"Only" 2500 feet, but across the board five seconds slower/mile.
"Only" 2500 feet, but across the board five seconds slower/mile.
Too many potatoes...heavy meals slow them down.
There was a new NCAA meet record in the men's 5000m.
The DMRs were slow because the mile legs slowed up.
It's called a championship race.
By a guy running almost 20 seconds slower than his recent PR and by accounts looking strained in doing so. As for "championships" arguments, look at last years results and you'll see a lot of the same players (Estrada, Leonard K) running significantly slower this year. Something is "in the air".
Reality Bath wrote:
By a guy running almost 20 seconds slower than his recent PR and by accounts looking strained in doing so. As for "championships" arguments, look at last years results and you'll see a lot of the same players (Estrada, Leonard K) running significantly slower this year. Something is "in the air".
Yeah because all championship races play out the same. Sometimes no one wants to take it, and the races end up slower because no one gives two shits about time in these races. The fact that Lawi was such an odds on favorite most likely slowed the race down because no one wants to go after him with the exception of Derrick, Sambu and Korir....and two of them didn't have good races today. The rest are left to their own rather than chasing like last year.
There is an oxygen difference, just not as severe as higher altitudes. 2500ft has about 90-93% of sea level oxygen, whereas somewhere like Denver is about 10% less.
* 10% less than 2500ft
2500 is considered altitude training. It's like 2730 there. Times are going to be slower in anything over 400 meters.
USATF doesn't offer adjustments til 3000. The times were slow because everyone ran tactical like they do in most championship meets. Was Eugene slow by two + minutes when Rupp won the 10 in over 29 minutes last year?
On the women's side, the times were much faster this year (30 seconds). So obviously one should conclude that a slight elevation such as Boise actually helps distance races, before reaching higher elevations which then reverse the effect and begin being detrimental to performances.
Reality Bath wrote:
By a guy running almost 20 seconds slower than his recent PR and by accounts looking strained in doing so. As for "championships" arguments, look at last years results and you'll see a lot of the same players (Estrada, Leonard K) running significantly slower this year. Something is "in the air".
So Miles Batty, a 3:54 for *full* mile, gets the stick in 7th, and "runs tactical" to barely break 3:58 for 1600 #^%* meters in a losing effort? Yeah right. Almost every year guys are running 3:55-ish to close their DMRs, and I recall Bayer running 3:53, and this year, in the deepest field of milers ever, guys are struggling with 3:58-4:00. I believe the reactions of the athletes' bodies vs. the armchair opinions of "tactical, tactical tactical" excuse-makers. Altitude is having an effect out there.
"I believe the reactions of the athletes' bodies vs. the armchair opinions of "tactical, tactical tactical" excuse-makers. Altitude is having an effect out there.”
Well, since you already had the answer, why did you start the thread?
Batty ran way off the back and had a huge kick; he just miscalculated. Yes, it was poor tactics. The altitude would have effected him in the last 600 of the race, not the first 600. The fact that he had enough left to pass so many people even though he was forced into the outside to pass proves he had too much left. According to you, Arkansas altitude must be really terrible. In 2010, no one including Olympian Andrew Wheating broke 4 on the anchor. That must be the secret to Arkansas success for so many years, the altitude training. And this "armchair opinion" comes from a guy who has raced in Boise.
Reality Bath wrote:
So Miles Batty, a 3:54 for *full* mile, gets the stick in 7th, and "runs tactical" to barely break 3:58 for 1600 #^%* meters in a losing effort? Yeah right. Almost every year guys are running 3:55-ish to close their DMRs, and I recall Bayer running 3:53, and this year, in the deepest field of milers ever, guys are struggling with 3:58-4:00. I believe the reactions of the athletes' bodies vs. the armchair opinions of "tactical, tactical tactical" excuse-makers. Altitude is having an effect out there.
The effect is negligible. 2,500 ft. is still low altitude.
/thread
I thought that there was a slight effect when I raced in Provo. I don't think you have to go to 5000 feet to be affected.
Giant Johnson wrote:
The effect is negligible. 2,500 ft. is still low altitude.
/thread
I live at about 400 ft. I would think that 2,500 ft would have an impact on me if I was in a race situation and trying to ran as fast as I possibly could.
If 2,500 ft has no impact, at what point does altitude become a factor? I have run a race at 5,000 and there is definitely impact there.
It might have a minimal impact, but not even close to some of the adjustments people have suggested on these boards.
oh man come on wrote:
On the women's side, the times were much faster this year (30 seconds). So obviously one should conclude that a slight elevation such as Boise actually helps distance races, before reaching higher elevations which then reverse the effect and begin being detrimental to performances.
Like women's running matters ....
break it up wrote:
I thought that there was a slight effect when I raced in Provo. I don't think you have to go to 5000 feet to be affected.
I guess because Provo is 4500 feet.