I put this together for another thread, but it was interesting, so I thought I would make a new thread.
Here are the stats for men at IMLP
Average time 12:57
Median time 12:47
Standard deviation: 1:40
Number of finishers 1433
That puts 11:17 as one standard deviation above average, so 10:00 hours is closer to 2 standard deviations above (i.e top 1%) the mean.
However, if you plotted this data for men under 40, you would get a better idea of possible results based on average genetic ability. Results for men over 40 are probably skewed based on the effect of aging. The reason men in the 40 still perform very well, is not because they do not feel the effect so aging, it just shows that younger men have not put in sufficient training to develop the endurance capacity they have. Forget the obligatory post about Joe Bonness, he is an outlier and any statistician with any credibility would throw him out of the sample population).
I don't know how to put a histogram here, but I plotted one. It is sort of normal, but definitely skewed toward the slower times.
Also note if you looked at data from a race like Australia that has a qualification process and a 15:00 cutoff I think you would have a more valid sample. IMNA races has a lot more "finishers", Australia gets more "racers". It is also difficult to draw too many conclusions about genetic ability, because even the most talented athletes take years of training to be successful at ultra events. That is why the Australia data is better, because I don't think the athletes are more talented, but they have made more of an effort to develop their talent, so are more representative of what is possible, not what is.
*********************
"When I first had the opportunity to compete in triathlon, it was the chicks and their skimpy race clothing that drew me in. Everyone was so welcoming and the lifestyle so obviously narcissistic. I fed off of that vain energy. To me it is what the sport is all about."
Here are the stats for men at IMLP
Average time 12:57
Median time 12:47
Standard deviation: 1:40
Number of finishers 1433
That puts 11:17 as one standard deviation above average, so 10:00 hours is closer to 2 standard deviations above (i.e top 1%) the mean.
However, if you plotted this data for men under 40, you would get a better idea of possible results based on average genetic ability. Results for men over 40 are probably skewed based on the effect of aging. The reason men in the 40 still perform very well, is not because they do not feel the effect so aging, it just shows that younger men have not put in sufficient training to develop the endurance capacity they have. Forget the obligatory post about Joe Bonness, he is an outlier and any statistician with any credibility would throw him out of the sample population).
I don't know how to put a histogram here, but I plotted one. It is sort of normal, but definitely skewed toward the slower times.
Also note if you looked at data from a race like Australia that has a qualification process and a 15:00 cutoff I think you would have a more valid sample. IMNA races has a lot more "finishers", Australia gets more "racers". It is also difficult to draw too many conclusions about genetic ability, because even the most talented athletes take years of training to be successful at ultra events. That is why the Australia data is better, because I don't think the athletes are more talented, but they have made more of an effort to develop their talent, so are more representative of what is possible, not what is.
*********************
"When I first had the opportunity to compete in triathlon, it was the chicks and their skimpy race clothing that drew me in. Everyone was so welcoming and the lifestyle so obviously narcissistic. I fed off of that vain energy. To me it is what the sport is all about."
+2 +2 sigma....97.7% 