On a previous thread I stated that if we used past world record data we could predict an approximate time of the 3:40 mile record to be broken. Well check out this chart I found that suggests that 3:40 is right around the corner.
On a previous thread I stated that if we used past world record data we could predict an approximate time of the 3:40 mile record to be broken. Well check out this chart I found that suggests that 3:40 is right around the corner.
According to that graph and the best fit line, a sub 3:40 already happened...
You do realize that their data points stop at 1981, so this data is only indicative of a (mostly) straight-line progression over a 30 year period.
1st sub 4:00 1954
1st sub 3:55 1958 4 years
1st sub 3:50 1975 17 years
1st sub 3:45 1993 18 years
3:43 (current wr) 2005 12 years
12 years, and we're not even half way from 3:45 to 3:40. Sub 3:40 talk sounds a bit premature right now.
If you extend your reasoning further, it also suggests that the mile world record during shakespeare lifetime was nearly 7 minutes, and that the world record in 100 years will be 2:54. In 500 years we'll be so fast that we'll move backwards in time by running a mile.
In any case, the chart suggests that 3:40 already happened and isn't just around the corner.
Predicting future mile times from data describing past improvements is an exercise in idiocacy. Increased interest and improved training led to many of the initial gains. Training has changed a lot less dramatically in the past 30 years than it did initially.
The mile is also raced infrequently. It might be more wise to make predictions with 1500 m times.
Are you folks having some bad runs lately or are you always this negative. I realize that although up to 81 like the graph shows it has been pretty much a straight line that is unlikely to continue. Obviously the records can not go negative. But I do see a trend that suggests a 3:40 is in the very near future. Yes that line is likely to curve and probably has if we had more recent data but I do find in interesting that such a straight line was achieved through those years. You folks need a good run.
What trend are you looking at?
Cram ran 3:46.32 in 1985. Then 2 of the most dominant milers in history came along, and in 14 years, they lowered the record by 3.19 seconds. To get a sub 3:40, another 3.14 seconds would have to come off of the current world record. If you go 14 years from 1999, that puts us at 2013. But that's pretty optimistic since times fall at a decreasing rate and Morceli and El Gerroudj both took huge chunks off the record. The odds of having two more guys who can each take 1 or 2 seconds off the record is slim.
Slightly off topic: Will someone break 2:00 in the marathon in our lifetime? Are there charts on this?
Charts and graphs don't take enough into account. For example: Our population grows at an exponential rate. But will there be ten trillion people on the Earth at any point in the future? I'd say the Earth can't support that many. So obviously, best-fit curves have their limitations.
The curve will have to become inaccurate, sooner or later. Improvements in the record have come decreasingly with time; therefore, sub 3:40 is not going to come as easily as the improvement from 3:46 to 3:43. So don't hold your breath.
My charts reveal that a sub 2 hour marathon requires, on average, someone to be able to run sub 26:00, just barely, over the 10k distance. If one has exceptional endurance compared to speed, then one can get by with 26:20 speed over 10 kilometers. It doesn't mean that a 26:20 10k runner can automatically run a sub 2 hour marathon, but it means a marathoner training specifically for the marathon will need at least sub 26:20 10k time or more likely 26 flat to slightly under to reach the goal marathon time described. Tinman
It seems that 1:40, 3:40, 26:00 and 2hrs are all pretty equivalent performances as the records sit right now. This would be a decent debate of who thinks which will fall first
A new WR mile prediction should consider the insane last 1:47 split in the Olympic 1500M. Do we see a 1:49 pace for an entire mile around the corner??
I say no.
Ultramiler wrote:
Charts and graphs don't take enough into account. For example: Our population grows at an exponential rate. But will there be ten trillion people on the Earth at any point in the future? I'd say the Earth can't support that many. So obviously, best-fit curves have their limitations.
The curve will have to become inaccurate, sooner or later. Improvements in the record have come decreasingly with time; therefore, sub 3:40 is not going to come as easily as the improvement from 3:46 to 3:43. So don't hold your breath.
Charts, graphs, and best fit curves are no the problem. Trying to understand inherently nonlinear and chaotic systems with linear and simple exponential models is. There's simply not enough data in order to make anything like an accurate prediction.
Exactly right. The line of best fit is based on previous data and is hard to apply to the future. Maybe 3:40 will fall tomorrow, maybe it will never fall. The graph sure as hell can't predict it.
One obvious question should be asked (and it may have been asked already), but by whom? Who, today or even over the next 4 years has it in him to run a 3:39.99 mile? Answer is, NO ONE.
Indeed, I agree that all three times are on par level.
I suspect the first record to go is the mile time. I think current runners have the capacity to run 3:42.5.
It may be as early as 2010 when 3-4 runners per season achieve a sub 3:44.
The mile record will go to one who has excellent 400 speed. One needs about :45.6 speed over 400m to break the 3:40 mile. I think it is possible by the year 2025. Just a guess! Tinman
Tinman, you're reading my mind. Not only 45.xx speed but also 12:48 - 12:55 5k time (on a regular basis). That kind of runner would be a "monster" and no one would be able to "hang" with him. 2025 would be a "kind" estimate.
If you extend your reasoning further, it also suggests that the mile world record during shakespeare lifetime was nearly 7 minutes, and that the world record in 100 years will be 2:54.
He never said that a linear model was the ideal way to predict future records. Neither did that webpage, indeed it pointed out that extrapolating along linear models is dangerous, especially when the model ignores the underlying science behind the data (in this case, physiological variables). One of the characteristics of some of the better models is that they have some basis in physiology (they are based on presumed trends in highest VO2 max, etc, and we already know these things will not trend upwards linearly)
Predicting future mile times from data describing past improvements is an exercise in idiocacy.
No. There are indeed models that take into account the idea of diminishing returns, and also model plateaus in times. So your argument that lack of training improvements makes it impossible to predict future times is a non-sequitur. This lack of improvement could be incorporated into a model.
No human will be able to run under 26 minutes for 10K without genetic or pharmaceutical help. That's sub 13 5K's back to back. I can't understand how people think that humans should always be getting faster. Monitoring the body and new types of tracks and other bells and whistles will only get us so fast before the human body just can't go any faster. Have we hit that point yet? No, but we're getting pretty close. What has caused the recent run in incredible performances on the men's side? We should be leveling off in our progression of WRs as it gets harder for science and training to cut off large chunks of time. There has been no gigantic breakthrough in science or training in the last 10 years, yet now we get talk of a sub-26. Well, either the Ethiopians have an incredible disposition to running that has gone completely untapped, or it's only through doping will we achieve these dreams.