daddy wrote:
mid-dist dude wrote:
My PR in the 1k is 2:28. I don't think I could touch 2:28 in the marathon.
RT^
Enough of the Russian conspiracy crap. Putin is not trying to convince you a mid-d dude can't run a 2:28 marathon.
These ~3 hour marathoners are going 4:15 kilometer pace. If they can't speed up to 3 minute pace for one measly k they just aren't trying.
I was running 3:09s yesterday and I doubt i can currently run much faster than 2:47-50. I’m in about 2:26 shape. Ran 2:26 last year.
Slow Bro wrote:
OK, this doesn't work for the most elite of the elite, as obviously Kipchoge isn't running a 2:01 1k, but for most humans, this would be a pretty solid equivalent, no?
No, and if you bothered to read ALL the posts, your theory has already been disproved. That you don't want to change your mind (and you already committed not to), well, it's not illegal to be a knuckle head.
It depends on whether you're mostly fast twitch or mostly slow twitch. Fast twitch will have fast 1k times and slow twitch will have faster marathon times than this formula predicts.
In my case, I could have probably run 3:00 or so 1,000m in my prime, but my best 13.1 miles was only 1:30. I doubt if I could have ever gone under 3:20 in the marathon.
It's close but not quite there. The k's are gonna be slower for most. If I run an all out k I'm gonna be in the 2:50s with a low-2:40s marathon, training for 2:3x.
I've actually found Yasso's to be quite close but that that isn't a workout that makes sense for me later in the build up. I think the best predictors are running a half on tired legs & plugging that into a calculator. If your legs are tired, you can likely hit or come close to the doubled plus 6-7 minute time. If you're tapered & run a PR it might be harder to come that close. I also think 10 @ goal marathon pace, not straining, in a 20 miler, in a high mileage week, will tell you what you can do.
My best 1000 metre time trial: 3:34
My PR in a marathon: 3:32
But my 1km time trial was on a flat track, low wind, and around 10 deg Celsius whereas the marathon had a total elevation gain of 200 metres on a warm, humid and windy day. I suspect I could do far better in a marathon if I had ideal conditions on a race day but you run in whatever conditions exist on the day of the race.
Slow Bro wrote:
OK, this doesn't work for the most elite of the elite, as obviously Kipchoge isn't running a 2:01 1k, but for most humans, this would be a pretty solid equivalent, no?
No.
I don't see Jordan Hassay running under 2:30 for 1K lol
doctorj wrote:
Slow Bro wrote:
OK, this doesn't work for the most elite of the elite, as obviously Kipchoge isn't running a 2:01 1k, but for most humans, this would be a pretty solid equivalent, no?
No, and if you bothered to read ALL the posts, your theory has already been disproved. That you don't want to change your mind (and you already committed not to), well, it's not illegal to be a knuckle head.
Actually his theory seems mostly correct, people seem to relatively equal on the faster and slower side.
Obviously it isn’t going to be correct to the second for each person, as it’s an approximation.
Even the time a person has actually ran a marathon isn’t a perfect estimate of what they could run a marathon in.
2:29 marathon
4:10 mile
no idea my 1k
Doesn't work for me. Could break 2:30 for 1000m and ran a 2:48 marathon. I sucked at anything past 10k.
Free_the_thigh wrote:
doctorj wrote:
No, and if you bothered to read ALL the posts, your theory has already been disproved. That you don't want to change your mind (and you already committed not to), well, it's not illegal to be a knuckle head.
Actually his theory seems mostly correct, people seem to relatively equal on the faster and slower side.
Obviously it isn’t going to be correct to the second for each person, as it’s an approximation.
Even the time a person has actually ran a marathon isn’t a perfect estimate of what they could run a marathon in.
Thank you! I don't know what people expect - that this will be accurate down to the second for 100% of runners?!
Both the very elite and the very slow will be off somewhat. But for many runners, it could actually be a halfway decent predictor.
Use some calculators and cross-reference 1000-meter times and marathon times. You will see that they don't line up that exactly. For example a 2:40 1K is about 15:25-30 is about a 2:28-30 marathon.
Slow Bro wrote:
Free_the_thigh wrote:
Actually his theory seems mostly correct, people seem to relatively equal on the faster and slower side.
Obviously it isn’t going to be correct to the second for each person, as it’s an approximation.
Even the time a person has actually ran a marathon isn’t a perfect estimate of what they could run a marathon in.
Thank you! I don't know what people expect - that this will be accurate down to the second for 100% of runners?!
Both the very elite and the very slow will be off somewhat. But for many runners, it could actually be a halfway decent predictor.
What people expect? Something better than a wild guess based on a coincidence, which is what you are proposing. Again, if you read ALL the post you will see that with only a COUPLE of exceptions, your theory is as good as believing the earth is flat and Godzilla exists.
Free_the_thigh wrote:
doctorj wrote:
No, and if you bothered to read ALL the posts, your theory has already been disproved. That you don't want to change your mind (and you already committed not to), well, it's not illegal to be a knuckle head.
Actually his theory seems mostly correct, people seem to relatively equal on the faster and slower side.
Obviously it isn’t going to be correct to the second for each person, as it’s an approximation.
Even the time a person has actually ran a marathon isn’t a perfect estimate of what they could run a marathon in.
Approximation? Not even close.