Why the animosity towards miles?

ecoli

I thought this used to just be a Triathlon thing but it seems to be creeping up more and more. What gives?

Personally I have grown up training off miles along with most people I know who run. Everything from weekly mileage, pace, training segements (non track based reps or tempos)

Would never dream of changing either, maybe I am just set in my old ways (despite being of the younger demographic around here:D)

Enduro

The Europeans are on at the moment. Can you (without using any software aids!!!) list off all (or any) of the distances being contested in miles (or yards) accurately?

RayCun

ecoli wrote: »

training segements (non track based reps or tempos)

Do you not think it's a bit irrational to use metres when you are running on a track and miles when you step off it?

ecoli

Enduro wrote: »

The Europeans are on at the moment. Can you (without using any software aids!!!) list off all (or any) of the distances being contested in miles (or yards) accurately?

Good point. But can you name any athlete at the Championships who has used km in an interview regarding their training

Even track elites refer to their training as mileage and I cannot think of any interview or discussion with any elite track athlete who has used km's in discussion of their training

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

Do you not think it's a bit irrational to use metres when you are running on a track and miles when you step off it?

Metres fit better on a track (logistically doing .5 or 804m reps just wont work) however where fit I have done mileage in training on track (mile reps is marked on track)

Same reason distance runners run in lane one for longer reps it just makes life easier in that occasion.

Move to roads or grass though and the difference is arbitrary so its as easier to measure one as the other

Not having a go at people just generally curious as to why there is such a disliking for the use of a measurement of distance

Kurt Godel

ecoli wrote: »

I thought this used to just be a Triathlon thing but it seems to be creeping up more and more. What gives?

Personally I have grown up training off miles along with most people I know who run. Everything from weekly mileage, pace, training segements (non track based reps or tempos)

Would never dream of changing either, maybe I am just set in my old ways (despite being of the younger demographic around here:D)

A mile per se has has no intrinsic value, being just an arbitrary unit of length. It originally came from a Roman thousand paces ("mille"), before being conventionally defined as 1760 yards. 1760 has more factors than 1000, which should make it more beneficial as regards measurement and subdivisions, but glaringly does not contain the factor 12 (or 6, or 3), the basic units of the yard, foot, and inch. So 1760(y) has no benefit of use over 1000(m), as a unit of measurement. The km has the advantage of being in the System Internationale (SI) metric system, meaning you can use it interchangeably when defining power, or velocity, for instance.

The rest of the world has moved on to the more mathematically useful decimal system, so the use of kilometers represents progress. What did you do for the Jubilee, ecoli?;)

RayCun

I don't dislike the measurement, I just think it's old-fashioned, imperialist, and irrational

As you say yourself, on grass or roads it's as easy to measure one as the other (and I'll switch back to miles for a race measured in miles). So why not use the same units as you do on the track, from a measurement system with sensible units?

MrCreosote

Maybe we all scarred for life by those old direction signs.

You know the ones- Ballybejabus 2 3/4 then drive for 20minutes and it's Ballybejabus 2 1/2. Less of an accurate measurement and more of a state of mind really.

ecoli

Kurt Godel wrote: »

The rest of the world has moved on to the more mathematically useful decimal system, so the use of kilometers represents progress. What did you do for the Jubilee, ecoli?;)

Ah but by using miles we make it look like we are not overdoing it. After all to run 125mpw is normal for an elite, but running +200 km per week is just crazy talk

Sure if the athletics organisations aim to stunt growth and progress why should the athletes have a different mind set

norrie rugger

ecoli wrote: »

Metres fit better on a track (logistically doing .5 or 804m reps just wont work) however where fit I have done mileage in training on track (mile reps is marked on track)

Same reason distance runners run in lane one for longer reps it just makes life easier in that occasion.

Move to roads or grass though and the difference is arbitrary so its as easier to measure one as the other

Not having a go at people just generally curious as to why there is such a disliking for the use of a measurement of distance

If you run 8.63 miles can you think calculate the yardage, off the top of your head? KM is just easier to do the math with

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

So why not use the same units as you do on the track, from a measurement system with sensible units?

Growing up on training for miles I guess its just easier to work out splits in my head for races and work on paces. Last thing I need in a race is a melt down trying to check am I on pace for a PB

Kurt Godel

ecoli wrote: »

Ah but by using miles we make it look like we are not overdoing it. After all to run 125mpw is normal for an elite, but running +200 km per week is just crazy talk

Sure if the athletics organisations aim to stunt growth and progress why should the athletes have a different mind set

Ok, you've entered the realm of fantasy now!

My bete noir- all tracks should be dug up and replaced by 500m circuits, with standard races 100m, 250m, 500, 2 laps, 3 laps, 6 laps, 10 laps, 20 laps. If not- can someone explain to me why the current 1500m should not be a 4 lap 1600m race?

cwgatling

Miles all the way here. Certain things are better in imperial: miles, pints...

Bear in mind the race series has 5 miler, 10 miler.

ecoli

norrie rugger wrote: »

If you run 8.63 miles can you think calculate the yardage, off the top of your head? KM is just easier to do the math with

Immediately when I see that arbitrary distance 1st thought in my head is thats 8 miles and 1km on the Garmin:D

Why would I want the yardage though? suppose its what ever you grew up with for me I could give you the splits for marathons all day long in miles, try km pace and I would have an absolute brain fart

ecoli

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Ok, you've entered the realm of fantasy now!

My bete noir- all tracks should be dug up and replaced by 500m circuits, with standard races 100m, 250m, 500, 2 laps, 3 laps, 6 laps, 10 laps, 20 laps. If not- can someone explain to me why the current 1500m should not be a 4 lap 1600m race?

But thats crazy talk 1600m races way to close to the mile to not run the extra 9m the whole time

ecoli

cwgatling wrote: »

Miles all the way here. Certain things are better in imperial: miles, pints...
Bear in mind the race series has 5 miler, 10 miler.

One sentence that just sums up my feeling perfectly

rainbow kirby

Force of habit really - I got my Garmin 3 days before a marathon where the course was marked at each km and every 5 miles so it made sense to have it in km right from the start, and just never really went back. I tend to be able to switch fairly easily though so that's not really an issue.

pconn062

Miles make champions! 'Nuff said!

Kurt Godel

ecoli wrote: »

Good point. But can you name any athlete at the Championships who has used km in an interview regarding their training

I'd imagine that if you heard any non-english speakers interviewed, they would talk of training in term of kilometers. It's the english-speaking world (GB, Ireland, US, Aus & NZ) that talks in terms of miles. This might explain why Tri guys talk in km's (cycling being a continental sport).

Pisco Sour

One auld chap in my club keeps banging on about the 400 and 800 as the "quarter" and the "half". I cringe every time!

It's not even mathematically correct anyway!

gerard65

Can't rewire my brain to think in KM's, tried a few months ago but found I kept doing the calculations to convert to miles:(. When I'm driving I still calculate to speed limits back to miles. Silly, I know, but 8min/miles means more to me than 5min/km's.
It's not easy to change 47 years of learned thinking. Look what happened to the Ulster Bank's systems when they tried to install a patch, that might happen to my brain.:D

Krusty_Clown

Kurt Godel wrote: »

This might explain why continental Tri guys talk in km's (cycling being a continental sport).

Fixed your post. Isn't the Ironman (pinnacle of all things triathlon) measured in 70.3 and 140.6? I'm making that shift to metric, but still like the terms 'miles' and 'mileage'. They're synonymous with training distance. I'm pretty sure that the word 'kilometerage' is not in anyone's regular vocabulary.

But I would walk eight hundred and four kilometers and six hundred and seventy two metres,
And I would walk eight hundred and four kilometers and six hundred and seventy two metres more.
Song would never have gotten to number 1 (maybe metric isn't all bad).

walshb

ecoli wrote: »

I thought this used to just be a Triathlon thing but it seems to be creeping up more and more. What gives?

Personally I have grown up training off miles along with most people I know who run. Everything from weekly mileage, pace, training segements (non track based reps or tempos)

Would never dream of changing either, maybe I am just set in my old ways (despite being of the younger demographic around here:D)

I agree. I can easily switch between metric and imperial. Like it or not we were brought up on imperial in this country, and even though metric is taking over it is not that easy to simply forget or block out imperial. I still use imperial for height and weight.

I hate it when I hear a news bulletin say for a missing person and the person is described as 70 Kgs and 1 metre 80. I can visualise this, but far more people will visualise it if it's reported in stones and lbs and feet and inches.

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Fixed your post. Isn't the Ironman (pinnacle of all things triathlon)

Don't mention the war! I'd personally see the Olympic Games as the pinnacle of all things triathlon, and so would plenty of others.

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

I agree. I can easily switch between metric and imperial. Like it or not we were brought up on imperial in this country, and even though metric is taking over it is not that easy to simply forget or block out imperial. I still use imperial for height and weight.

I hate it when I hear a news bulletin say for a missing person and the person is described as 70 Kgs and 1 metre 80. I can visualise this, but far more people will visualise it if it's reported in stones and lbs and feet and inches.

If someone offered you 10 gallons of petrol for sixty Irish punts, would you know if you were getting a good deal or not? We do move on eventually. It just takes time.

walshb

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If someone offered you 10 gallons of petrol for sixty Irish punts, would you know if you were getting a good deal or not? We do move on eventually. It just takes time.

Well, I am quite well versed in imperial. But, let's be real. General terms it is feet, inches, miles, stones etc; just like metric is centimetres, metres, kilometres, kilogrammes. Not many (general joe soap) people go deeper into either system of measure. So, mentioning say gallons or quarts is when people will get stuck, just like mentioning, milligrammes and decigrammes etc will get tough.

A gallon is roughly 4.5 litres or 8 pints. That is without me checking.

hardCopy

Metres and KMs for me. They're everywhere. Road distance signs, speed limits etc. When I'm on the bike I can relate my speed and distance to what I can cover in a car, likewise, when I run I can compare it with a bike distance. ( I also love when I see a distance marker on a motorway of less than 42KM, "Sure I could run the rest of the way")

The first thing I trained for was a Sprint Tri so I have the concept of 5K as a distance fairly hard-coded in my head at this stage.

Height and weight I still find difficult when it comes to my own weight. For food though I'd always weigh stuff in grams/ml etc, have no idea how much an ounce of flour would look like.

I look forward to the rebirth of metric time.

Like Krusty, I would never use the word Kilometrage, so even if I say mileage, I'm still thinking in KM.

Litres are better than pints any day!

Micilin Muc

KM splits come quicker than mile splits, allowing you to keep a closer eye on pace. I also don't like doing 0.06-mile intervals!

walshb

Micilin Muc wrote: »

KM splits come quicker than mile splits, allowing you to keep a closer eye on pace. I also don't like doing 0.06-mile intervals!

.06 or .6 mile intervals?

corny

If i was describing directions to a person i'd say go down that road 100 metres and not yards but greater distances i'd always use imperial. Little idiosyncrasy.

Which ever you measure it you still run the same distance;)

Gringo78

km's or miles all the same to me but PACE has to be min/mile, I just can't compute min/km. If someone starts using min/km as pace in their training log, thats me finished with reading their log.

shels4ever

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

If someone offered you 10 gallons of petrol for sixty Irish punts, would you know if you were getting a good deal or not? We do move on eventually. It just takes time.

is that metric time ?

RacoonQueen

Gringo78 wrote: »

km's or miles all the same to me but PACE has to be min/mile, I just can't compute min/km. If someone starts using min/km as pace in their training log, thats me finished with reading their log.

I'm the same - can't get running pace in km at all, I sit there trying to figure out if they were running fast or not. Don't get why people change their watch to km's for a race thats measured in kms either. Just leave it set at miles and pace yourself by the mile alerts.

average_runner

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I'm the same - can't get running pace in km at all, I sit there trying to figure out if they were running fast or not. Don't get why people change their watch to km's for a race thats measured in kms either. Just leave it set at miles and pace yourself by the mile alerts.

I usually put the distance to km for a 10k race but leave my pace on per mile basis!!

RayCun

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Don't get why people change their watch to km's for a race thats measured in kms either. Just leave it set at miles and pace yourself by the mile alerts.

Some races have people calling out the times at the markers. Which is only useful if you're using the same measurement scheme as they are.

(Plus the sound is broken on my Garmin, I don't get alert beeps)

ecoli

RayCun wrote: »

Some races have people calling out the times at the markers. Which is only useful if you're using the same measurement scheme as they are.

(Plus the sound is broken on my Garmin, I don't get alert beeps)

Rathfarnham 5k being one (except they call out mile splits:D)

liamog

I have my Garmin set to vibrate but always use KM's as measurements. I'm looking forward to the Dublin 42.2 this year again :-D

murpho999

Definitely a metric person. Everything around us now is KM and it's a much more logical system.

Also, feel that miles etc is an archaic system imposed on us years ago whilst the rest of the world was metric so I use KM.

Don't understand why people can't switch as everything in metric is easier and less complicated. (14lbs in a stone, 16 ozs in a pound etc)

Time to move on people, you don't don't still think of prices in shillings and pence!

tHE vAGGABOND

I switched from miles to KM's at the start of Paris training cycle in December as all my races and targets this year are KM based and not miles...

I do love the faster feedback on pace KM gives me [ie: tempo runs I can see better where things go right and wrong, rather than over the longer mile distances]

I also like that when I was suffering at the end of Paris Marathon the KM's tick off that bit faster than miles - thus giving a small boost at a time I passed one

nerraw1111

Miles first then I swapped over to kms. I’m brainwashed now.

Pacing wise, I would’ve thought it is better to use kms than miles? Faster and more frequent feedback. Thoughts?

Or, if you’re using kms, are you’re constantly speeding/slowing down more to hit the pacing targets per km rather than a more gradual approach in miles?

Bludub

Started running based on min/km. This post explains all those blank faces when I start talking about pace.

Only use for min/mile is mental gymnastics between km markers!

Stark

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

But I would walk eight hundred and four kilometers and six hundred and seventy two metres,
And I would walk eight hundred and four kilometers and six hundred and seventy two metres more.
Song would never have gotten to number 1 (maybe metric isn't all bad).

He'd have a much easier time of it walking 500km though and the woman at the end would probably have been none the wiser.

Kurt Godel

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Fixed your post. Isn't the Ironman (pinnacle of all things triathlon) measured in 70.3 and 140.6? I'm making that shift to metric, but still like the terms 'miles' and 'mileage'. They're synonymous with training distance. I'm pretty sure that the word 'kilometerage' is not in anyone's regular vocabulary.

Sprint and Olympic Tri's are 750 m-20 km-5 km and 1.5km-40 km-10 km
Ironman is based on arbitrary distances (specific bike and swim distances in Honolulu, and a marathon).

I agree with you on the superior poetry of "mileage", can't think of a better km-based word. Kilospance?

BobMac104

As others have said distance wise i dont mind but pace has to be in minute miles for me. Frankly i think the fault should be pointed at the way we measure time. It messes everything up.

theboyblunder

BobMac104 wrote: »

As others have said distance wise i dont mind but pace has to be in minute miles for me. Frankly i think the fault should be pointed at the way we measure time. It messes everything up.

+1

metric is probably better, but we use odd measurements all the time: 60 seconds a minute, 7 days in a week, 12 eggs in a dozen, 166 TDs in a dail (subject to change)....

to me the mile is just another odd measurement I am used to now and dont want to change.

If I hear any more of this i'll switch my log to knots and nautical miles

sconhome

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Fixed your post. Isn't the Ironman (pinnacle of all things triathlon) measured in 70.3 and 140.6?

The two events half & full distance are referred to as '70.3' and 'Ironman' yet (this side of the Atlantic) are always referred to and broken down in km as 1.9 / 90 / 21.1 or 3.8 / 180 / 42.2.

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the word 'kilometerage' is not in anyone's regular vocabulary.

Was gonna suggest 'kilometerage' just doesn't roll off the tongue quite like 'mileage'.

neilc

RacoonQueen wrote: »

I'm the same - can't get running pace in km at all, I sit there trying to figure out if they were running fast or not. Don't get why people change their watch to km's for a race thats measured in kms either. Just leave it set at miles and pace yourself by the mile alerts.

I changed my garmin to k's for the first time ever in Dunshaughlin last week and actually found it great. Was targeting 4:00 k's so the maths during the race worked out much easier. Funny thing was though I forgot to put it back to miles for my next training run, hadn't a clue what was going on, spent the first mile trying to work out how to turn it back:D

plodder

I couldn't say how many feet, yards or furlongs there are in a mile, but I do know the difference between 7:00 min/mile pace and 8:00 min/mile and that's all that matters imo. Look at tyre measurements (diameter in inches and width in millimetres). The systems can co-exist :cool:

Brianderunner

What about our 10 mile/5 mile pb's? They will become redundant. It will be 8k, 15k, etc.

Km may have been force fed to us the last few years in Ireland but its not everywhere. Look at horseracing, thats still in furlongs and miles.

I cant see the US switching to Km's in the next 100 years, the common person over there has no idea how far 1km is.

fiddy3

ecoli wrote: »

Good point. But can you name any athlete at the Championships who has used km in an interview regarding their training

Even track elites refer to their training as mileage and I cannot think of any interview or discussion with any elite track athlete who has used km's in discussion of their training

That's probably because you read a lot of news concerning American and British athletes. The majority of athletes at the Europeans will work in KM, not miles, in terms of training. The Spanish, Russians, French, Italians, for example, all train using Kilometres. From what I read of Kenyans and Ethiopians, they are the same, always saying what pace they run per kilometre, not per mile. In fact, the vast majority of the running world deal in kilometres, it's just that in Ireland we consume so much media from the UK and US that miles seem to be more popular than they are. They'll die out eventually, but not any time soon.

walshb

No matter what measure is used the most famous and prestigious race will always be the mile. Screw you, metric!