Thread: optimal temperatures for running [split]

1. optimal temperatures for running [split]
Conventional wisdom says 60 degrees is ideal for best distance running. Going from 60 to 80 degrees pace will slow 12- 15%. She's capable of a lot faster than 4:33 given much better conditions.

"The fact Tuohy could run that time wasn't a surprise to her coach, Kyle Murphy. But the fact she ran that time in 95-degree heat was."

https://www.lohud.com/story/sports/h...-87/708796002/

2.
That 12-15% figure does not pass the laugh test. That would imply that the optimal conditions for 1500m would yield a time of close to 3:00 since there have been numerous 1500s run in temperatures about 80. I think that you are missing a decimal place, with 1.2-1.5% seeming much more reasonable.

3.
Originally Posted by 26mi235
That 12-15% figure does not pass the laugh test. That would imply that the optimal conditions for 1500m would yield a time of close to 3:00 since there have been numerous 1500s run in temperatures about 80. I think that you are missing a decimal place, with 1.2-1.5% seeming much more reasonable.
There's much written on this but you can check this site, and I input a 7:15 mile pace in 86 degrees on a day like I had this morning and that adds 30 seconds/mile if running 3 miles hard, or 6.8%.

https://runnersconnect.net/training/...re-calculator/

How reliable this other information is, I can't say, but I did see this and that's what I was recalling in my post:

"Your running pace is affected as the temperature rises. At 60 degrees, running pace is influenced by a 2- to 3-percent increase, so an average 8-minute mile pace jumps to 8:12 per mile. At 80 degrees, the effect is between 12 to 15 percent, so that mile pace becomes about 9:06."

https://www.active.com/running/artic...n-the-humidity

1.2 - 1.5 % may not pass a laugh test any time soon either. At any rate, this young lady will run a lot faster when she's running in something 20 degrees or more cooler. Then we can get out the calculators.

4.
Just look at marks for highly trained athletes. 7:15 milers are likely not very efficient and not necessarily heat trained. For top runners, the 1500 is short enough that they do not get a lot of heat stress. That 12-15% figure would imply that the 2:06 at the Beijing Games was really worth a high 1:40s marathon. At best I would say that it was worth the then-world record, about 2:04, that is 1.5%. If I were you I would not bother with that site as they clearly do not know what they are talking about. Again, when they are an order of magnitude off. Now of course, 86 is even more than 80. And, the missing issue is the dew point, because of the reduced ability to shed heat. And as an anecdote I set a 10km PR on the day it was 113 in Pomona California. Not certain of the race-time temperature but about 86 might be right. I do not think that I was in 28:42 shape, but I did think that I could have run 33:30 instead of 34:10, or even 30:50.

5.
I looked at the site and the functions that they use are some sort of rule-of-thumb someone made up and they are applied in a stupid fashion. When the relative humidity goes from 5.66% to 8.77% the impact is the same as when it goes from 72% to 100%. The first change supposedly hurts my time by about 20 seconds as does the higher one. Even better, if I up the dew point to 105 degrees with the air temperature of 86 it is adding about the same six seconds per mile, which is astounding since you cannot go about 100 percent and in Wisconsin the maximum dew point ever is about 85F. The site is worse than useless it is very wrong and detrimental.

6.
Originally Posted by 26mi235
Just look at marks for highly trained athletes. 7:15 milers are likely not very efficient and not necessarily heat trained. For top runners, the 1500 is short enough that they do not get a lot of heat stress. That 12-15% figure would imply that the 2:06 at the Beijing Games was really worth a high 1:40s marathon. At best I would say that it was worth the then-world record, about 2:04, that is 1.5%. If I were you I would not bother with that site as they clearly do not know what they are talking about. Again, when they are an order of magnitude off. Now of course, 86 is even more than 80. And, the missing issue is the dew point, because of the reduced ability to shed heat. And as an anecdote I set a 10km PR on the day it was 113 in Pomona California. Not certain of the race-time temperature but about 86 might be right. I do not think that I was in 28:42 shape, but I did think that I could have run 33:30 instead of 34:10, or even 30:50.

This study suggests that 1.5% is certainly not the upper limit for performance reduction, more like 4.5% being the worst that will happen. The 12-15% numbers can be thrown out, obviously.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17473775

The problem with running in heat is what happens physiologically, with less oxygen available to muscles because of blood diverted to skin surface for sweating. This will not affect everyone equally. If I run in temperatures over 80, weighing just over 200 pounds as I do, I always see a slower pace than at 60 degrees, and it always starts to drop off after a known distance at a consistent rate - as opposed to the cooler temperatures, in which I maintain the same pace the whole way. I'm one of those runners who takes the Garmin and plugs it in when I get home and it's very easy to see what was going on.

7. optimal temperatures for running [split]