Pace calculators don't work

Are rubbish.

To find the correct pace, a calculator needs to use your last month's daily running distance average and a personal best on a distance.

Based on my 800/1500 times Jundo reckons I can run 47 for the 400m and Jack Daniels reckons I can run 14:36 for the 5km.

Both just so far off it's a joke

So what are your 800/1500 times? I'll tell you what you can run.

Based on your 800 and 1500m times can it accurately predict your 800 and 1500m time?

Want to know what you can run for 400 meters? Train for it, go to a meet and find out, same for 5k.

Or you can use the calculators for what they are supposed to be used for, ball park ranges from which training paces can be prescribed.

So if it says you can run 47 seconds for 400m and you want to run 150s or 200s at 400m pace with appropriate recovery (more than 5 minutes for sure), can your run 23.5 for 200m in training with ample rest?

Can you run 1ks at the calculator given 5k pace with equal recovery?

The further you move away from your primary race distance, the more inaccurate the calculator will be. If you are primarily a 1500m runner, it will be more accurate predicting 800 and 3k than it will 400 and 5k. It will be even more inaccurate predicting 200 and marathon.

Jundo wrote:

I've tried using the calculator that Ventolin likes to use, but I find it doesn't apply to me at all, like way off. The shorter stuff like 400m is just miles away. I'm an 800 runner and the calculator guesses much faster times for my 400m than I can actually do and much faster for 5km than I can manage also. Stats Gangstas is similar also and Jack Daniels is so off on everything it's not worth looking at.

So is it me, or are these calculators just rubbish?

Ventolin's calculator works perfectly, you are just not adding enough for extra distance run around the curve, subtracting enough for pacing on route 1 to bell, etc. It works every time, just ask him.

Jundo wrote:

I've tried using the calculator that Ventolin likes to use, but I find it doesn't apply to me at all, like way off. The shorter stuff like 400m is just miles away. I'm an 800 runner and the calculator guesses much faster times for my 400m than I can actually do and much faster for 5km than I can manage also. Stats Gangstas is similar also and Jack Daniels is so off on everything it's not worth looking at.

So is it me, or are these calculators just rubbish?

You probably aren't using them correctly (except Jack Daniels, his calculator is very limited). If the times you enter are inaccurate, then the results are going to be inaccurate.

It is not just you it is ALL runners whose best events are 800 and/or 1500.

That is why there are three types of races, sprints, middle distance and distance. In sprints, the 100, 200 and 400 which can generally be used to predict each other, distance 5,000, 10,000, HM and marathon which can also be used to predict each other and finally, middle distance, 800, 1500 and 3000 which can kind of be used to predict each other.

I say kind of because the changes that happen in training and people who are good at middle distances are the largest for middle distances leading to poorer time predictions.

Jundo wrote:

Based on my 800/1500 times Jundo reckons I can run 47 for the 400m and Jack Daniels reckons I can run 14:36 for the 5km.

Both just so far off it's a joke

Admittedly Ventolin has said that you need to start with a 400 time for one of the inputs. Not sure if the second time needs to be an 800 or can be something further up the line.

Jundo wrote:

So is it me, or are these calculators just rubbish?

I suppose it could be my calculator, but based on my experience it's probably you. What I mean by that is people often provide the calculator (not predictor!) with bad times thus it gives them bad results.

If you want, I will show you how to best use the calculator to get accurate results. Of course, it's always possible that the calculator might have some error that I haven't yet detected. But until I know more information, I don't know which is the case.

What are the times? When did you run them? What were the splits for each race?

98w4ois wrote:

It is not just you it is ALL runners whose best events are 800 and/or 1500.

I've used the calculator successfully with runners specializing in a variety of distances and have noticed no consistent pattern to the inaccuracies except "user errors" (that coincidentally and interestingly happen more with 800/1500 runners than runners of other distances). Plenty of 800 and/or 1500m runners have successfully used the calculator so it is certainly not "ALL runners whose best events are 800 and/or 1500" like you say.

Like I told the original poster, if you provide more information (times, when, and splits) then I can try to see if you are misusing the calculator or if there is an actual shortcoming for 800/1500 runners.

This one made me laugh too. Supposedly, if I can run 52seconds for 400m than an equivalent performance in the 1500m is 3:33, and for 5k it is 12:55.

For an assesment that is a bit more fair - but still wildly off - I entered 3:55 for a 1500m which yields 57.1 for 400m and 14:12 for 5k as equivalent performances.

I agree with a previous comment that there really are too many variables for any calculator to accurately estimate performance outside of a narrow range.

Ok, I ran 1:51.1 and 3:54.5 both in July this year. I also raced the 400m a couple of times throughout the year and the best I managed was 51.2. I also did a few relays and at best just broke 51. My 5km is 16:10 from a road course in January. I did far less aerobic work and far less mileage after February than in the period from September to Jan.

These are my honest efforts, I recognize my 800m is my best distance but I didn't run any of the other races with sub par effort. I threw up after one 400m race!

Jundo wrote:

Ok, I ran 1:51.1 and 3:54.5 both in July this year. I also raced the 400m a couple of times throughout the year and the best I managed was 51.2. I also did a few relays and at best just broke 51. My 5km is 16:10 from a road course in January. I did far less aerobic work and far less mileage after February than in the period from September to Jan.

These are my honest efforts, I recognize my 800m is my best distance but I didn't run any of the other races with sub par effort. I threw up after one 400m race!

Your 400 seems pretty slow compared to your 800. I've always equated a sub 1:52 800m with a sub 50 400m. You're really getting a lot outta that 51!

And in reply to "..................."

No I can not run 23.5 200m reps in training, that is about as fast as I can race.

No I can not run 1km reps at 2:55 with 3 mins rest, maybe 3:05 average at best.

"The further you move away from your primary race distance, the more inaccurate the calculator will be"

So what is the calculator useful for then? I can predict my own performances at distances I am used to racing, I don't need a calculator to tell me what I can run a 1500m in.

Jundo wrote:

Ok, I ran 1:51.1 and 3:54.5 both in July this year. I also raced the 400m a couple of times throughout the year and the best I managed was 51.2. I also did a few relays and at best just broke 51. My 5km is 16:10 from a road course in January. I did far less aerobic work and far less mileage after February than in the period from September to Jan.

These are my honest efforts, I recognize my 800m is my best distance but I didn't run any of the other races with sub par effort. I threw up after one 400m race!

1. Thanks. I asked you for race times, dates, and lap times. Do you recall the lap times of each of those races (800,1500,5000)? Did you have a final kick in the 1500m?

2. You said that you were getting inaccurate results for 400m and 5000m. For 5000, you are using a time from January vs your input times from July. That's a difference of SIX MONTHS. Your fitness can completely change in 6 months. Do you have a 5000 time closer to your other input times (July)? Also, how close to July did you run a 400?

I don't know about Ventolin's and Daniel's websites, but the very FIRST instruction on my website says to not use times that are run more than a month apart. You are using SIX months apart. This is an example of user error that I mentioned a few posts above.

3. Even though you did "far less aerobic work and far less mileage" after February, you still may have improved your 5000m ability. Sometimes an 8x400m session can do more for your endurance than a long run.

OK well the 800m I ran 55.0 then 56.1. 1500m had a bit of a kick from 300m out but nothing special, laps were 62, 63, 64, 45

I never entered the 5000m time into the calculator and I recognise that it is not an accurate time to use. When I mentioned the 5000m I was talking about Ventolins calculator that predicts something in the 14:30s which is highly unrealistic. I entered my 800m and 1500m times.

Thanks

I tell you something.

Let's say your primary race is 5000m.

Your daily distance ran average is 12km.

Your PB on 5k is 20:00.

I predict that your time on half marathon will be 1:35:00

If your daily distance ran would be 18km and your 5k PB would be 20:00, you will run the half marathon in 1:31:00

Is pretty much similar on shorter distances. Like 800m vs 5k.

Jundo wrote:

OK well the 800m I ran 55.0 then 56.1. 1500m had a bit of a kick from 300m out but nothing special, laps were 62, 63, 64, 45

Your 1500 was 62,63,64,(60)? This is an example of putting in inaccurate times (thus giving you inaccurate results). 60 to 64 is a significant change of pace. If you use this:

You will see that you were really in something like 3:51.30 shape that day. It may seem like a negligible difference from 3:54, but the difference between 3:51.3 and 3:54 is a difference of ~27 seconds in the 5000. Likewise, your 800 was closer to ~1:50.5.

Now, if we use those times (3:51.30 & 1:50.5), then let's see what we get:

400 0:48.76

800 1:50.5

1000 2:23.81

1500 3:51.3

1-mile 4:11.01

3000 8:36.51

2-mile 9:19.95

5000 15:27.92

10000 34:00.12

half-mara 78:49.24

marathon 170:59.76

Seem reasonable? A 16:10 on the roads during base training could indeed be a 15:27 on a track during your peak 6 months later.

The calculated 400m (48.76 for a 1:50.5 or 49.28 for 1:51) is faster than your 51.1, but:

1) Did you race 400m in July?

2) You ran 50.x on a relay so that's already faster than your official time. Relay times are not necessarily slower than official 400m times.

3) You mentioned throwing up. That happens when you do a lot of suffering because of going out too fast and dying down the home stretch. Many runners (particularly distance oriented runners) are horrible at pacing in the sprints.

4) Another posted above provided anecdotal experience saying that you should be able to run a 400m in under 50 seconds based on your 800m time.

In summary, for best results:

1) Use the time optimizer to see your real ability (use times run in the same weeks/month)

2) Then use the times calculator with those optimized times

3) For my calculator, your mileage is irrelevant

OK well cheers I suppose those aren't unreasonable times, definitely makes more sense. Still think your 400m estimates are a bit generous but maybe that is accurate for most people. I know from training I wouldn't be able to break 49.

That pace optimizer is pretty cool btw.

Jundo.co.uk produces a bit more nonsense even with 1:50.5 and 3:51.3