[kcwoodhead]

Here is a new calculator that some of you might not have seen:<br><a href="http://www.runcalculator.com" target="_blank">www.runcalculator.com</a>.<br><br>
Have fun playing with it! Now, here is where I'm interested in your info...does it seem accurate to you? Does it seem accurate at different race distances?<br><br>
(can you tell I have a marathon in 10 days and instead of running I'm crunching numbers?)

 

[alan fletcher]

seems reasonably accurate to me for 5k-half marathon. i think it's optimistic for full marathons, like most calculators, but they usually say that the performance assumes "appropriate training" - which for a full marathon seems to be more than most people actually do.<br><br>
i didn't do any real analysis but the times look very similar to mcmillanrunning.com or jack daniels.<br><br>
i did some analysis of marathon performances based on half marathon times a while back and found that on average people underperform compared to the equivalent performance. the higher mileage the training the better they did.<br><br>
grisly details can be found here......<br><a href="http://alansmiles.blogspot.com/2007/05/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html" target="_blank">http://alansmiles.blogspot.com/2007/...tatistics.html</a><br><br>
- Alan

 

[Nettie]

Alan, just FYI for me this calculator was about 4 minutes faster from my last marathon based on a most recent 10K, but McMillan has me at 28 minutes faster, so there is definitely a difference in my case.

 

[kcwoodhead]

I kind of feel like this one might be a little closer to realistic for marathon times becuase it does take into account MPW, to an extent at least. I'm curious to see if others agree.<br><br>
McMillian and others have me around 4:08-4:10 or so and this one has me at 4:26 for the full marathon.

 

[Flounder]

Only being able to enter a 5k time is irritating -<br><br>
The longer racing distances have slow predicted times compared to 5k compared to most other calculators I use and compared to real life experience.<br><br>
Personally - I would not use it.

 

[loopy]

I agree. I have not done a 5k in about 2 years, which makes the calculator pretty much useless for me...

 

[phillytom]

Based on a recent 5k time, it was high by almost 1 minute and a half for an HM prediction and just over a minute high on a 10m time.<br><br>
McMillan and Vdot are much more accurate for me at those distances. This one seems pretty pessimistic. But I consider myself a cautious pessimist, so maybe I should look again. <img alt="smile.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/smile.gif">

 

[Jim24315]

I'm sure that you are familiar with these, but for the benefit for those who haven't, there are the ones used by most runners:<br><br><a href="http://runworks.com/calculator.html" target="_blank">http://runworks.com/calculator.html</a><br><br><a href="http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/Running%20University/Article%201/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/Runni...calculator.htm</a><br><br>
To answer the original question--a question I see asked over and over--these calculators spit out equvialent performances. They are <b>not</b> necessarily predictors. If, for example, you can ran a 5k in 22 minutes and input it into the McMilan calculator, it says that that the equivalent marathon time is 3:34:28. That's all that it says--that the 2 times receive equal performance grades. They do <b>not</b> say that because you can run 5k in 22 minutes that you will necessarily a 3:34 marathon. This will only apply if you are well trained to run a marathon as you are the 5k and are equally talented at both distances.<br><br>
That being said, I believe that they are extemely valuable tools that every serious runner should become familiar with. As you continue to compare the times you ran at different races with the equivalent times at other distances, you begin to get a good idea as to which distances you are best suited for. For example, you will have a very good idea of what kind of marathon shape you are by how fast you can run a 10k and what your training mileage has been. It might not be what the calculators say, but you will know from experience whether to add or subtract a minute or 2 from the projections based on what your pattern has been.<br><br>
There is a reason why someone like Steve Scott focused on the mile and Bill Rogers focused on the marathon. Experience taught them which distances they were best at and allowed them to focus their training on them.

 

[kcwoodhead]

I agree for sure - which is why I never "believe" McMillian, daniels, et al for most of my longer races. You could say I'm "overtrained" for 5k, 10k, etc, and "undertrained" for half-marathon and above. I believe people who do run tons and tons have a better chance of attaining the predicted marathon off a shorter race, but I do not run more than 40 miles a week, so I <i>know</i> I'm not trained for an "equivalent performance."<br><br>
So I'm once again in the dark on wth I'm supposed to do in about 10 days!!

 

[loopy]

Thanks Jim. I was familiar with McMillan, but not with runworks -- very interesting.It also seems like a bit of a "chicken or egg" thing. In the past 4 years, I have run only one 5k and two 10ks, but 9 marathons... so if you go by my PRs, it looks like I am more suited for marathons. Likewise, I think many runners have run lots of 5ks and 10k, but not so many marathons, so, from their PRs, they seem more suited for the shorter races...<br><br>
p.s. kcwoodhead, are you running at Disney? Maybe I will see you there...

 

[kcwoodhead]

I'm running Houston. Both big races!

 

[loopy]

Ahh, OK -- well, best of luck! Hopefully we will both have relatively cool weather...

 

[Jim24315]

Good point. Like so many of the studies we are always reading about, we have to consider the sample size and how the study was done. If you've run one distance much more often than another, chances are good that you'll be able to find a race or two in the larger sample that's better than any of the races you have run less frequently. Also, we have to think about conditions that the races were run in. For example, it's virtrually impossible to compare a 10k that was run on a flat course on a cool day with a marathon that was run on a hilly course on warm day. We have to be careful to use races that were run in similar conditions in order to find any meaningful comparisons.<br>
And then there's training to consider, as kcwoodhead pointed out. It's highly unlikely that anyone is going to be able to run a marathon on 30 mpw that is nearly as fast as what that person's 5k times would suggest. The list goes on.

 

[Hippo]

It told me I could break 24 hours on an extremely hilly 100 mile course.<br><br>
Rrriiight!

 

[Jim24315]

Sorry for answering so quickly without looking at your post more closely. I see the point in being so interested in the link that you gave us. It enables you to factor in training volume and some other variables. Interesting. I will look at it more closely later...it seemed pretty close for the one number in punched in.<br><br>
Good luck in your upcoming marathon, and especially the ironman you are pointing towards in August.

 

[Flounder]

I find daniels pretty much right on for me for 5 mile - marathon - I have raced a serious 5k since 2005.<br><br>
I would think with the training volume that I enterd it it would have yielded much more agressive marathon times -