Embodiments of the invention

• US 20060281062A1
• Filed: 07/18/2005
• Published: 12/14/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 07/19/2004
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: John N. Tucker
• Original Assignee: John N. Tucker
• Inventors: Tucker, John N.
• Granted Patent: US 8,142,197 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 434/255
• CPC Class Codes: G09B 19/00 Teaching not covered by other main groups of this subclass teaching or practice apparatus for gun-aiming or gun-laying F41G3/26

Abstract

A system and method of rating a cross-country course. The method includes for accurately and consistently measuring a length of a cross-country course and rating a difficultly of the cross-country course.

Claims

1. A difficulty rating system, comprising means for accurately and consistently measuring a length of a cross country course and means for rating a difficultly of the cross country course.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the means for accurately and consistently measuring the cross country course includes indicia placed in a substantially straight line between curves on the course and a line which is tangent from one curve to a next curve, and a predetermined distance from an inside boundary on the curve.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the means for accurately and consistently measuring the cross country course includes indicia about a curve in segments of approximately no more than 6 feet in average.

4. The system of claim 2, wherein the straight line includes visual marks placed at a predetermined spacing on the course for visual cue.

5. The system of claim 4, wherein the visual marks are marked in numerical sequence at the predetermined spacing.

6. The system of claim 1, wherein the means for rating the difficultly of the cross country course includes a laboratory fitness evaluation using a treadmill which records physiological data of subjects running at increasing speeds and inclinations on a treadmill until voluntary termination.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein data from the laboratory fitness evaluation includes generating regression equations for each participant from which energy costs are calculated from heart rate (HR) data on subsequent running tests.

8. The system of claim 1, wherein the means for rating the difficultly of the cross country course includes a portable metabolic testing unit which allows energy comparisons to be accomplished directly from tests on the cross country course.

9. The system of claim 1, wherein the means for rating the difficultly of the cross country course includes comparisons of actual race performance statistics on tracks and the rated cross country course.

10. The system of claim 1, wherein the means for rating the difficultly of the cross country course includes calculating energy costs from course tests, reflected as a percentage of a difference in energy costs between subjects running at a controlled speed for a known race distance on a track and for a same distance on an accurately measured cross country course.

16. The method of claim 1, wherein the measuring the cross country course includes indicia placed in a substantially straight line between curves on the course and a line which is tangent from one curve to a next curve, and a predetermined distance from an inside boundary on the curve.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein the measuring the cross country course includes placing indicia about a curve in segments of approximately no more than 6 feet in average.

11. A method of measuring a cross country course, comprising providing indicia placed in a substantially straight line between curves on the cross country course and which is tangent from one curve to a next curve and a predetermined distance from an inside boundary on the curve, and measuring, in predetermined segments, the indicia from start to finish, pulling out slack.

12. The method of measuring of claim 11, further comprises providing the indicia about the curve in segments of approximately no more than 6 feet in average.

13. The method of measuring of claim 11, further comprising placing visual marks at a predetermined spacing on the cross country course for visual cue.

14. The method of measuring of claim 13, wherein the visual marks are marked in numerical sequence at the predetermined spacing.

15. A method of measuring a cross country course, comprising:

accurately and consistently measuring a length of a cross country course, and rating a difficultly of the cross country course.

18. The method of claim 15, wherein the rating the difficultly of the cross country course includes a laboratory fitness evaluation using a treadmill which records physiological data of subjects running at increasing speeds and inclinations on a treadmill until voluntary termination.

19. The method of claim 18, wherein data from the laboratory fitness evaluation includes generating regression equations for each participant from which energy costs are calculated from heart rate (HR) data on subsequent running tests.

20. The method of claim 15, wherein the rating the difficultly of the cross country course includes a portable metabolic testing unit which allows energy comparisons to be accomplished directly from tests on the cross country course.

21. The method of claim 15, wherein the rating the difficultly of the cross country course includes comparisons of actual race performance statistics on tracks and rated cross country courses.

22. The method of claim 15, wherein the rating the difficultly of the cross country course includes calculating energy costs from course tests, reflected as a percentage of a difference in energy costs between subjects running at a controlled speed for a known race distance on a track and for a same distance and speed in similar conditions on an accurately measured cross country course.

23. The method of claim 15, wherein the rating the difficultly of the cross country course includes a determination of test velocity speeds from laboratory test data relative to velocity at VO₂ max and identifying a test speed on a test speed table by selecting a speed on the test speed table which is closest to about 70% of predicted velocity at VO₂ max that a test subject achieves in a laboratory stress test, wherein each test subject runs all course and track tests at test speeds that would have them arrive at a predetermined visual or audible cues at selected seconds per predetermined intervals.