1:17
2:48
1:17
2:48
1:15
2:36
This is a pretty good study done that correlates 10k to marathon time, but accounts for weekly mileage.
http://www.hillrunner.com/jim2/id64.html
From the website:
"I think a race provides a more reliable measure than trying to compare training (although this can be done too). The longer the race the better. And using the RW calculator blindly is probably not a great thing, unless the race is longer than 10 miles. 5k's are unreliable, but I'd convert it to a 10k time then use a factor based on what the person mileage is. I never posted the results of my survey on marathon to 10k ratio versus mileage. Of course, there are variations among people, but considering the mileage helps reduce the variation. Here's what I came up with based on the survey:
30-35mpw: 5.5
40mpw: 5.0-5.3
55 mpw: 4.9
60 mpw: 4.75-4.85
70 mpw: 4.70-4.80
80-100 mpw: 4.55-4.65
Depending on how long a person has been running and how many marathons they've run, you can choose the slightly higher or lower values for a given mileage. The RW calculator gives 4.67, the world class runners varied for 4.55-4.8. But the 4.55 people never really tried to excel in the 10k, and the 4.8 people only gave the marathon one to two shots. A RW survey of 2,000 readers gave a number closer to 5.0. I would guess the average mileage of these readers was about 45 mpw. I wonder if they even thought to include that in their survey? I don't have that article."
You, sir, need to learn to respect the marathon.
1:20, no training, age 27
2:57, trained my nads off, age 39
1:39:xx
3:40.xx
1:16:02 half - my 7th attempt at the distance
running my first marathon in may
1:11:07 & 2:42:58
Half 1:22
Full 2:58
Half was run under perfect conditions, full was not. Both are recent. Need more MPW.
gawkwardly wrote:
I'm genuinely surprised I have the fastest time (of those yet posted).
-----------------------------------------------------------
um.... wrote:
Yet you either posted under a different name, or didn't post your times.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I didnt post 'em (figured some wanka would heckle me for feeling ok about times that suck compared to ritz's). sub 1:07 and sub 2:30 on flat accurate courses.
1:11:41
2:35:02
Both as a masters runner.
1:35:15--year and half ago, need to update
3:16:06--recent
figure this out wrote:
1:32
2:52
You ran a Kipathon.
1:17:56
2:46:39
Both very well-executed races for a guy with plus-60 second 400m speed.
In the grand scheme of things, pretty pedestrian, but I have 3 seconds on Lance's PR,and my best is faster than Haile's first. Those are times that either require considerable talent, or considerable seriousness of purpose.
My first marathon was a 3:58 on perhaps 3 or 4 40 mile weeks. I learned about half of what I know about running in those 4 hours. Here it is: There is no substitute for thorough preparation.
The Boy Scouts taught me the motto. The marathon taught me what it means.
Half 1:10:26
Full 2:28:50
Took maybe 2 cups of fluid which probably only amounted to a few sips in the marathon