So says the great Amby Burfoot, whom I greatly admire.
What's the Women's Equivalent of a Sub-2:00 Marathon?
Some say Paula Radcliffe has already run it.
By Amby Burfoot
Published December 23, 2014
Paula Radcliffe's world marathon record of 2:15:25 has stood since 2003.
With all the recent talk about a sub-2:00 marathon for men, it was inevitable that someone would ask: What’s the equivalent for women? That question has now been answered, at least in part, in the Journal of Applied Physiology.
You couldn’t find a more qualified group of researchers to tackle the question. Sandra Hunter has long been investigating gender differences in performance, Michael Joyner wrote the first sub-2:00 paper way back in 1991, and Andrew Jones performed a famous longitudinal study of Paula Radcliffe’s running economy over many years.
All of which leads them to conclude that Radcliffe has already been there, done that. Her world record of 2:15:25, set in 2003, “is at least equivalent to a sub-2:00 marathon for men,” the authors write. Indeed, the Mercier Calculator, referenced in their paper, gives Radcliffe a time equivalent to 1:59:55 for a man.
The researchers also note that Radcliffe owns the three fastest times ever, and that her best is an astonishing 2.2 percent faster than the next female, Liliya Shobukhova (2:18:20), currently serving a two-year doping ban. By contrast, with the world record he set at this year's Berlin Marathon, Dennis Kimetto (2:02:57) leads Emmanuel Mutai (2:03:13) by .2 percent.
Radcliffe's mark looks more feasible now than a decade ago, thanks to the dramatic improvements on the men's side of the ledger. In 2003, when the men’s record was 2:04:55, her 2:15:25 was only 8.4 percent slower than the men's mark. Women’s world records such as Florence Griffith Joyner’s 10.49 seconds for 100 meters and Wang Junxia’s 29:31.78 for 10,000 meters are regarded with suspicion because they are only 8 to 9 percent slower than the men's marks; most women's world records are 10-12 percent slower than the men's. Now that the men's marathon mark stands at 2:02:57, Radcliffe trails by 10.3 percent.
During her peak running years, Radcliffe was frequently tested in Jones' physiology lab, so she has left behind an impressive and unusual exercise footprint. Most top marathoners excel in either their VO2 max or their running economy, but rarely both. Radcliffe, however, produced top laboratory scores for VO2 max, critical velocity/lactate threshold, and running economy. At her best, she seemed to represent the perfect storm of marathon runners. Note the researchers: “Radcliffe’s superior economy and critical velocity allowed her to run at high absolute speeds for extended periods.”
Runner's World Newswire asked Joyner which he expects to see fall first–sub-2:00 for men or an improvement on 2:15:25 by a woman?
"I can go either way," he responded by email. "Historically, women still lag behind the men, so they could improve faster as they catch up in depth.
"On the other hand, men could get there pretty quickly with cool temps, a fast, loop course, organized drafting, and a big prize money scheme that would reward everyone who hits certain splits en route. We should all remember how Roger Bannister broke 4:00. His race was totally set up to reach the sub-4 goal. That's what it will take, more than improved training or insights from sports science, to get to a sub-2:00 marathon."
http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/whats-the-womens-equivalent-of-a-sub-200-marathon
RW: Radcliffe has run the equivalent of sub-2 hr marathon
Report Thread
-
-
How do you describe an ineffective vacuum cleaner? Do you say that it sucks, or that it doesn't suck?
-
"when its too good to be true is usually is too good to be true"
Radcliffs marathon time is equal to floJo's 100M world record and the women's 400M world record. Being the equivalent of a mens sub 2 hr marathon and she did it a decade ago. My God people. She needs to shut her mouth about being hard on drug cheats as she was the best of them all. Up there with barry bond and mark maguire. -
What an idiot that jogger's world guy is. 1:15:25 is 12.8% slower than a 2:00 marathon.
-
Let's help you with a couple of points:
1.) You must mean "moron" not "moran", yes?
2.) It is 12.8% slower, but you also have your numbers wrong.
You meant 2:15:25, not 1:15:25.
Here is how you do the math:
120 x 1.128 = 135.36.
120 on a calculator represents 2:00:00.
1.128 represents 12.8% when using a calculator to multiply the math.
Hopefully that helps.
I am not sure that 2:15:25 is sub-2:00:00 for women, but it is slightly better than 2:02:57 for men. -
A women's equivalent of a Men's 2hr marathon should be 2hrs. Wonk wonk wonk science excuses and etc. for the things to be equivalent they should be the same thing and nothing else i.e. A 2hr marathon.
-
Mr. Dick Straight wrote:
Let's help you with a couple of points:
1.) You must mean "moron" not "moran", yes?
You must be new here. -
No. She has run the equivalent of a 2:15:25 marathon. No one has run the equivalent of a 2 hour marathon yet. Unless Jerry Lindgren has done it lately.
-
According to Gilbert's VDOT tables the average of 16 men's distance events is 14.4% better than the same 16 events for women. The two extremes are 1-hour run, in which the men's record is 18.9% better and the 3000 in which the men's is only 11.8% better (men's record is 11.9% better than women's in the marathon, so similar to the 3k difference). Next closest is 30k at 13.2%
-
Old Ultra Guy wrote:
You couldnt find a more qualified group of researchers to tackle the question. Sandra Hunter has long been investigating gender differences in performance, Michael Joyner wrote the first sub-2:00 paper way back in 1991, and Andrew Jones performed a famous longitudinal study of Paula Radcliffes running economy over many years.
All of which leads them to conclude that Radcliffe has already been there, done that. Her world record of 2:15:25, set in 2003, “is at least equivalent to a sub-2:00 marathon for men,” the authors write. Indeed, the Mercier Calculator, referenced in their paper, gives Radcliffe a time equivalent to 1:59:55 for a man.
Now all the idiots here who say the Mercier calculator is bunk can shut their traps. -
utter drivel
2"15'25
=
29'29
for track -
ventolin^3 wrote:utter drivel
2"15'25
=
29'29
for track
2"02'57
=
26'31
for a track -
ventolin^3 wrote:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6164024&page=3
2"04-mid/high
Ventolin, using percentages doesn't work for comparing men to women because the women's population distribution is skewed to the right (violates the assumption of comparing two "normally-distributed" populations). You have to use a rank-ordered method to correct for this, which is what the Mercier calculator does (and it sounds like this study did the same). -
i don't do stats
apart from
it's ~ 10% for 100...400
it's -> 8 - 9% for 5...42km
do some curve-fitting,,, -
The Mercier calculations are obviously outdated. They also equated Paula's 65:40 half marathon world record to 57:xx, which may have seen fine at the time... except it was obliterated by Florence Kiplagat last February (1:05:13) and edged by Mary Keitany this fall (1:05:39). Since his HM calculations are so far off in hindsight, his marathon ones will be proven wrong too.
-
fun with stats wrote:
Ventolin, using percentages doesn't work for comparing men to women because the women's population distribution is skewed to the right (violates the assumption of comparing two "normally-distributed" populations).
They may both be "normally-distributed" (approximately), women just have a higher mean and larger standard deviation. There was an article in RW comparing marathon times vs. miles per week. As miles per week got higher, marathon times not only got faster, but the gap between men and women shrunk - from about 30 minutes at 5:00 to about 10 minutes at 3:45.
http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/runners-with-more-training-miles-finish-marathons-faster -
HardLoper wrote:
except it was obliterated by Florence Kiplagat last February (1:05:13)
1:05:12* -
HardLoper wrote:
The Mercier calculations are obviously outdated. They also equated Paula's 65:40 half marathon world record to 57:xx, which may have seen fine at the time... except it was obliterated by Florence Kiplagat last February (1:05:13) and edged by Mary Keitany this fall (1:05:39). Since his HM calculations are so far off in hindsight, his marathon ones will be proven wrong too.
Yeah, but this study is not outdated and further provides support for the accuracy of the Mercier calculator, even if it is outdated (most recent version was 2009). -
Check my math, but I think these are correct. These are the current world records from 200m to the marathon, for the more common distances for men, women and the percentage slow that they women's times are to the men's times.
200m - Men - 19.19 - Women - 21.34 = 11.2%
400m - Men - 43.18 - Women - 47.60 = 10.2%
800m - Men - 1:40.91 - Women - 1:53.28 = 12.2%
1500m - Men - 3:26.00 - Women - 3:50.46 = 11.7%
3000m - Men - 7:20.67 - Women - 8:06.11 = 10.5%
5000m - Men - 12:37.35 - Women - 14:11.15 = 11.8%
10000m - Men - 26:17.53 - Women - 29:31.78 = 12.2%
21.1k - Men - 58:23 - women - 65:12 = 11.6%
Marathon - Men - 2:02:57 - Women - 2:15:25 = 10.2%
