2022 Advanced Racing Thread (Read 496 times)

 

JMac, My take-away from the article was actually that it's not the high dew point itself that makes such a difference, but that the higher temperature is ultimately the challenge to the quicker times. More interesting to me would be to see if 70F air temp. and 70 dew point would have worse results than 95F air temp and 35 dew point. Then one could also do the 65F air temp/35 DP... or 70/35. Don't know how much money there is in funding such studies, but with more events happening in places like Qatar, it may make sense to get more solid scientific analyses.

 

High temp / lower dew point should always be quicker.  The reason the humidity slows you down is that it basically undermines your body's ability to cool itself, which relies on the sweat evaporating from the skin to cool you down.  When the DP gets up to 65F+ or higher, it becomes progressively harder for the sweat to evaporate and therefore you don't get the same cooling effect.

I notice it here a lot in the summer.  It's pretty common for the dew point in the morning in Dec/Jan, when I normally run, to be 18C / 65F.  Conversely I've run evening races when the temperature is slightly higher, but the humidity has dropped, and they have felt a lot more comfortable than running a workout in the morning humidity.

 

JMac, My take-away from the article was actually that it's not the high dew point itself that makes such a difference, but that the higher temperature is ultimately the challenge to the quicker times. More interesting to me would be to see if 70F air temp. and 70 dew point would have worse results than 95F air temp and 35 dew point. Then one could also do the 65F air temp/35 DP... or 70/35. Don't know how much money there is in funding such studies, but with more events happening in places like Qatar, it may make sense to get more solid scientific analyses.

 

 

Maybe I didn't state it well: I agree that's the conclusion of the article, but it's because it's a poorly designed study. Take a look at the data. Outside of Chicago, the maximum dew point in any of the races they studies was 13.4 degrees, or 56F! How can they make any conclusion on dew point when that's the data they're looking at?

I do agree with you that's a more interesting study and perhaps what I was getting. In a marathon (which this studied), I would take 70 temp plus 50 dew point any day over 60 temp and 60 dew point.

 

Maybe I didn't state it well: I agree that's the conclusion of the article, but it's because it's a poorly designed study. Take a look at the data. Outside of Chicago, the maximum dew point in any of the races they studies was 13.4 degrees, or 56F! How can they make any conclusion on dew point when that's the data they're looking at?

 

JMac, I did and do agree with you... the study wasn't designed to measure the effects of dew point, ergo pretty useless in this context. I think you and the others are absolutely right about that.

how does one delete a post? sorry.

 

In a certified race, it has to be the official (net) time.  Melbourne is notoriously long which didn't impact me except for a few minutes of extra pain, but I feel for Marby who has a PR of 3:00:23 on a course that consistently measures 42.8km.  It's one positive about the smaller certified races like the Christchurch marathon.  With fewer people it's easier to get a little closer to the tangents.

When you say Melbourne is notoriously long are you saying that it’s measured accurately, but runners can’t run perfect tangents and will most likely measure long on the Garmin?  If so then that is pretty much the normal in any accurately measured certified course.

 

When you say Melbourne is notoriously long are you saying that it’s measured accurately, but runners can’t run perfect tangents and will most likely measure long on the Garmin?  If so then that is pretty much the normal in any accurately measured certified course.

Good question - I haven't manually measured so I don't know.  Notoriously long was referring to all runners (even the elites and piwi who ran 2:53) getting about 42.8km.  I expect it to measure long on the Garmin because no-one can ever run perfect tangents, but that seems extra long.

JMac I see what you mean. I kinda love getting PR's though lol. If I could PR each marathon I'd be really happy (so far I have). I just feel like "us young guys" should keep in mind that one day we won't have the option to train and race the way we used to, we won't ever be as fast as we used to be, and there's no going back, unless you believe in reincarnation. So I like the idea of squeezing every drop out that I can so I can avoid a sinking feeling of regret at some point when I'm "old".

 

Also, how does this yearly review thing work? Do we just kinda drop it in whenever ? Or is there an official day for it lol? I noticed a couple people have already done theirs so I'm assuming the former.

Watch it MMerk I resemble those remarks! As an Old man I do agree you should enjoy the youth and resilience as long as you can. The best of both worlds is still being able to shoot for PRs even if you know deep down they may not happen.  AGs are also a wonderful thing and allow us old folks to place higher than we ever might have in our youth

I'm holding out on the Yearly review until the last minute! I want to keep everyone waiting.  Besides there's still almost 2 weeks left.  A lot of miles to go.