Thread: how is cardiovascular condition affected by weight?

Originally Posted by m11

i love stats

I know, right? So easy; such nice stuff to read.

Originally Posted by Built

Nope. That's the median.

The average is what happens when you add 'em all up, and divide by how many there are.

If the distribution of running times is symmetric, then yes, they're the same. I have no reason to suspect that running times are distributed symmetrically.

For one, this is not a random selection of all people who run 10K; rather, it is a self-selected group of people who elect to participate in 10K races. For another, the rules change if a prize is involved. Large prizes draw competitors, where "fun-runs" draw crowds.
http://centerspace.net/blog/wp-conte...nning-data.png

Another problem with competitive racing is the application of cutoff times, which eliminate the long tail which would otherwise occur in the distribution
M O B J E C T I V I S T: Marathon Dispersion

Furthermore, simply looking at some actual figures, we see the following distribution of times from a 10K in Ottawa last year, with over 8000 participants: Ottawa Race Weekend

minutes count proportion
30 13 0.2%
40 166 2.0%
50 1039 12.4%
60 2754 33.0%
70 2441 29.2%
80 1079 12.9%
90 386 4.6%
100 229 2.7%
110 165 2.0%
120 60 0.7%
130 14 0.2%

The average finish time was 63 minutes. The median finish time was 61 minutes. This means half finished in under 61 minutes, and half finished in over 61 minutes, but there were some stragglers who brought up the mean.

Note that of the 8,346 finishers, fewer than 15% finished in under 50 minutes.

[/geek]




As a former 70-minute 10k gal, trust me, I was trying. 39 minutes for a 10k is faster than most folks could manage, no matter how hard they tried.

I'm 6'2, 268lbs ,run a 10k 3 times a week and i'm fucking proud of myself.Not lots of people in my city,even people lot leaner than me, can keep with that pace!Built once again,you're the voice of reason!With each post you do, i appreciate your knowledge a little more.Couldn't handle a woman like you as i wouldn't accept always being wrong and admitting it(I like to argue)!!!Phineas, you're my man too, a wise man with logic, and canadian over it!!!
Stepaukas, i've never seen you and already can't stand you!!!Because, at the end of the day it's all about doing the best of what you got! It definitely looks like you run as fast as you're telling shit and crap!!!
I Know why you're running that fast, you were such an asshole in high school than all the big guys wanted to beat your ass up!

Originally Posted by stepaukas

average in my book.
average in my book.
average in my book.

Oh I apologize for my earlier post. I thought we were using actual word meanings, not just made up silly definitions! My fault, as long as it's in your book!

Originally Posted by Built

Nope. That's the median.

The average is what happens when you add 'em all up, and divide by how many there are.

If the distribution of running times is symmetric, then yes, they're the same. I have no reason to suspect that running times are distributed symmetrically.

For one, this is not a random selection of all people who run 10K; rather, it is a self-selected group of people who elect to participate in 10K races. For another, the rules change if a prize is involved. Large prizes draw competitors, where "fun-runs" draw crowds.
http://centerspace.net/blog/wp-conte...nning-data.png

Another problem with competitive racing is the application of cutoff times, which eliminate the long tail which would otherwise occur in the distribution
M O B J E C T I V I S T: Marathon Dispersion

Furthermore, simply looking at some actual figures, we see the following distribution of times from a 10K in Ottawa last year, with over 8000 participants: Ottawa Race Weekend

minutes count proportion
30 13 0.2%
40 166 2.0%
50 1039 12.4%
60 2754 33.0%
70 2441 29.2%
80 1079 12.9%
90 386 4.6%
100 229 2.7%
110 165 2.0%
120 60 0.7%
130 14 0.2%

The average finish time was 63 minutes. The median finish time was 61 minutes. This means half finished in under 61 minutes, and half finished in over 61 minutes, but there were some stragglers who brought up the mean.

Note that of the 8,346 finishers, fewer than 15% finished in under 50 minutes.

[/geek]




As a former 70-minute 10k gal, trust me, I was trying. 39 minutes for a 10k is faster than most folks could manage, no matter how hard they tried.

HAHAHAHA!! YES!!!

Oh Built, how could any of us manage without you.

This sums up everything I was saying, only better and with evidence. 35 minutes is NOT average. This isn't me being insecure of my former running times. It's me simply stating fact. And, for some jerk to say that anything behind 38 minutes is "at least trying" is demeaning to the hard work that so many people do.

Built, 70 minutes is fucking awesome! The majority of the planet can't do that. Hell, if someone can walk 10km I'm impressed. That's clearly a devotion to health and fitness.

Let's consider this debate over.

Have to say one more thing...

I looked at Built's link to the Ottawa 10k. My 10k time from 2 years ago
(39:17), which according to stepakaus was "at least trying" would have placed me around 150 out of over 8300 people.

That works out to something like the top 2 or 3%.

What does that tell you about "average"?

Phineas your damn race screwed up my brunch plans!

JK man. Thats a damn good time for someone who doesnt train for it anymore. My fat ass would have to walk across the finish line. I think I would fit in the "average" range. I would bet the average joe couldnt even run 10k without having to walk for a while.