Cross country course rating system and method

• US 8,142,197 B2
• Filed: 07/18/2005
• Issued: 03/27/2012
• Est. Priority Date: 07/19/2004
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: John N. Tucker
• Original Assignee: John N. Tucker
• Inventors: Tucker, John N.
• Primary Examiner(s): Fernstrom, Kurt
• Application Number:
  US11/182,884
• Publication Number:
  US 20060281062A1
• Time in Patent Office: 2,444 Days
• Field of Search: 434/188, 434/247, 434/253, 434/255, 337/00, 337/01, 337/55, 337/56, 337/72
• 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 running course comprising a tape measure or surveyor'"'"'s tape for measuring the running course in discrete, uniform segments throughout the running course and visual markers for marking the running course at an end of each of the discrete, uniform segments throughout the running course; and

metabolic testing equipment to monitor and record physiological data of subjects to compare energy costs between subjects running at controlled speeds for an exact distance on the running course and corresponding race distance on a track at the controlled speeds and a computer which determines a percentage of increased energy costs used by the subjects running on the track and the running course, which is a difficulty rating of the running course.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the means for accurately and consistently measuring the running 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 running 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 the visual markers placed at a predetermined spacing on the course for visual cue.

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

6. The system of claim 1, wherein a laboratory fitness evaluation system includes the metabolic testing equipment configured to record the 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 system is configured for generating regression equations for each participant from which the energy costs are calculated from heart rate data on subsequent running tests.

8. The system of claim 1, wherein the metabolic testing equipment is a portable metabolic testing unit for determining the energy costs for accomplishing energy comparisons directly from tests on the running course.

18. The system of claim 1, wherein the running course is a cross-country course.

9. A difficulty rating system, comprising:

means for accurately and consistently measuring a length of a running course comprising a tape measure or surveyor'"'"'s tape for measuring the running course in discrete, uniform segments throughout the running course and visual markers for marking the running course at an end of each of the discrete, uniform segments throughout the running course; and

a computer having a storage medium and which determines a difficulty rating of the running course by calculating a percentage of increased time difference between actual race performance of the subject on tracks and actual race performance of the subject on the accurately measured running course.

10. A method comprising:

accurately and consistently measuring a length of the running course by measuring the course in discrete, uniform segments throughout the running course using a tape measure or a surveyor'"'"'s tape and marking the running course at an end of each of the discrete, uniform segments throughout the running course using visual markers;

calculating energy costs from course tests using metabolic testing equipment which monitors and records physiological data of subjects and a computer which determines a difficulty rating for the accurately measured running course using an energy comparison testing, wherein the difficulty rating is 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 at the controlled speed on the accurately measured running course.

11. The method of claim 10, wherein the measuring the running course includes placing indicia 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.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein the measuring the running course includes placing the indicia about a curve in segments of approximately no more than 6 feet in average.

13. The method of claim 10, wherein the rating the difficulty of the running course using the energy comparison testing includes providing a laboratory fitness evaluation configured to record physiological data of subjects running at increasing speeds and inclinations on a treadmill until voluntary termination.

14. The method of claim 13, 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.

15. The method of claim 10, wherein the rating the difficulty of the running course using the energy comparison testing includes providing a portable metabolic testing unit to determine the energy costs for accomplishing energy comparisons directly from tests on the running course.

17. The method of claim 10, wherein the rating the difficulty of the running course using the energy comparison testing includes:

determining test velocity speeds from laboratory test data relative to velocity at VO₂ max on a treadmill; 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.

19. The method of claim 10, wherein the running course is a cross-country course.

16. A method of rating a difficulty of a running course, comprising:

accurately and consistently measuring a length of the running course by measuring the course in discrete, uniform segments throughout the running course using a tape measure or a surveyor'"'"'s tape and marking the running course at an end of each of the discrete, uniform segments throughout the running course using visual markers;

calculating energy costs from subjects running on an accurately measured running course and course tests which use results of metabolic testing equipment which monitors and records physiological data of the subjects; and

determining a difficulty rating for the accurately measured running course using a statistical comparison using a computer having storage medium, wherein;

actual race performance statistics of a subject on tracks and actual race performance statistics of the subject on the accurately measured running course are compared; and

the difficulty rating is determined as a percentage difference in the compared actual race performance statistics of the subject on tracks and the actual race performance statistics of the subject on the accurately measured running course.

20. A difficulty rating system, comprising a tape measure or surveyors tape for accurately and consistently measuring a length of a running course;

and

a laboratory fitness evaluation system using a treadmill and metabolic test equipment which records physiological data of subjects running at increasing speeds and inclinations on the treadmill until voluntary termination; and

a computer which;

generates regression equations for each subject based on the data from the laboratory fitness evaluation system and metabolic test equipment and which is used to calculate energy costs based on the regression equations and heart rate (HR) data of each subject on subsequent running tests.

21. A difficulty rating system, comprising:

a tape measure or surveyor'"'"'s tape for accurately and consistently measuring a length of a running course; and

metabolic testing equipment which monitors and records physiological data of subjects to calculate energy costs from course tests on an accurately measured running course; and

a computer which determines a difficulty rating for the accurately measured running course, reflected as a percentage of a difference in the energy costs between subjects running at a controlled speed for a known race distance on the course tests and for a same distance at the controlled speed on the accurately measured running course.

22. A method of rating a difficulty of a running course implemented on a computer and taking the form of a computer program product on a computer readable storage medium, comprising:

rating a difficulty of the running course using an accurately and consistently measured length of a running course, wherein the rating the difficulty of the running course includes;

providing a laboratory fitness evaluation using a treadmill configured to record physiological data of subjects running at increasing speeds and inclinations on the treadmill until voluntary termination;

generating regression equations for each participant based on data from the laboratory fitness evaluation; and

calculating energy costs based on the regression equations and heart rate (HR) data of each subject on subsequent running tests.

23. A method of rating a difficulty of a running course implemented on a computer and taking the form of a computer program product on a computer readable storage medium, comprising:

calculating energy costs from course tests; and

determining a difficulty rating for an accurately measured running course using an energy comparison testing, wherein the difficulty rating is 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 at the controlled speed on the accurately measured running course.