Sport Today

The winner of the mara was in 2:31:56.

The winner of the half mara was in 1:06:17.

12 Half mara finishers recorded 1:12 or better.

Using the standard 2.11 multiplier, we get a half marathon equivalent time
of 2:19:54 for the marathon (1:06:17*2.11).

Now, this makes this year's Seattle Half Marathon truly national class;
the same cannot be said for the full marathon.  A winning time of 2:31:56
qualifies a marathon as regional level in quality, no more.

Confirms my hypothesis that many mature runners are focusing on the half
marathon, because they are convinced that the full is way too much work
for not much incremental health benefits.

Now, if only the novices would stop thinking running a full marathon was
some kind of magic potion on the way to fitness nirvana...

Abhay feels:
|> Confirms my hypothesis that many mature runners are focusing on the half
|> marathon, because they are convinced that the full is way too much work
|> for not much incremental health benefits.
|>
|> Now, if only the novices would stop thinking running a full marathon was
|> some kind of magic potion on the way to fitness nirvana...

I just love it when you lead with your chin.  The  next time Baywatch
is showing a re-run please read the June-July(96) issue of Research
Running News. Paul Williams of Berkeley ran a well controlled study
with thousands of runners vs HDL, which is felt to be one of the best
protectors against heart disease. It appears that the higher the mileage
the higher the HDL. This included 153 that ran over 60 miles , 218 50-59,
624 40-49, 1k 30-39, and 2k 10-29.

The old conclusion, "if you run for more then 15 miles per
week, you're  running for reasons other  then health.",  is not
true. There seems to be a linear decrease in deaths from heart    
disease as mileage advances.

In an added note, "to date, no carefully conducted study supports
Ken Cooper 's notion that running more then 40 miles/week lifts
the risk of cancer."

You may choose  to set your limits at the 1/2 marathon, this is
your personal choice. As my instincts tell me, and studies
are bringing this home, distance alone, is not unhealthy, it's actually
beneficial for your heart. I would agree that increasing your
mileage, tends to cause injuries. But that is a  separate topic.

Thoughts anyone?

--
Doug Freese  All opinions are mine. IBM Tele: 8-293-8098

|> The winner of the mara was in 2:31:56.
|>
|> The winner of the half mara was in 1:06:17.
|>
|> 12 Half mara finishers recorded 1:12 or better.
|>
|> Using the standard 2.11 multiplier, we get a half marathon equivalent time
|> of 2:19:54 for the marathon (1:06:17*2.11).
|>
|> Now, this makes this year's Seattle Half Marathon truly national class;
|> the same cannot be said for the full marathon.  A winning time of 2:31:56
|> qualifies a marathon as regional level in quality, no more.

|>
|> Confirms my hypothesis that many mature runners are focusing on the half
   *********

|> marathon, because they are convinced that the full is way too much work
|> for not much incremental health benefits.
|>
|> Now, if only the novices would stop thinking running a full marathon was
|> some kind of magic potion on the way to fitness nirvana...
|>

"Confirms" is a little strong isn't it considering it is only one data point?  There may be
many reasons for the "slow" winning time: weather, prize money, runner's schedules, etc.
Furthermore, I think the extrapolation from shorter race times to the marathon times must be
used with caution.

I thought you were working on a PhD.  Rational, logical thinking  and analysis
is supposed to be one of the things you are learning, regardless of your field os study.
It is probably the most important thing to learn if you are studying any "hard" science.

George

|>
|> Actually it is more than one data point.  It is thousands, since that was
|> the number of runners.  I think you mean "one case study."  But the same
|> trend was apparent last year.  And is appearing in other marathon/half
|> marathon combined events.  And how do you explain that the world marathon
|> record has stagnated for about 9 yrs. now, but the half mara record has
|> tumbled and is now sub 59:00?
|>
Since you asked, I believe that the marathon record has not fallen because many
of the world-class runners are concentrating too much on shorter races and the associated prize
money.  This hurts their chances of being able to shave those few extra minutes off
their marathon time.  I think there are top runners today who could break the marathon record
if they were to focus solely on doing so.  However, this is risky because of the loss of income
from shorter races.  It doesn't make economic sense, because the chance of failure are
greater in a marathon, and it takes a while to bounce back.  Therefore, there are to blocks of
time where revenue is lost: before and after the marathon.
Add more prize money to the Seattle marathon and you will see the winning times fall.

Actaully I think it is nice that there are still some races where regional runners can win
nice prizes.  

George [who never has to worry about declaring his prize money at tax time :) ]

Overall Place   Mara    Halfmara        Full mara equivalent    Diff
1               2:32    1:06            2:19                    13
25              2:48    1:16            2:40                    8
50              2:56    1:18            2:45                    11
100             3:04    1:24            2:57                    7
200             3:15    1:29            3:08                    7
500             3:34    1:38            3:27                    7

The "diff" is in minutes.  A standard 2.11 multiplier has been used.

The disparity in full v half mara performance was not restricted to the
top finishers.  It ran very deep.  In each case, a person who finished in
place x performed many minutes faster (equivalent time basis) in the half
mara, as opposed to a person who finished in an identical overall place in
the full mara.

Reasons:
Good runners are gravitating to the half mara.
Many runners who are not really trained to run the full mara, are doing
so, due to some misconceptions about fitness nirvana.

Other things to consider would be to revise the 'standard' 2.11
multiplier.

But I can see some merit in your proposition:

More anecdotes: an ex-2:30 marathoner at my club gave up running
marathons and concentrated on 1/2-mara, 10k, 5k, simply because of the
damage he felt he was doing to himself. This would be a good example
to support your thesis.

One point to consider about the idea of runners who are not trained
to run the full marathon, does this do any harm? If they are not
really trained then presumeably they will be doing a jog/walk for most
of the second half. If they are enjoying themselves, I see no problem.

You can't get away from the mystique of 'the marathon'. I have been
running for 18 months now. If I mention that to acquaintances the first
question is often, "done a marathon yet?". To which the answer is no,
I'm not really trained for it...

  Miles

Abhay Thatte offers:
|> The disparity in full v half mara performance was not restricted to the
|> top finishers.  It ran very deep.  In each case, a person who finished in
|> place x performed many minutes faster (equivalent time basis) in the half
|> mara, as opposed to a person who finished in an identical overall place in
|> the full mara.
|>
|> Reasons:
|> Good runners are gravitating to the half mara.

Abhay, I think George Thiel hit the nail on the head. The move to the
shorter purely for the $$$$. You can only do one to two thons a year
especially at the level to take money. The 5K's through the 1/2 can
be run with a higher frequency.

|> Many runners who are not really trained to run the full mara, are doing
|> so, due to some misconceptions about fitness nirvana.
Vintage Abhay kaka, but nice troll.

--
Doug Freese  All opinions are mine. IBM Tele: 8-293-8098

|>
|> Overall Place     Mara    Halfmara        Full mara equivalent    Diff
|> 1         2:32    1:06            2:19                    13
|> 25                2:48    1:16            2:40                    8
|> 50                2:56    1:18            2:45                    11
|> 100               3:04    1:24            2:57                    7
|> 200               3:15    1:29            3:08                    7
|> 500               3:34    1:38            3:27                    7
|>
|> The "diff" is in minutes.  A standard 2.11 multiplier has been used.
|>
|> The disparity in full v half mara performance was not restricted to the
|> top finishers.  It ran very deep.  In each case, a person who finished in
|> place x performed many minutes faster (equivalent time basis) in the half
|> mara, as opposed to a person who finished in an identical overall place in
|> the full mara.
|>
|> Reasons:
|> Good runners are gravitating to the half mara.
|> Many runners who are not really trained to run the full mara, are doing
|> so, due to some misconceptions about fitness nirvana.
|> |> Many runners who are not really trained to run the full mara, are doing
|> so, due to some misconceptions about fitness nirvana.
|>

Just out of curiousity, where did you get the factor of 2.11 ?  
Also, the above data does not support your conclusions, which are
quite general.  In particular your statement

|> Many runners who are not really trained to run the full mara, are doing
|> so, due to some misconceptions about fitness nirvana.
|>
is absurd.

What do you mean runners not trained to run a marathon.  On what basis do you
conclude that; just because their splits don't match with other's splits
based on some empirical formula?

Deciding to train and run a marathon is often a personal test of strength:
mental and physical; not unlike getting a PhD.  
A person should be proud in either accomplishment. regardless of how their
"performance" matchs to anothers.
In both cases a standard is set, the rules are defined, take your best shot.
Whatever arguement you give for
not running a marathon, there is an analogous one for not spending the time, effort,
etc. to get an advanced degree.  However, the person needs only one reason to do either
and that is simply that they want it.

I will certainly read any and all of post regarding the subject; however,
I will not be posting on this subject again.  

Good Luck,
George

: Overall Place Mara    Halfmara        Full mara equivalent    Diff
: 1             2:32    1:06            2:19                    13
: 25            2:48    1:16            2:40                    8
: 50            2:56    1:18            2:45                    11
: 100           3:04    1:24            2:57                    7
: 200           3:15    1:29            3:08                    7
: 500           3:34    1:38            3:27                    7

: The "diff" is in minutes.  A standard 2.11 multiplier has been used.

I am, as others are, curious where you found the 2.11 as "standard".
Based on my personal times, it seems a bit aggressive, but not wholy
unreasonable.

: The disparity in full v half mara performance was not restricted to the
: top finishers.  It ran very deep...

: Reasons:
: Good runners are gravitating to the half mara.
: Many runners who are not really trained to run the full mara, are doing
: so, due to some misconceptions about fitness nirvana.

I agree that it is much harder to properly train for a marathon, and
that more people run it improperly trained.  But that seems to be part
of the challenge.

Another factor at Seattle is simply the timing of the race.  Seattle is
a week before Cal International, and a couple of months after Portland.
Since runners have so few chances at the marathon, most pick very
carefully.  Seattle, being close behind Portland (which has a great
reputation), and just before CIM (which is a very fast course) is not
likely to attract a fast field.  Throw the chance of windy, cold, rainy
weather into the mix, and I bet a lot of runners opt for Portland or
CIM rather than Seattle.  (The weather at Seattle was *much* colder than
I expected, and it rained on and off during the race.)

The half marathon is short enough that you can get lots of tries at it,
and people are much less likely to travel across the country to find a
good half marathon.

I would bet that a lot of the top local half-marathoners ran Seattle
just because it was there, but that the top local marathoners skipped
it.

-pfrench

I think the 2.11 standard half  v full multiplier is in both Galloway's
and Noake's books.  I own both but the are in the ba***t, last nite I
went down but could not locate them at once.

Abhay Thatte adds:
|> I think the 2.11 standard half  v full multiplier is in both Galloway's
|> and Noake's books.  I own both but the are in the ba***t, last nite I
|> went down but could not locate them at once.

The thumb rule standard that I think originates from Gardner and Purdy
et al. for the marathon is multiply by 2 and add 10 minutes. FWIW this is
2.16. Ex: 1:30:00 1/2 = 3:10:00 for thon. Galloway gives no formula and
his chart does not include the 1/2. He also claims to use G&P. I have
Noakes in my hand and he crawls through many charts, one of them is G&P,
but I'm not up to plowing through that metric maze.

--
Doug Freese  All opinions are mine. IBM Tele: 8-293-8098

Any half mara run slower would result in the 2x+10 rule giving a sub 2.16
multiplier.  Using your own example of a 1:30 mara, then using 2x +10
mins. gives a multiplier of 2.11 (exactly my original rule of thumb).
i.e. 90*2 (+10)/90=2.11.