My marathon and half marathon results predict times for 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000 that I just cannot hit.
My marathon and half marathon results predict times for 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000 that I just cannot hit.
The indicators say I should be able to do 8:05 for the 100-kilometer, but I can't get there. I HATE the shorter distances!
Maybe you're using a competitive calculator instead of a physiological calculator.
I have the opposite problem. This points to my lack of aerobic development. I would imagine that your problem is the lack of sufficient speed work/anaerobic development for the shorter events.
Italian Inquisition wrote:
My marathon and half marathon results predict times for 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000 that I just cannot hit.
Then you're better at the marathon and half-marathon than you are at the 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000.
Could just be what your body's good for, could be the way you train. You're the only one who can answer that.
I find McMillan to be really accurate for me in everything from the 5,000 to the marathon. But once it gets shorter than the 5,000, those times get a lot more difficult for me. I think I'm just better at longer stuff. I've never trained specifically for shorter distances though. I guess I'll find out during my summer track season.
Just using mcmillan. I've run 1:16 for the half, and 2:42 for the full, but i cant get a sub 16:40. My best is 16:49.
Italian Inquisition wrote:
Just using mcmillan. I've run 1:16 for the half, and 2:42 for the full, but i cant get a sub 16:40. My best is 16:49.
What's your training like?
Also, are you male or female? I know most people assume male on these forums, but those times are possible for speedy women and a lot of women are skewed towards longer distances.
see coach hadley on marathon predisposition:
http://maximumperformancerunning.blogspot.com/2012/12/predisposition-marathon-potential.html
most of the predictor tables seem to assume an average responder across all distances.
like you, i'm definitely better at the HM and M. speedwork seems to improve my 3k/5k/10k only slightly.
Opie wrote:
like you, i'm definitely better at the HM and M. speedwork seems to improve my 3k/5k/10k only slightly.
Then something is very wrong with your training
With a 76 half and 2:42 you should be low 16s easily. Maybe you need more pain tolerance. I suggest mile repeats on the track in 5:20.
Italian Inquisition wrote:
My marathon and half marathon results predict times for 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000 that I just cannot hit.
I have the opposite problem, but I have friends like you. I know a couple of guys whose 10-mile and 5k race pace are almost the same. Just no ability to turn over quickly, but they can go all day.
You should be able to improve your short-race speed (some) if you focus on it, but it may be you're just a more long-distance guy.
Then something is very wrong with your training[/quote]
you're probably right. 'course, being in my late 40's probably doesn't help. i keep faster stuff in the mix, but i definitely enjoy a long tempo more.
I actually have the opposite problem. I have run a 5:46 mile but only a 20:39 5k and 1:38 half marathon. But it also depends on how you train and my training is definitely geared more toward a 5k .
same here!
i consistently have a 23 second difference between my 5k time and 1/2m time and i'm about 1 minute shy of my 1/2 marathon pace goal.
but i'm kind of a tempo fiend. i would much rather run tempos than bang out 400s on the track.
my plan is to spend 6 weeks this summer just 200s, 400s, 800s, and hill sprints stuff to see if this helps.
running girl 79 wrote:
I actually have the opposite problem. I have run a 5:46 mile but only a 20:39 5k and 1:38 half marathon. But it also depends on how you train and my training is definitely geared more toward a 5k .
Meanwhile I've only run 5:56 for the mile, but 1:29 for the half and 19:12 for 5k. I 'should' be able to run 5:30 but I have no speed at all. I am trying to work on it, but it's a very slow process unfortunately. I anticipate running 18:45 or so this summer, but I will be lucky to break 5:45.
i'm a masters female with a 1:30.48 for the 1/2 with a 20:26 5k. i think i really only need to break 20 in order to go under 1:30 but the closet i've come to breaking 20 was a 20:12 and that got me a 1:30.28 1/2. i haven't broken 20 in years.
but i've neglected the 5k+ and faster stuff since i tend to get injured doing that.
youngoffender wrote:
Meanwhile I've only run 5:56 for the mile, but 1:29 for the half and 19:12 for 5k. I 'should' be able to run 5:30 but I have no speed at all. I am trying to work on it, but it's a very slow process unfortunately. I anticipate running 18:45 or so this summer, but I will be lucky to break 5:45.
Hey, you're on LetsRun! Sup girl.
I'm 85:48 for the half but I can't imagine running a 5:20 mile, which I think is what I'm supposed to be able to do. The 5K time though (18:32) sounds realistic if I train for it.
I'm going to experiment and focus on shorter stuff over the summer though, so I'll see what this does to my mile time :)
McMillan calculator is useful, but shouldn't be used as an indicator by any means. It reallllly depends on your training and what kind of runner you are.
I was a 14:25 5k guy (focus on 5/10k), which says I should have been at:
1:51
4:09
8:12
when in fact I only ever ran:
2:00
4:17
8:18
Could I have run 8:12 and 4:09 by training for it specifically? Yes, I think so. But I was always doing 10k training. I could never run under 1:56 though probably, I just don't have the wheels for it.
However, this also predicts 29:56, 1:07, and 2:20 and I ended up doing 29:34, 1:05, and 2:18.
xenonscreams wrote:
youngoffender wrote:Meanwhile I've only run 5:56 for the mile, but 1:29 for the half and 19:12 for 5k. I 'should' be able to run 5:30 but I have no speed at all. I am trying to work on it, but it's a very slow process unfortunately. I anticipate running 18:45 or so this summer, but I will be lucky to break 5:45.
Hey, you're on LetsRun! Sup girl.
I'm 85:48 for the half but I can't imagine running a 5:20 mile, which I think is what I'm supposed to be able to do. The 5K time though (18:32) sounds realistic if I train for it.
I'm going to experiment and focus on shorter stuff over the summer though, so I'll see what this does to my mile time :)
yooo, sup. I'm on here all the time but I rarely post with this name, gotta keep some mystery in my online life (haha, barely). Anyway I bet you can nail a 5:20 mile w/ your current fitness, just gotta get some good track workouts in this summer. The 5k time is also in the bag for sure. I'm hoping to be around where you are by the end of 2013; gunning for 1:26 in Philly in September, 18:30 by November. Let's get it.