Metric or Imperial?

dna_leri

Neither, my running watch just records time, not distance.

But despite being brought up with miles, I generally note my distances in kms but most runners talk in miles so we get to be bilingual.

SharkTale

Started off in miles cause it sounds better " I ran 10 MILES TODAY" but changed to metric; as another poster says they come around quicker and easier to motivate with "only 2KM to go" .... Metric man now.

davedanon

Miles, of course.

How could you have someone called Kilometerz Splitz?


That would be just too ridiculous.

sconhome

Let one triathlete in here and look what happens...

McNamarathon

Miles all the way for me. Maybe it's a generational thing. Even when I drive the car I find myself converting speed and distance back to miles all the time. I know it would probably make more sense to embrace the metric system but my old head can't seem to manage it.

The Davestator

Been using KM's for Triathlons, but tempted to change to Miles for Marathon Training over the winter and Spring.

Or else, I could just convert the plan I'll be using.

Undecided

Chivito550

You're all living in the past, or are wannabe Americans with your miles. Look at the distances in the Olympics, national championships etc. 100m, 1500m, 5000m, 10000m. The days of 100y, 220y, 440y, 880y, 3 mile are long gone. Incredible that they still measure long jumps, and throws in America using feet. When I hear somebody say such and such jumped 26 feet it honestly means nothing to me, and I have to get out the calculator.

The most ridiculous thing I've come across was running the Rathfarnham 5K, a metric race distance, yet there were no markers at 1km and 2km, but rather at 1 mile and 2 mile. I can understand it for an imperial distance like 5 miles and 10 miles, but for a 5km race it's a bit stupid.

walshb

The whole yards/feet is a slightly different thing. Similar, but different. Plenty of people in Ireland are still very much using miles for distance. Distances below a mile are usually refferd to as half a mile, and less is referred to as a few hundred metres or yards. I personally interchange. I am sure that is the case for many.

Regarding areas I think many Irish people still talk about 20 feet or 30 feet or 500 square feet.

Weights and heights. Majority of Irish visualise and relate more to stones and lbs and feet and inches compared to kilogrammes, and centimetres and metres.

Nothing more daft than hearing an important message on a news bulletin asking the public to keep an eye out for John Doe, who is 1 metres 75 and 74 kilogrammes. Ridiculous. Most people just ignore as it goes over their head. Much more people can relate to an visualise a description in its imperial form. 5 feet 9 and of slight build, or 11 stone, for example.

And it's nothing with being wannabe Americans. It's the British that gave us the imperial system, a system we have been using long before the Americans began using it.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

The whole yards/feet is a slightly different thing. Similar, but different. Plenty of people in Ireland are still ver much using miles for distance. Distances below a mile are usually refferd to as half a mile, and less is referred to as a few hundred metres or yards. I personally interchange. I am sure that is the case for many.

Regarding areas I think many Irish people still talk about 20 feet or 30 feet or 500 square feet.

Weights and heights. Majority of Irish visualise and relate more to stones and lbs and feet and inches compared to kilogrammes, and centimetres and metres.

Nothing more daft than hearing an important message on a news bulletin asking the public to keep an eye out for John Doe, who is 1 metres 75 and 74 kilogrammes. Ridiculous. Most people just ignore as it goes over their head. Much more people can relate to an visualise a description in its imperial form. 5 feet 9 and of slight build, or 11 stone, for example.

And it's nothing with being wannabe Americans. It's the British that gave us the imperial system, a system we have been using long before the Americans began using it.

Funny actually, I'd still think in feet for height alright. Never thought about it like that. But with weight I always think in Kg. probably because I lived in Australia for a few years and watched "The Biggest Loser" a fair bit as brainless evening time television. Initially I always referred to stone (but never lbs) but people over there didn't understand what I meant and I'd always have to convert so people would understand what a measurement meant. Over time I just dropped the stones and stuck with kg, and it really is so much easier. In the gym every weight is measured in kg too. Height is probably the only thing I think of in terms of imperial measurements, and that's only for the height of a person. The height of a high jump or pole vault would be metric.

I guess in terms of athletics, the world works in kg, metres and kilometres.

rainbow kirby

Metric all the way - switched over when my Garmin arrived 3 days before the Barcelona marathon a few years back and never went back.

Murph_D

Who's gonna call it? Victory to the Metricians!

menoscemo

Murph_D wrote: »

Who's gonna call it? Victory to the Metricians!

Too many triathletes lurking over here :mad:

Cartman78

Murph_D wrote: »

Who's gonna call it? Victory to the Metricians!

Hurray

Just checked the poll....we're miles ahead of them now

Firedance

Cartman78 wrote: »

Hurray

Just checked the poll....we're miles ahead of them now

:D:D:D does that mean we have the moral victory!!

robinph

I demand a recount. The following mean your vote doesn't count:

Wear lycra onesie for running.
Own a multisport Garmin, and have used the bike or swim modes.
Wearing a race number on a belt.
Own a wetsuit.

Firedance

robinph wrote: »

I demand a recount. The following mean your vote doesn't count:

Wear lycra onesie for running.
Own a multisport Garmin, and have used the bike or swim modes.
Wearing a race number on a belt.
Own a wetsuit.

you better take that one out, there are at least 2 'miles' people here who own wetsuits

Chivito550

So does everyone think Farah will claim the Olympic 3.107 Mile title in Rio next summer?

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

So does everyone think Farah will claim the Olympic 3.107 Mile title in Rio next summer?

Best to round it to two significant places. 3.1

Murph_D

Chivito550 wrote: »

So does everyone think Farah will claim the Olympic 3.107 Mile title in Rio next summer?

Well his only world record is over 2 miles, isn't it?

(Arguing against myself here - Kms all the way for me.)

Myles Splitz

Murph_D wrote: »

Well his only world record is over 2 miles, isn't it?

(Arguing against myself here - Kms all the way for me.)

That's because he puts in +120 mile training weeks according to himself

Maximus Alexander

Myles Splitz wrote: »

That's because he puts in +120 mile training weeks according to himself

At least Farah is afflicted with Britishness, what's your excuse?

Myles Splitz

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

At least Farah is afflicted with Britishness, what's your excuse?

Garmins weren't around when I started running so had the coach drive beside us as our pacer, with the odometer in miles

may or may not be true

ncmc

I'm a miles girl, for me, I think it definitely is an age thing, I grew up with miles, stones, pounds etc and I find it difficult to change my mindset. When I was getting scans while pregnant, the first thing I had to do when I came out was work out the weight in pounds as they give you the weight in kg. I would prefer to change to km, but as I don't do many 5/10k races, I've just never bothered to learn.

walshb

ncmc wrote: »

I'm a miles girl, for me, I think it definitely is an age thing, I grew up with miles, stones, pounds etc and I find it difficult to change my mindset. When I was getting scans while pregnant, the first thing I had to do when I came out was work out the weight in pounds as they give you the weight in kg. I would prefer to change to km, but as I don't do many 5/10k races, I've just never bothered to learn.

That's another good example. I have never heard any person, whether metrically inclined or not, say that their newborn weighed x amout of Kgs. It means bol&&ox all to most people.

As reagrds Metric vs Imperial I would say that the miles/kms are the areas that are most closely interchanged-understood. Many people can grasp both. As for the weights and heights and areas, it's much more leaning with Imperial for familiarity.

aquinn

Not an age thing but don't want to name/blame and shame.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

That's another good example. I have never heard any person, whether metrically inclined or not, say that their newborn weighed x amout of Kgs. It means bol&&ox all to most people in Ireland.

As reagrds Metric vs Imperial I would say that the miles/kms are the areas that are most closely interchanged-understood. Many people can grasp both. As for the weights and heights and areas, it's much more leaning with Imperial for familiarity.

Corrected the above. In most countries the baby would be measured in Kg.

The birthweight of a child is widely accepted as a key indicator of infant health and can be affected by a number of factors, including the age, size, health and nutritional status of the mother, pre-term birth, and tobacco smoking during pregnancy. (Endnote 4, Endnote 5) In 2004 the average birthweight for babies born in Australia was 3,370 grams, similar to the average of 3,350 grams recorded in 1991.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/04FEBEF9C81FE6BACA25732C002077A2

The reality is that most of the world uses the metric system. I think both systems have a place. For example the term "pint" will always be used. But the reality is that we are in the minority by adopting imperial values. Even athletes I know in Australia would refer to "Kilometres" as opposed to "Mileage" with their running.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Corrected the above. In most countries the baby would be measured in Kg.
.

I am not arguing that they are not measured-weighed in kgs. I know they are. I am saying (or meant to imply) that in the many many instances where I have heard a baby's weight being mentioned by the parents I have never heard one person saying x amount of kgs. They always relay the information in its Imperial form. At least from what I have heard here in Ireland. I would think it's the same for some other 'Imperialised' countries, of course.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I am not arguing that they are not measured-weighed in kgs. I know they are. I am saying that in the many many instances where I have heard a baby's weight being mentioned by the parents I have never heard one person saying x amount of kgs. They always relay the information in its Imperial form.

Yes, in this small country you are right. There's a big world out there outside these shores. I'd be pretty certain that everybody on continental Europe would refer to their baby's weight in kg.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I am not arguing that they are not measured-weighed in kgs. I know they are. I am saying that in the many many instances where I have heard a baby's weight being mentioned by the parents I have never heard one person saying x amount of kgs. They always relay the information in its Imperial form. At least from what I have heard here in Ireland. I would think it's the same for some other 'Imperialised' countries, of course.

You're a boxing man. What system are the weights classified under?

davedanon

Chivito550 wrote: »

Corrected the above. In most countries the baby would be measured in Kg.



http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/04FEBEF9C81FE6BACA25732C002077A2

The reality is that most of the world uses the metric system. I think both systems have a place. For example the term "pint" will always be used. But the reality is that we are in the minority by adopting imperial values. Even athletes I know in Australia would refer to "Kilometres" as opposed to "Mileage" with their running.

Yes, maybe, but when you have you ever heard anyone refer to 'kilometerage'. 'Mileage' has become the collective noun when referring to 'amounts of distance covered'. Telling, no?

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

You're a boxing man. What system are the weights classified under?

Another good example. The U.S. always refer to lbs. Nothing to do with stones or kilogrammes. In Ireland it's always kgs. Right from the kids to the Seniors. Like I said, a lot of interchanging across the board.

menoscemo

Funny enough I run in Miles but I'd weigh myself in Kg s. Easier to track weight in tenths of a KG. I'd be fairly confident in both stones/lbs and Kg s in terms of weight but much less so about pace in minutes per km.

walshb

menoscemo wrote: »

Funny enough I run in Miles but I'd weigh myself in Kg s. Easier to track weight in tenths of a KG. I'd be fairly confident in both stones/lbs and Kg s in terms of weight but much less so about pace in minutes per km.

Prime example of the variations and subjectivity of it all. I'd weigh in stones and lbs and run in ks mostly. You know, my favoured 5 k distance!:p

Maximus Alexander

davedanon wrote: »

Yes, maybe, but when you have you ever heard anyone refer to 'kilometerage'. 'Mileage' has become the collective noun when referring to 'amounts of distance covered'. Telling, no?

That's just a term passed down from previous generations, kilometerage would be a bit of a mouthful. It's like how the ball in American Football is often referred to as a "pigskin" even though it's not actually made out of pig bladder and leather anymore.

rainbow kirby

walshb wrote: »

That's another good example. I have never heard any person, whether metrically inclined or not, say that their newborn weighed x amout of Kgs. It means bol&&ox all to most people.

I dunno, I'm quite comfortable with saying something along the lines of "I'm 22 weeks along, the little one weighs around half a kilo at the moment". :pac:

Chivito550

davedanon wrote: »

Yes, maybe, but when you have you ever heard anyone refer to 'kilometerage'. 'Mileage' has become the collective noun when referring to 'amounts of distance covered'. Telling, no?

Maybe. I recall a former club mate of mine who is an 800m runner and I was asking him about his training and what sort of mileage he does and he said "we do K's, but not the same level of K's the 1500m guys do". I noticed the use of the term "K's" (Aussies try to shorten every word possible) as I was used to the term mileage from reading this forum. Not sure if this term was the norm or not but interesting nonetheless.

walshb

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I dunno, I'm quite comfortable with saying something along the lines of "I'm 22 weeks along, the little one weighs around half a kilo at the moment". :pac:

I am sure there are examples that uses grammes/kgs. I can't say that I have ever heard anyone say it, apart from the doctor when the weight is metioned/announced. I know the scans (and official birth weight) do relay the weight/length in grammes/kgs-centimetres.

That brings in length of a baby. I would uses inches more than centimetres.

Here's the other thing. Who ever asks a baby's weight before baby is born? I can't say I have ever asked. One may tell you, but I wouldn't expect it to be asked all that much.

BTW, are you 22 weeks along? If so, great, and congratulations.

RayCun

menoscemo wrote: »

Funny enough I run in Miles but I'd weigh myself in Kg s. Easier to track weight in tenths of a KG. I'd be fairly confident in both stones/lbs and Kg s in terms of weight but much less so about pace in minutes per km.

When I started running in kms, I had a few figures in my head
5 minutes/km = 8 minute miles = 3.30 marathon pace
4 minutes/km = 20 minute 5k pace (=6.24/mile)
and 10 seconds/km is 16 seconds a mile

after a while of setting pace targets in km you stop converting mentally, it's just 5k pace, 10k pace, etc
or stop worrying about precise pace (in intervals it is time not pace I track, if anything)

I'd still use those baseline figures as a starting point if anyone asked me to convert one measure to another -
9 minute miles... eh, that's 60 seconds slower than 8 minute miles... so around 4x16 seconds/mile ... so around 4x10 seconds km ... so around 5:40/km?
3:30/km is 3x10 faster than 4/km ... so 3x16 faster than 6:24 ... so about 5:36

robinph

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I dunno, I'm quite comfortable with saying something along the lines of "I'm 22 weeks along, the little one weighs around half a kilo at the moment". :pac:

But I guarantee that nobody will know what you are talking about if you quote birth weight in kg's to them.

rainbow kirby

robinph wrote: »

But I guarantee that nobody will know what you are talking about if you quote birth weight in kg's to them.

Not my fault people seem to want to cling to the dark ages :pac:

ncmc

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I dunno, I'm quite comfortable with saying something along the lines of "I'm 22 weeks along, the little one weighs around half a kilo at the moment". :pac:

Aw congrats RK, is it your first? Exciting times ahead!

rainbow kirby

It is indeed! Still running, but only doing around 5k at a time. Hoping to keep going until around 26-28 weeks.

ncmc

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It is indeed! Still running, but only doing around 5k at a time. Hoping to keep going until around 26-28 weeks.

Fair play to you, I gave up running completely and I very much regret it. I'm only getting back into it now and my daughter is almost 18 months. You'll find the fitness really stands to you towards the end. I had one of the easiest pregnancies you could imagine and was back on my feet very quickly despite having a section and I credit that with having trained for and run a marathon a couple of months before getting pregnant.

BeepBeep67

RayCun wrote: »

When I started running in kms, I had a few figures in my head
5 minutes/km = 8 minute miles = 3.30 marathon pace
4 minutes/km = 20 minute 5k pace (=6.24/mile)
and 10 seconds/km is 16 seconds a mile

after a while of setting pace targets in km you stop converting mentally, it's just 5k pace, 10k pace, etc
or stop worrying about precise pace (in intervals it is time not pace I track, if anything)

I'd still use those baseline figures as a starting point if anyone asked me to convert one measure to another -
9 minute miles... eh, that's 60 seconds slower than 8 minute miles... so around 4x16 seconds/mile ... so around 4x10 seconds km ... so around 5:40/km?
3:30/km is 3x10 faster than 4/km ... so 3x16 faster than 6:24 ... so about 5:36

That's all well and good until you get to mile 22 in a marathon, at that stage I can't add 1 + 1.

RayCun

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

That's all well and good until you get to mile 22 in a marathon, at that stage I can't add 1 + 1.

ah yeah, but you're ****ed anyway by then
"4.2 miles left so if I keep up 6.30 pace I'll finish in 12 parsecs... no, 3 Wednesdays... no, 11 bluebottles... wait, hang on..."

davedanon

Funny how the drugs trade comfortably embraces both systems. Kilos, pounds, ounces, grams.

shels4ever

davedanon wrote: »

Funny how the drugs trade comfortably embraces both systems. Kilos, pounds, ounces, grams.

Yes an manhood is always measured in imperial .

walshb

shels4ever wrote: »

Yes an manhood is always measured in imperial .

Better to measure in metric. Figure is twice as big!

Greenmachine

I was measuring my pace in min/km but nearly everyone who bothered commenting asked me what's that was in miles. I obliged much of the time, but if I am honest I prefer working in Kms.

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

Another good example. The U.S. always refer to lbs. Nothing to do with stones or kilogrammes. In Ireland it's always kgs. Right from the kids to the Seniors. Like I said, a lot of interchanging across the board.

I do stones for weight, but kilometres for distance, like any reasonable person.