Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Running Speeds

allendowney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 195 posts

Re: Running Speeds

#161

Post by thfuran »

bee_rider wrote: post #97
patrick0d wrote: post #77

>height and weight, fast- and slow-twitch muscle mass, cardiovascular conditioning, flexibility and elasticity, and probably more. When we try to figure out how to measure someones speed (say to compare Usain Bolt to another high quality sprinter) we will look at factors like height, stride length and strength. But in terms of all the factors that need to be measured to describe the function of someones running speed…

That seems, at least to me, a pretty egalitarian and optimistic view. I mean, the teenager is basically as good as the Olympian in your example, qualitatively. If the peak of skill is only 10% higher than a talented amateur with some training, we should probably have a more equal income distribution.

For one, it isn't. Also, most people aren't paid to run.

Re: Running Speeds

#162

Post by ellyagg »

raydev wrote: post #148

My take is that the author is focusing too much on "all factors", and the reason for the distribution is that the people who 1) realize they are "good" and 2) want to improve, end up putting in more training time to get even better, which leads to a natural gap in measured ability. Consistency may be the largest factor in peak performance, whether physical or mental. Sure, consistency alone won't get you to the Olymp…

Ah, great hypothesis.

Re: Running Speeds

#163

Post by patrick0d »

michaelt wrote: post #130
patrick0d wrote: post #77

>height and weight, fast- and slow-twitch muscle mass, cardiovascular conditioning, flexibility and elasticity, and probably more. When we try to figure out how to measure someones speed (say to compare Usain Bolt to another high quality sprinter) we will look at factors like height, stride length and strength. But in terms of all the factors that need to be measured to describe the function of someones running speed…

> a good teenager might run a time of 10.70 Considering that 10.71 seconds is the all time Scottish national under-17 male record, I would say 10.70 would be a very good time. A one-in-a-million level of sprinting ability.

It is a good time and I gave the example of a teenager since they will likely be less physically developed, weaker and less experienced than a pro. In a place where sprinting is popular like in the US 10.70 is a pretty achievable for someone who spends time at the sport.

After a quick google, the men's Scottish 100m record was set in 1980 and has not been broken since so I would think that they do not devote a lot of attention to sprinting, and in 2022 only 4 runners broke 11 seconds in the 100m championships final.

Re: Running Speeds

#164

Post by recursive »

AnonC wrote: post #132
JCharante wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of cyclists enjoy cycling above Zone 3. One time I went on a ride with just one person and he was max zone 3 while I was flipping between zone 4 & 5. I’ve gone cycling with people slower than me and it’s literally so boring. You either go at your natural pace and wait at a lot of stoplights for them to catch up or you pedal way less. Speed also changes where you can go. Where I’m at, Cyclists will often meet up…

> I’ve gone cycling with people slower than me and it’s literally so boring. You either go at your natural pace and wait at a lot of stoplights for them to catch up or you pedal way less. Depending on the route (and your interest), when you’re way ahead you could perhaps cycle back to them (i.e., ride in the opposite direction), go behind them some, and then turn again and race past them. You wouldn’t have to stop or…

That's two separate rides, not two people doing the same ride. At least as I understand it. "Riding together" implies to me some kind of interaction, such as drafting or conversation.

Re: Running Speeds

#165

Post by Lukas_Skywalker »

js2 wrote: post #111
tomjakubowski wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

kudos using that guy who lost to The Freeze as an example it seems link [3] with Bolt's extension is broken

Mo Farah for leg extension: https://imgur.com/a/skGEN Ed Whitlock in his 80s: https://mindmotionmatter.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ed-runn...

Those are really nice pictures. Even more so because those were probably taken during much longer and slower runs. But even there, they show incredible form.

Re: Running Speeds

#166

Post by [deleted] »

michaelt wrote: post #130
patrick0d wrote: post #77

>height and weight, fast- and slow-twitch muscle mass, cardiovascular conditioning, flexibility and elasticity, and probably more. When we try to figure out how to measure someones speed (say to compare Usain Bolt to another high quality sprinter) we will look at factors like height, stride length and strength. But in terms of all the factors that need to be measured to describe the function of someones running speed…

> a good teenager might run a time of 10.70 Considering that 10.71 seconds is the all time Scottish national under-17 male record, I would say 10.70 would be a very good time. A one-in-a-million level of sprinting ability.

[deleted]

Re: Running Speeds

#167

Post by dm03514 »

nlh wrote: post #68

I have what may be a silly (or even ridiculous) question: Why do recreational distance runners care about speed so much? Background: I went through a phase of long-distance recreational running - I ran lots of half-marathons, marathons, and even the Disney Goofy Challenge for a few years (half marathon on Saturday, full marathon on Sunday). It was all fun! Training was satisfying, the running itself was tough but rew…

I’m currently running 25mpw, and have maxed out my free time available per week (3 children). The only way I can do more distance And experience more woods is by running faster :)

If I weren’t time constrained I’d def be happy continuing to jog, I feel like slower speeds are less injury prone for myself

Re: Running Speeds

#168

Post by dbcbfjnk »

nlh wrote: post #68

I have what may be a silly (or even ridiculous) question: Why do recreational distance runners care about speed so much? Background: I went through a phase of long-distance recreational running - I ran lots of half-marathons, marathons, and even the Disney Goofy Challenge for a few years (half marathon on Saturday, full marathon on Sunday). It was all fun! Training was satisfying, the running itself was tough but rew…

As a recreational runner I suppose my primary goals are to maximize health benefits and minimize injury and long term wear-and-tare. My absolute pace doesn't really matter, I just want to see it improve over time.

I know I have terrible running form, but I kind of view it as not owning a fancy road bike. Sure, I'm slower on my old mtn bike, but I'm burning more calories. Now I'm wondering if that's a bad philosophy for running, after watching videos of good runners I'm amazed how smooth they are. All my bouncing up and down has got to be hard on my suspension, and new struts are expensive.

Re: Running Speeds

#169

Post by michaelt »

patrick0d wrote: post #163
michaelt wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a good teenager might run a time of 10.70 Considering that 10.71 seconds is the all time Scottish national under-17 male record, I would say 10.70 would be a very good time. A one-in-a-million level of sprinting ability.

It is a good time and I gave the example of a teenager since they will likely be less physically developed, weaker and less experienced than a pro. In a place where sprinting is popular like in the US 10.70 is a pretty achievable for someone who spends time at the sport. After a quick google, the men's Scottish 100m record was set in 1980 and has not been broken since so I would think that they do not devote a lot of…

I actually took that time from [1] which was set in 2017.

If you prefer, let's consider California, population 30 million to Scotland's 5 million. According to [2] for the "Boys 100 Meter Dash Varsity" 10.7 would put you among the 20 fastest in the state, although it wouldn't quite get you into the finals (which needed a time of 10.63)

Fastest 20 in a state of 30 million doesn't sound "pretty achievable for someone who spends time at the sport" to me.

[1] https://www.scotstats.net/records/outdoor-records/under-17/ [2] https://www.cifstate.org/sports/track_and_field/past_results...

Re: Running Speeds

#170

Post by morepork »

iamacyborg wrote: post #157
onetimeuse92304 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an avid runner (10 miles every day, over 3k miles last year), shoes and tracks mean less than you think. Yes, the small fractions of a percent are meaningful but only to people who compare their results against each other to find out who is faster. To compare my result against a professional runner, they are running close to twice as fast as me and that less than 1% difference is completely meaningless.

> As an avid runner (10 miles every day, over 3k miles last year), shoes and tracks mean less than you think. I’m also a fairly avid runner and I’m going to call BS on that. There’s a ~14 second difference in world record times between track and road in the 5k. Track surface technology is a real thing, just as shoe technology is.

A 14 second difference is less than 2% of the total time though, so it doesn't entirely disagree with them. Between dirt in casual running shoes to a track and top tech shoes, there would I guess be about a 15-20% difference, and most of that would be the surface. I would speculate more for a sprint as traction/acceleration is more critical.
Post reply on HN