necessary designations, conduct real research, and present your findings regarding altitude adjustments. If they are incorrect and need to be adjusted, it would be wonderful to have them set correctly.

my edition of noakes says keino ran the equiv of a 3:52 mile at sea level, although I assumed that was a typo. He ran the equivalent of a 3:52 mile at altitude on that day and as an altitude runner he could not have had that much of a disadvantage. as noakes says in the book, altitude raised/trained runners will always have a major advantage over non altitude raised/trained runners at altitude. Hence, the conversion should be less for them, maybe a lot less. And, you did not note that the 800m WR at altitude only indicates that there is neither advantage, nor disadvantage (maybe if you haven't trained at all at altitude, unlike most runners in 1968) for that distance, because the effects counterbalance each other. At 400m a clear advantage, at 800 more or less neutral, at 1500 a clear disadvantage for non altitude runners, and major disadvantages at higher distances.

jjjjj wrote:

my edition of noakes says keino ran the equiv of a 3:52 mile at sea level, although I assumed that was a typo. He ran the equivalent of a 3:52 mile at altitude on that day and as an altitude runner he could not have had that much of a disadvantage. . . . And, you did not note that the 800m WR at altitude only indicates that there is neither advantage, nor disadvantage (maybe if you haven't trained at all at altitude, unlike most runners in 1968) for that distance, because the effects counterbalance each other.

I'm looking at Noakes, 4th ed. (2001), at page 405 figure 6.12.: "Keino ran the equivalent of a 3:42 mile at sea level."

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I didn't "note that the 800m WR at altitude only indicates that there is neither advantage, nor disadvantage." I don't think that Doubell's performance is, by itself, enough to give any strong indication about the net effect that increased altitude has on 800m performance, apart from indicating that it didn't have a strong negative effect on Doubell's performance. The net effect is going to be different for different runners under different race conditions and at different altitudes. A faster runner in a solo time trial without rabbits will benefit more from the lower air resistance at higher altitudes (since faster speeds generate exponentially greater air resistance), and may be somewhat less affected by the decreased VO2max at the higher altitudes (since the faster runner may be getting a greater percentage of his energy during the race from anaerobic metabolism). An interesting analogue to this can be found in cycling, where the decreased air resistance at higher altitudes will often outweigh the effects of very large decreases in VO2max, even in an event that is overwhelmingly aerobic, such that world records in the unaccompanied one-hour time trial have been set at altitudes well in excess of 7,000 feet. (Of course, world records in the one-hour run will not be set at such altitudes, because the speeds involved in one-hour running time trials do not generate as much air resistance as the speeds involved in one-hour cycling time trials.)

This kid is from a small town in Montana and lives and breathes running. He's a hard worker who you can't dare take anything away from. He's a strong competitor and I really hope he takes the mile home this year. By the way he ran that mile by himself in case you didn't watch it. Do work Pat!!!

Pat Casey just became my dark horse for ncaas. he might lay fernandez to rest.

Wow, that was really inspiring. He seemed so smooth throughout. I look forward to seeing his season progress. I think that NCAA's is going to be a helluva' race this year (not that it isn't most years).

As for the altitude comparisons, keep in mind that they are averages. The average person capable of 3:59 in Bozeman would run time X (varies depending on the calculator used) at 0 ft. Some people acclimate better or worse at altitude. No matter what, he'll be capable of a faster time at sea level, but whether or not he can actually run a 3:54 isn't given. Could be 3:52, could be 3:56, etc.

Alright, now that Pat Casey has had a full indoor and outdoor season after his fantastic 3:59 at altitude, can we agree that the 3:54 altitude adjustment was bogus?

All his races are here:

http://www.tfrrs.org/athletes/2257926.html

Despite running at Mt. Sac in a race that was won in 3:35 and despite running at Payton Jordan in a race that was won in 3:39, his best 1500 of the year was 3:41.34, a time that converts to 3:59 flat (using the 1.08 conversion).

I'm not hating on Pat Casey at all here, I am hating on the conversion.