Is this altitude conversion tool bogus?

Training Advice/Discussion General

12 years ago 06/21/2011 12:12am EDT

http://www.runworks.com/calculator.php

I put in 32:00 for a 10K at sea level and was given the following conversions:

1000 ft (305 m) 32:10.7 3:13.1 5:10.7

2000 ft (610 m) 32:21.4 3:14.1 5:12.4

3000 ft (914 m) 32:32.1 3:15.2 5:14.2

4000 ft (1219 m) 32:42.8 3:16.3 5:15.9

5000 ft (1524 m) 32:53.5 3:17.4 5:17.6

6000 ft (1829 m) 33:04.2 3:18.4 5:19.3

7000 ft (2134 m) 33:14.9 3:19.5 5:21.1

8000 ft (2438 m) 33:25.6 3:20.6 5:22.8

9000 ft (2743 m) 33:36.4 3:21.6 5:24.5

10000 ft (3048 m) 33:47.1 3:22.7 5:26.2

Now, forget whether a runner capable of about 5:10's at sea level really loses 53 seconds racing in a place like Fort Collins, Colorado. What I'm not buying is the linearity of this. There's just no way people lose a steady 10.7 seconds for every 1,000' gained all the way from 0 to 10,000'. I bet there would be a virtually undetectable loss through 3,000' and from there every 1,000' would spell a greater decline than the previous 1,000'.

The only reason I don't dismiss this conversion tool out of hand is that it is supposedly based on something in "Daniels' Running Formula," and I refuse to believe he would stand behind data this shaky. Or am I wrong?

12 years ago 06/21/2011 6:50am EDT

re: It is what it ain't

i have seen models that do show linear relationships up to about 8000 feet and then a slight non-linear relationship. Google scholar can probably get you the abstracts. Check to see what Peronent has written.

12 years ago 06/21/2011 9:45am EDT

re: luv2run

Thank you. For some reason I expected a non-contributory and caustic reply.

12 years ago 06/21/2011 9:57am EDT

re: It is what it ain't

I have generally found their calculator to be useful (it's based on Daniels' tables, so it's got to be at least decent). I have noticed for very high altitudes that it doesn't seem to convert as accurately. Perhaps my acclimation has just never been exceptional at 10,000', but for someone like me with a mid-34 10k capability, I doubt I would only slow down by 2 minutes (as predicted) at 10,000'. I've done enough high altitude running to know that it would slow me down more than that...

12 years ago 06/21/2011 10:29am EDT

re: Raptured

Raptured wrote:
I have generally found their calculator to be useful (it's based on Daniels' tables, so it's got to be at least decent). I have noticed for very high altitudes that it doesn't seem to convert as accurately. Perhaps my acclimation has just never been exceptional at 10,000', but for someone like me with a mid-34 10k capability, I doubt I would only slow down by 2 minutes (as predicted) at 10,000'. I've done enough high altitude running to know that it would slow me down more than that...

The charts are obviously idealizations, but people aren't machines, and I'm guessing that the sheer distress of trying to milk top performance out of yourself at 10,000', with a huge mechanical breathing element involved (to the point where the work of breathing alone could contribute to overall fatigue) would slow even the toughest runners down more than low oxygen pressure alone would explain.

People run very slow at the Bolder Boulder, which is only at 5,300' or so, but the course is obviously a lot tougher than it looks, elevation considerations aside. No big hills but a bunch of grades.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Is this altitude conversion tool bogus?

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Is this altitude conversion tool bogus?

Follow It is what it ain't

Block It is what it ain't

Follow luv2run

Block luv2run

Follow It is what it ain't

Block It is what it ain't

Follow It is what it ain't

Block It is what it ain't

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.