Says the research is based on miles/week and time from shorter races.
My conversions for recent marathons were way off.
What say you?
Says the research is based on miles/week and time from shorter races.
My conversions for recent marathons were way off.
What say you?
that one is certainly slower for me than other calculators - around 5 minutes slower. Which is probably more realistic. the marathon is not a normal race - it is not on a line from 10ks and HMs - itis a different beast.
all the massively positive splits in marathons probably stem from viewing the marathon as a normal race.
It was pretty accurate estimate for what I did prior to Chicago Marathon and it guessed my time within a minute of what I did. More realistic than other sites
Says if I just train 200mpw I'll get that OTQ that's just seemed out of reach, because, you know, it's only 20 minutes faster than my PR.
It's way off for me. Predicted 3:06+ for my last marathon when I ran 2:57 low. I've always found McMillan to be the most accurate.
The article says it was based off people running an average of 29 miles per week. of course its going to give much slower predictions than most calculators, which are based on elite and sub elite conversions, and just calculated out to slower times. It's probably a better tool for people running 29 miles a week, but anybody training a halfway decent number of miles is going to beat this.
Penguins wrote:
The article says it was based off people running an average of 29 miles per week. of course its going to give much slower predictions than most calculators, which are based on elite and sub elite conversions, and just calculated out to slower times. It's probably a better tool for people running 29 miles a week, but anybody training a halfway decent number of miles is going to beat this.
Incorrect, it factors in weekly mileage quite well. Too well in fact, based on my previous post.
I put in real numbers for mileage and pre-marathon races. It predicted 2 minutes slow.
4 minutes slow for me.
Predicts 2:51 off a 1:15 "fast" half and 2:45 off a 1:15 "avg" half running 60 per week- I just did a 2:37:55 marathon- so 7-13 min off for me.
10 min slow
Inputted my most recent 5k and weekly mileage I had going into my last marathon (barely any). Their time prediction was 30 minutes slow. They gave the Runner's World Prediction for comparison and it was within 1 second of what I actually ran.
Looking back at when I was in peak fitness for a March marathon, my most recent 5k and mileage predicted within just over a minute on the Runner's World calculator, and more than 14 minutes slow with Slate.com. This site sucks. Sorry, but anyone running in the high 70s in an average week isn't going to run 2:56 off of a 17 flat 5k.
Oh and for what it's worth, my experience has been that Jundo (ventolin's calculator) is probably the best.
9 mins slow for me based on my last race and 14 mins slow based on the one before it. Pretty bad calc if you ask me.
The average person ran 30 miles a week in prep for a 26 mile race? I'm sure there were a tremendous amount of massive blowups that resulted in very skewed results (to the slow side).
"But the Riegel formula falls apart when you move up to the marathon. A typical runner in our study with a 1:45 half-marathon time (8 minutes per mile) had a marathon time of 3:53:10 (that’s 8:54 per mile). Yet the Runner's World calculator predicts that this runner will finish in 3:38:55—15 minutes faster than the actual result. That’s an “absolutely massive” error, says Vickers. If this runner paced himself according to the Riegel prediction, he would start the race at a pace that was more than 30 seconds per mile too fast. “No wonder so many runners blow up and limp to the finish,” Vickers says."
These runners who trained 30 miles a week blew up and limped to the finish because they were woefully undertrained, not that they went out too fast. They would have blown up regardless of pace.
Crap. Pure crap.
I can see only one purpose for this: stop hobby joggers from blowing up at mile 16 and maybe get them to mile 20. And that is a maybe.
This is horrible.
Just put in numbers for my last marathon. It was accurate within a minute, but normally I would say that's a few minutes slow. I was looking to run about five minutes faster than I did, but ran Marine Corps Marathon in the Hurricane Sandy winds and ran a little more conservatively than I would've normally attempted.
More accurate for me than typical prediction calculators. I'm more of a speed runner than endurance runner. In the 2:50-3:00 range for a 'thon in reality. My 10K time sometimes "predicts" in the low 2:40s.
Only 12 minutes slow for me (45 mile/week hobby jogger).