Daniels vs. Tinman calculators--which one is more accurate?

No calculator is really going to be useful to show fitness across all distances. The further you get away from whatever race you were doing specific training for, the further off the time will be:

Equivalent marathon time will be too fast for a guy training for the 5k.

Equivalent 5k time will be too fast for a guy training for the marathon.

I like Tinman’s calculator more, even though I used Daniels for about 10 years.

I disagree that you should train at current fitness. I think that just leads to overtraining and staleness.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

No calculator is really going to be useful to show fitness across all distances. The further you get away from whatever race you were doing specific training for, the further off the time will be:

Equivalent marathon time will be too fast for a guy training for the 5k.

Equivalent 5k time will be too fast for a guy training for the marathon.

I like Tinman’s calculator more, even though I used Daniels for about 10 years.

I disagree that you should train at current fitness. I think that just leads to overtraining and staleness.

How so? I don't want to overdo it and run expected goal times, but rather stick with current times and then extrapolate.

I.e. Marathon->13.1->10k. I wouldn't drop all the way down to race 5k if those times aren't as accurate, but if I run a 3:20 full that should accurately predict me to run a 1:36 half based on the calculator (relatively accurate).

People expect a spot on calculation, but a spot on calculation is not possible.

There are too many variables. Here in your case what about the ambient temperature, humidity and altitude in your marathon and in your 5k race? You dont even mentioned that, but it is important.

Than we have daily form, nutrition, motivation, rest before, shoe, race pacing, wind drafting, running economy at different paces , .... and so on ...

A ballpark you get.

If you do the proper training for the other distances and race under similar conditions, the equivalent race time predictors can be fairly accurate (same thing if you look at an age grade calculator or World Athletics point scores). The exception is the marathon, which involves a bunch of variables that shorter races don't have, so there's a lot more uncertainty in projecting marathon times from even a HM race.

In your case, though, you're trying to go the other way. It should be more accurate, but

1) You ran an imperfect marathon, so you should be able to run faster than the projected times;

2) But you need to run a race, not a solo time trial; and

3) You have to do the proper training for the shorter distance, and you haven't yet.

Spend a little time training for a 5K, sign up for a quality race, and you'll run a lot faster.

jecht wrote:

I wouldn't drop all the way down to race 5k if those times aren't as accurate, but if I run a 3:20 full that should accurately predict me to run a 1:36 half based on the calculator (relatively accurate).

Didn't you run the first half of your marathon in 1:33? You should be targeting more like 1:30 in a half.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

I disagree that you should train at current fitness. I think that just leads to overtraining and staleness.

Can you clarify Lenny? I don’t follow the logic.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

No calculator is really going to be useful to show fitness across all distances. The further you get away from whatever race you were doing specific training for, the further off the time will be:

Equivalent marathon time will be too fast for a guy training for the 5k.

Equivalent 5k time will be too fast for a guy training for the marathon.

I like Tinman’s calculator more, even though I used Daniels for about 10 years.

I disagree that you should train at current fitness. I think that just leads to overtraining and staleness.

Yep. And of course people are geared towards one end of spectrum or the other. I have indeed wondered why JD seems to suggest the published training paces based current VO2 max or VDOT when that is your current fitness? How would you ever get better. I go up at least 1 VDOT level and use those paces if possible.

I find it crazy accurate when you look at 1600 best then predict 800 or 3000. But the farther out you get, it cant account for genetics and environment and all of what others have posted. The Rep pace feels like tempo (should feel) to me, but the tempo suggestion feels like hell. Just a tendency. I have runners who are opposite, tempo monsters, cant crack Rep pace on a full sprint for given VDOT?

Eh plenty of stories of tempo pace being too hard.

People shiet on Malmo but he has a good story of one Jack Daniels runner always doing the tempos at his pace (too hard) doing some really good ones, then he falls into a hole.

I think M pace tempos are very good, but that's just me.

Hardloper wrote:

jecht wrote:

I wouldn't drop all the way down to race 5k if those times aren't as accurate, but if I run a 3:20 full that should accurately predict me to run a 1:36 half based on the calculator (relatively accurate).

Didn't you run the first half of your marathon in 1:33? You should be targeting more like 1:30 in a half.

Good point but I was just trying to see the correlations between 10k-13.1-26.2 on the calculators, so I can dial in the correct training paces and not overtrain. If a workout calls for "X miles at MP or HMP or 10k or tempo" I can do it correctly. Tempo pace, at MIT, is usually between 1/2 and 10k pace, so now I have a clearer guideline.

The good news of my marathon failure is that:

1) I was able to run a 1:33 and had a ton left over for a 13.1.

2) I was able to handle 7:05 pace through 18-19 and 7:30 pace all the way until 23 (!) before bonking.

It's not really useful to use a calculator between a 5k and a marathon. 5k converted to 3k or 10k times can be quite accurate but the marathon is very different. Even using a half marathon to predict marathon time isn't often accurate due to the big difference in endurance requirement.

"I have indeed wondered why JD seems to suggest the published training paces based current VO2 max or VDOT when that is your current fitness? How would you ever get better. I go up at least 1 VDOT level and use those paces if possible."

You are training to race, not racing to train.

When you race or do a TT, you can then adjust the training paces accordingly.

jecht wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Didn't you run the first half of your marathon in 1:33? You should be targeting more like 1:30 in a half.

Good point but I was just trying to see the correlations between 10k-13.1-26.2 on the calculators, so I can dial in the correct training paces and not overtrain. If a workout calls for "X miles at MP or HMP or 10k or tempo" I can do it correctly. Tempo pace, at MIT, is usually between 1/2 and 10k pace, so now I have a clearer guideline.

The good news of my marathon failure is that:

1) I was able to run a 1:33 and had a ton left over for a 13.1.

2) I was able to handle 7:05 pace through 18-19 and 7:30 pace all the way until 23 (!) before bonking.

Don't get me wrong, I like calculators as much as the next guy. But I feel like about 20 seconds per mile from 10k to 20k (or half marathon) to marathon seems to be a very good estimate give or take a couple seconds.

Alfie wrote:

"I have indeed wondered why JD seems to suggest the published training paces based current VO2 max or VDOT when that is your current fitness? How would you ever get better. I go up at least 1 VDOT level and use those paces if possible."

You are training to race, not racing to train.

When you race or do a TT, you can then adjust the training paces accordingly.

But, in theory, if you are doing the training for your current VO2, wouldnt you generally expect your TT or race to not come down? Feels like you need to push that training a little to elevate to better race times. if you do it backwards (only training more/faster when you set a PR) you would never get better. You would be doing the same training for same PR over and over. Maybe the paces already have that woven in, I dont know. Its the one JD concept i cant wrap my mind around.

I always assumed that JD based that on the idea that the training paces were significantly easier than a TT/race. He assumes you will race much much harder than any training session, and if the training session is leaving you THAT tired, you're doing it wrong.

It's hard to get used to the idea, because I was trained to run faster with the mantra "how can you expect to run faster if you've never tried it in practice first. You need to touch on those paces to know how it feels."

Thank you, that's good enough for me!

In our club they say "tempo" pace is between 10k and HM pace so by finding true guidelines based on recent marathon pace (7:30, although that was due to the last 3 bonking, but I'll use that to be safe going forward) is a good way to know what I need to do for the next block.

bigmig19 wrote:

But, in theory, if you are doing the training for your current VO2, wouldnt you generally expect your TT or race to not come down? Feels like you need to push that training a little to elevate to better race times. if you do it backwards (only training more/faster when you set a PR) you would never get better. You would be doing the same training for same PR over and over. Maybe the paces already have that woven in, I dont know. Its the one JD concept i cant wrap my mind around.

No, that's not how it works. When you introduce a physical stress followed by recovery, your body compensates by getting stronger than it needs to be to deal with the stress. It's the principle of supercompensation - basically, you run a mile at 7:00 pace, and a week later you can run at 6:55 pace (just for example, with much detail omitted). Or you lift 50 pounds, and a week later you can lift 55. Some people (I'm one) respond to training by running 3.1 or 6.2 or 13.1 or even 26.2 miles at a pace we've barely ever touched in training.