Runners Forum - Kick Runners banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,232 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey all,<br><br>
I've got a question for you.<br><br>
This past weekend, as many of you know, I set a new 10 mile PR at 1:10:38. For laughs I decided to plug that into the predictor calculators at both marathonguide.com and mcmillanrunning.com<br><br>
When I saw their predicted marathon times, I was quite skeptical. McMillan's race predictor says that I am capable of a 3:17:50 marathon. MarathonGuide.com's calculator says a 3:18:42 marathon.<br><br>
I'm very skeptical, so I'm curious what others think of these calculators/predictors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,653 Posts
Those are pretty close. Daniels' VDOT tables don't have a 10 mile estimate, but if you scale your time back linearly for 15k (65:50) it predicts a marathon time of 3:17:29, based on a VDOT of 48.<br><br>
I have used Daniels' tables in the past to predict longer race times from shorter ones. This spring I had a 25:12 5k that would suggest a 1:55:55 HM. I actually ran 1:57:21, but I ran a bit conservatively over the first half and also lost about a minute on a longish uphill. So overall not too far off.<br><br>
I have never used longer distances to predict shorter performance, but I am running a 5k race this weekend and I hope to go under 25 min, maybe as low as 24:30. Based on my latest threshold run (last Sunday at 8:30 per mile) I should not be able to run faster than 25 flat. I have no longer races in the last 3 months, so cannot use race times. We will see what happens.<br><br>
The important point about predicting from one distance to others is that you are properly trained to race the other distance. In other words, it should be considered a goal race and not just a weekend on the spot decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
I find McMillan to be pretty good indicator for all the distances, except for predicting marathon. Unless you're well experienced at the distance, IMO the marathon calculators usually predict a time on the ambitous side.<br><br>
Just a ballpark estimate, but I'd add 3-10 minutes to what the calculator predicts for you.<br><br>
Your skepticism is a good thing. I've seen many a marathon trainer (myself included) that took a superb tune-up race to develop overly ambitious marathon goals. The result is that I set out on my marathon race on too fast a pace for my ability.<br><br>
But you never know, EQ. You are in good shape. Probably in the best shape since I've known you (what's that, a couple years now?) Given the right course and the right day, you might be pleasantly surprised on how you run on marathon day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
It's better to think of these gadgets as eqivalent performance calculators rather than predictors. When it says 1:10:38 is equal in performance to a 3:17:50 that's what it means. If you can't run faster than 1:10:38 for 10 miles, but run a 3:15 marathon, it simply means that you are better at the marathon. On the other hand if you only run 3:25 off that 10-mile time you are weaker at the marathon. After we have dozens of races under our belts we start to know which distances we are best at.<br><br>
I think these calculators do a great job and I would advise anyone to become familiar with them. When we do we have a much better chance of focusing on what we are best at.<br><br>
Of course there are so many variables to consider it can make you dizzy. For example if you ran your 10-miler on a flat, fast course in cool weather, and your marathon was on a hilly course in warm weather, you will obviousy not perform is well in the marathon even if it is normally a better distance for you. You can throw the calcuator out the window when trying to compare these kinds of performances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,845 Posts
Let's just say that I hope to golly it is dead on accurate <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.kickrunners.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Very Happy"> I am right on the edge of a BQ time. My training has been right in line with all the McMillan pace/distance. If everything is PERFECT and I eat right and sleep good and taper like I should and wake up on a good day, I will qualify.... But, then again a 3:40 marathon would be 1:05 off of my last marathon time, which was in January.... I am skeptical <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.kickrunners.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Smile">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Another thing--the calculators assume that you are equally well trained for the distances you are comparing. For example, if you can run 5k in 20 minutes the equivalent marathon time, according to McMillan, is 3:15. However if you ran that 5k time on 30 miles a week, it his highly unlikely that you will be able to run the marathon equivalent on the same mileage--make that HIGHLY unlikely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
617 Posts
Aerobic conditioning also has a lot to do with it. I've known guys who do NOTHING but speedwork for short distances simply cos they don't have the endurance to run a marathon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
This is true, Durt. Endurance is easier to develop than speed too, and it comes into play at every distance from 800 meters on up. Well, "easier" might not be the best word, but we all have the ability to make tremendous gains in our endurance with dedicated training. On the other hand, we are much more limited by genetics as to how much we can improve our basic speed with training.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,232 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Interesting folks. Thanks for the insight.<br><br>
I've always used a rule of thumb to predict my marathon time. Take my HM time, double it, and add 1/2 an hour.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,653 Posts
Daniels VDOT tables incorporate more than just physical fitness into them and appear to me to be a better assessment of race ability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
Daniels' has been very close for me. Interesting, I can remember bettering my half time at some point and putting my times into the calculators and I remember Galloway saying I'd run a 3:13, and a few others said 3:10. I scratched my head because I'd already ran a 3:06 and my half time was faster now Jack Daniels said 3:03, so I followed his program for a 3:04.<br><br>
EQ- 2x plus 1/2 hour sounds like alot for someone running sub 2hours for a half!!!! 2x plus 10 minutes isn't considered very aggressive is you have an aerobic base.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top