For men, I’d say the 60 second mark is what seperates the fast from the average.
What would be the equivalent for women. 70, 75 sec?
For men, I’d say the 60 second mark is what seperates the fast from the average.
What would be the equivalent for women. 70, 75 sec?
72
Mercier tables say 73 sec for women = 59 sec for men
Those tables are always based on performances, and low participation rate for competitive female runners always skew their times in the slow direction. The records are about 4 and a half seconds apart, and that would be a difference of about 6-7 seconds in the 60 second range.
The worst level of comparison possible is using a World Record. It is a sampling of ONE and is not enough of a sample size to compare.
I would say 67-69. I think 70 would be too slow. I have a girl without too much leg speed, couldn't break 6:00 in the mile this year, yet still ran a couple low 70's in workouts. Whereas the guys I coached that would have been around her range as males (5:05-5:15 milers) could run 59-60 all out. I've seen similar things over the years.
I think the equivalent to be right around ~68.
If you want to this kind of terminology, the world record is the minimum value over a population (a parameter). Nothing to do with a sample at all.
Poor Sampling wrote:
The worst level of comparison possible is using a World Record. It is a sampling of ONE and is not enough of a sample size to compare.
Especially the impossible GDR record.
But take typical very good times, say 44 and 50 respectively. The factor is 0.88. Which would give 68 as roughly equivalent to 60 which seems more plausible to me than 73.
WMA calculator says 66 seconds.
I feel like the gender differential gets smaller a you get slower. A 2:20 marathon by a female is obviously worth much faster for a male, but a 5 hour slog is a 5 hour slog regardless of whether it is done by a man or a woman. A 60 second 400m is probably getting up around that threshold where it's just slow whether it's run by a male or female, and doesn't really need to be converted.
back of the envelop math is all we need
established sub 60 is fast ----60 plus is not
HS g4x400 averages 54.4
HS b4x400 averages 47.0
now you have a base line that is closer to defining the average fastest male and average fastest female
1.2 differential ( 54.5/47) b to g
13x1.2 = 15.6
54.4 + 15.4= 69.8 or 70 seconds conversationally
wineturtle wrote:
back of the envelop math is all we need
established sub 60 is fast ----60 plus is not
HS g4x400 averages 54.4
HS b4x400 averages 47.0
now you have a base line that is closer to defining the average fastest male and average fastest female
1.2 differential ( 54.5/47) b to g
13x1.2 = 15.6
54.4 + 15.4= 69.8 or 70 seconds conversationally
Women’s hearts/vo2 max scores are about 20% smaller/lower than men’s.
For example 40ml/kg female = 50ml/kg male.
20% of 60 sec is 12 sec so 60sec + 12sec = 72 sec.
I use the 11% rule.
Which puts a 60 for a guy at 67.4 for a female
Tomfaz wrote:
Women’s hearts/vo2 max scores are about 20% smaller/lower than men’s.
For example 40ml/kg female = 50ml/kg male.
20% of 60 sec is 12 sec so 60sec + 12sec = 72 sec.
1. 20% difference in VO2 max doesn't mean a 20% difference in times.
2. 400 meters has very little to do with VO2 max.
wineturtle wrote:
back of the envelop math is all we need
established sub 60 is fast ----60 plus is not
HS g4x400 averages 54.4
HS b4x400 averages 47.0
now you have a base line that is closer to defining the average fastest male and average fastest female
1.2 differential ( 54.5/47) b to g
13x1.2 = 15.6
54.4 + 15.4= 69.8 or 70 seconds conversationally
Not sure where you got your data. Nevertheless, it probably reflects the lower participation rate of girls in competitive track.
Jo72 wrote:
Especially the impossible GDR record.
That objection would only make sense if you assume the male record is clean.
I can be agnostic about the male record as I am not taking any records but world class times that are somewhat frequently run. Maybe 44,0 and 50,0 are not run clean but certainly not to the extent "unclean" like Koch in the 80s as nobody ever came close to these times later. It is even more of an outlier than many other records, so the rule not to take outliers applies.
Only a rough estimate is needed as there is not going to be an exact solution to the question anyway.
consider this wrote:
Those tables are always based on performances, and low participation rate for competitive female runners always skew their times in the slow direction. The records are about 4 and a half seconds apart, and that would be a difference of about 6-7 seconds in the 60 second range.
That would skew their times in the fast direction, not slow. Lower participation overall means high-level competition is a greater proportion of the total. Track in general is "tougher" in less-than-road-race distances. 150% of the WR gets you into the open division of the Boston Marathon, but over 800 meters is not even worth recording.
The female/male world record ratios are valid for comparison though, so it is still about a 67.