running calculators

Nice interesting question, I got the same prediction from a running calculator

I was under the impression it is 'at the same level of excellence' as the example time/distance you enter not if you train correctly(what ever that phrase means).

I find the calculators are quite accurate -- it's the people who vary too much.

Yea .. So how many mpw to run a 3:05-3:08 marathon? How many 20 milers up to race daY?

Well... That depends. Was the 3:04 prediction based on a half time? A 5k or a mile? It's generally better the closer the distance is to the distance you are calculating for. You could be in great 5K shape and not have the endurance for a great marathon.

But overall, I find McMillians pretty accurate. My times across the board from mile to marathon all pretty much add up with the exception of my 10k. I've run great 15ks and 5 mile races, but never a good 10k so it isn't where it should be.

secondshotmarathoner wrote:

According to their prediction I should pull off a 3:04 w/ proper training. Ok so who decides what is proper training?

You decide. Proper marathon training is whatever works for you. The training plans out there are just a starting point. Until you figure out (and execute natch) your correct training, which will probably take years of trying, add 10-15 minutes to the calculator prediction... unless you enjoy blowing up.

In my case, I'm about 12-15 minutes slower than most calculators predict from my "half" time or 10K time. In high school, my best events were middle distance 800m and 1600m, and I have fairly large calves. So for me, the calculators become a kind of reference that confirms my endurance is my weakness (something I already knew).As far as mpw, it's hard to give recommendations without knowing more details about your strengths, weaknesses, and history.Having said that, generally I'd say 50-70 mpw is plenty, and I always built up my "long run trials" in periods of 3 weeks, leading up to one last "20 miler" 3 weeks before the race.But I prefer to measure workouts in time, rather than miles. That is, say 7-9 hours a week, with the longest runs building up to around 2h15 to 2h30. Anything longer than that, would require more recovery. Using time, rather than mileage is a better recommendation for non-professionals to avoid running too high mileage.

secondshotmarathoner wrote:

Yea .. So how many mpw to run a 3:05-3:08 marathon? How many 20 milers up to race daY?

I chased a marathon time upon a predicted time from a 13.1 result. Unfortunately I found a HARD wall in the marathon due to an insufficient training base.

I found the calculators to be quite accurate when using a half marathon time AND a sufficient marathon training cycle. my 2 cents

Yea I'm a sub 19 5k'er, ran a 1:27 flat half marry last yr on a tough course.. Ran a marathon, stupid me tried to go sub 3 first try, and barely finished the race... Was at the half in 1:30, finished in 3:20.. So part of me wants to give it another whirl the other part of me says no way! lol

Guess I would be smarter next time and stay around 7:05-7:10ish..

There was a thread on here (I think) a few weeks ago discussing how popular calculators tend to be overly optimistic at the marathon distance.

See here, the basis of the thread i think I recall..

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/10/running_calculator_introducing_slate_s_marathon_time_predictor_a_better.html

rekrunner wrote:

I find the calculators are quite accurate -- it's the people who vary too much.

They were very accurate for me when I was running/training at my best.

I DO agree that it's the people who's training isn't consistent with running the equivalent times.

Back in the day I was a 4min 1500 guy. McMillan predictions for all my times 800 to marathon are almost perfect.

Maybe it was the weather that day why I had such a bad outcome?

poismois wrote:

Back in the day I was a 4min 1500 guy. McMillan predictions for all my times 800 to marathon are almost perfect.

Simultaneously?

No. I think he is the exception more than the rule. I have a friend and a brother who are ~18:30 guys. McM says 3h. They ran 3:19 and 3:17 on decent training, though not ideal provably. I have no personal eperience with marathons but that slate (of all things) article makes sense.

Perhaps.. Like I said not ideal racing temps 68 degrees... Downpour during the race which gave me waterlogged shoes for 11 miles, course wasn't exactly flat either..

Not making excuses just givin the details.. I'd still like to believe I could pull off a 3:05-3:10.. Basically all I wanna do is run Boston and be done w/ marathons anyway......

secondshotmarathoner wrote:

Yea I'm a sub 19 5k'er, ran a 1:27 flat half marry last yr on a tough course.. Ran a marathon, stupid me tried to go sub 3 first try, and barely finished the race... Was at the half in 1:30, finished in 3:20.. So part of me wants to give it another whirl the other part of me says no way! lol

Guess I would be smarter next time and stay around 7:05-7:10ish..

I ran 2:53:xx and during the specific training period I ran a 35:50 10k and a 1:19:30 half marathon.

Because of injury I only managed two 20 milers.

The race splits were 1:26:10 - 1:27:xx

2:53 sounds like a breeze for you, you are a 1:19 half marry guy... a 35:50 is very impressive 10k also! Congrats! I can only dream of those times.

Ok so lemme ask u this.............. I ran the marathon along side a guy for the majority of the race. I'm thinking for at least 15 to 17 miles.. I found out what his name was in the end results..

While I pulled off a 3:20 I looked at this time he ran a 3:17.. (he's also only like 2 yrs younger)

Ok , so 3wks later there is another marathon probably a little flatter course, the temp was in the 30's at start.. Anyways, he ran a 3:02 at that race.. So.... question is if i had done that race,could i legitimately add on 3mins and ran a 3:05?

Interesting debate ;)

I find the calculators (I used McMillan) to slightly over represent the strength of performances in shorter races compared to the longer ones. For example, I ran a 1:10:22 half marathon this fall which is supposed to equate to a 2:28:xx full marathon. I ran 2:28 pace for 20 miles in my marathon debut and died a little bit the last 10k to run just over 2:30. For those performances the calculator I used was pretty accurate. However when I enter my half marathon or marathon times and look at the shorter equivalents I am surprised at how slow they are. The 5k equivalentfor a 1:10:22 half is only around 15:10. I ran under 15 minutes 6 years ago and couldn't have touched a 70 minute half at that point. Maybe the calculators are accurate when you factor in proper training for a given event with the caveat being that proper training for longer events is harder to do an can be sustained by fewer people.