race calculators

tunney

Peckham wrote: »

Was going fantastically until earlier this week. Ran the Longford Half and got around in 1:24 which is on target for sub-3 in Dublin. However, I seem to have picked up a bit of a strain in my right quads, so haven't run since. Hoping to get out this evening for a gentle run, but away this weekend so am going to post very poor mileage this week. Luckily it's a scheduled recovery week for me anyway, so will just pick it up again next week and then it's four or five weeks of heavy mileage before tapering.

At this stage I can't wait for taper, but know I'll hate it when it starts!

Does anyone actually believe these calculators that work out your marathon times from other race times?

According these I can run a 2:37 based on recent races!!!

Question is what should someone base their race pace on? Calculators? goals? conserative options?

hunnymonster

Tunney, McMillan is not a bad calculator. Some of them are shocking though.

You've always got to remember that they are based on the "average" non-specialised runner, some people are just btter at short distances, some at long.

If you're extrapolating from a triahtlon time, make sure the course wasn't short. 500 m in a 10 km is 5% which will only extrapolate as the distance gets longer.

What is your longest stand alone running race in the last year where you felt strong? I would take this as a starting point to predict race times. Ideally you would scale up from something at least 1/2 marathon in length.

cfitz

tunney wrote: »

Does anyone actually believe these calculators that work out your marathon times from other race times?

According these I can run a 2:37 based on recent races!!!

Question is what should someone base their race pace on? Calculators? goals? conserative options?

I don't think you can rely very much on these calculators but the McMillan one seems to be somewhat accurate. My personal theory about the McMillan calculator is that if your doing less than 70 miles per week and you input your 10k time, you'll probably have to bump it up to about 90 miles per week to hit your predicted marathon time. But I dunno... it's just a mathematical formula - it would be silly to rely on it much.

Greg McMillan has an article about 3 different marathon predictor methods and how to combine them. They involve races and sessions and seem like a better way of predicting.

tunney

hunnymonster wrote: »

Tunney, McMillan is not a bad calculator. Some of them are shocking though.

You've always got to remember that they are based on the "average" non-specialised runner, some people are just btter at short distances, some at long.

If you're extrapolating from a triahtlon time, make sure the course wasn't short. 500 m in a 10 km is 5% which will only extrapolate as the distance gets longer.

What is your longest stand alone running race in the last year where you felt strong? I would take this as a starting point to predict race times. Ideally you would scale up from something at least 1/2 marathon in length.

Non-triathlon? 57 for the 10 miler in the park - lumpy and windy, finished and could have have gone on for a half no problems.

McMillian says that equates to a 2:40 marathon?? my h*le I could run that!

Peckham

McMillan seems pretty accurate for me. I use it a lot to calculate training paces for speed/tempo/recovery/general aerobic paces (this is probably where it's most useful), and it's been pretty much bang-on calculating my race times from anything from 5m up to marathon.

If anything, it may underestimate my marathon time by a small bit, but I think this is because I run halves better than marathons.

Peckham

tunney wrote: »

Non-triathlon? 57 for the 10 miler in the park - lumpy and windy, finished and could have have gone on for a half no problems.

McMillian says that equates to a 2:40 marathon?? my h*le I could run that!

Says who? If you train as specifically for the marathon as you do for a 10 miler then you could come close to that based on a 57min 10 mile. By training specifically, I mean using a training plan that caters for such fast times - i.e. upwards of 70 miles per week.

hunnymonster

tunney wrote: »

McMillian says that equates to a 2:40 marathon?? my h*le I could run that!

I think you're underestimating yourself. Assuming you can hold your body together and two half IM's back to back don't kill you, I would certainly be looking around the 2:45 mark for you.

Wally Runs

The Glanbia stuff is on sale in our local health food store (Health Matters). It is €2.50 a bag. They did give it out at the Connamarathon and Tri-athy with a shaker cup but they do not appear to be selling the cups.

I know if you go with the Maximusle brand, which you can get at large chemists, Argos and some health stores you get a free cup. To be honest the stuff is rank and you have to buy it in the larges tubs at €25-48 a pop depending the product, so if it does not agree with you, you are stuck with a lot of product. Shame you cannot get some free samples to try.

Me, I recover with chocolate milk. I read somewhere that it is as good as any commerical product, having milk proteins and sugars etc.
Now, if you know better, please keep it to yourself as sometimes it is the only reason I go out for the run. Strange how my runs always finish near the shops.

cfitz

tunney wrote: »

57 for the 10 miler in the park - lumpy and windy, finished and could have have gone on for a half no problems.

Do you mean that you were only cruising rather than going your best?

tunney

Wally Runs wrote: »

The Glanbia stuff is on sale in our local health food store (Health Matters). It is €2.50 a bag. They did give it out at the Connamarathon and Tri-athy with a shaker cup but they do not appear to be selling the cups.

It shouldn't be on sale there - they are simply buying it online as any consumer can and adding a bit on for themselves.

tunney

cfitz wrote: »

Do you mean that you were only cruising rather than going your best?

Wouldn't put it as cruising but in hindsight I took the foot off the gas with 3 to 4 miles to go. Let a more experienced runner pace me for first while. They blew up (slowed by 15 seconds or so per mile) at 7 mile mark or so and rather than keeping the pace and dropping them I told myself "you can't pass them, you shouldn't even be on their shoulder". Stupid I know, but up until this year last year I'd finish miles behind them. Intimidating. Realised what I had done at 9.5 miles when I was grand and not taxed but too late then.

Wally Runs

I do not know the ins and outs but they have a fair bit of of point of sale leaflets and display items along with it? Might it be on trial?

cfitz

tunney wrote: »

Wouldn't put it as cruising but in hindsight I took the foot off the gas with 3 to 4 miles to go. Let a more experienced runner pace me for first while. They blew up (slowed by 15 seconds or so per mile) at 7 mile mark or so and rather than keeping the pace and dropping them I told myself "you can't pass them, you shouldn't even be on their shoulder". Stupid I know, but up until this year last year I'd finish miles behind them. Intimidating. Realised what I had done at 9.5 miles when I was grand and not taxed but too late then.

Well that sounds like you could have gone faster alright. But I don't think you could take for granted that you would definitely have survived the extra 3.1 miles at the same pace.

None of that is very relevant to your calculator question anyway

Stupid_Private

tunney wrote: »

Non-triathlon? 57 for the 10 miler in the park - lumpy and windy, finished and could have have gone on for a half no problems.

McMillian says that equates to a 2:40 marathon?? my h*le I could run that!

It's been a year since my last 10 mile and that was run in 59 minutes (marathon time 8 weeks later was 2:46). I'd say if you're running 57 minutes strong then 2:40 isn't out of the question.

I disagree with the amount of training people say you've to put in. Training plans don't necessary change because you're going for a faster time. The effort you put into the miles is different - you'll naturally be running the easy miles faster than someone who is aiming for a 3:30 but it'll still be easy to you. 60 miles a week would be plenty for someone going for anything from 2:30 - 3:30 as long as the training miles are run at the right pace.

stipes212

tunney wrote: »

Wouldn't put it as cruising but in hindsight I took the foot off the gas with 3 to 4 miles to go. Let a more experienced runner pace me for first while. They blew up (slowed by 15 seconds or so per mile) at 7 mile mark or so and rather than keeping the pace and dropping them I told myself "you can't pass them, you shouldn't even be on their shoulder". Stupid I know, but up until this year last year I'd finish miles behind them. Intimidating. Realised what I had done at 9.5 miles when I was grand and not taxed but too late then.

the Frank Duffy 10 is one tough race. if you clocked 57mins, you should prepare, mentally at least, for a sub 2:45. if your doing the half next month,76mins won't be far out

cfitz

Stupid_Private wrote: »

I disagree with the amount of training people say you've to put in. Training plans don't necessary change because you're going for a faster time. The effort you put into the miles is different - you'll naturally be running the easy miles faster than someone who is aiming for a 3:30 but it'll still be easy to you. 60 miles a week would be plenty for someone going for anything from 2:30 - 3:30 as long as the training miles are run at the right pace.

Please give us more details...

I'm 25 and I'd like to break 2:30 some time in the next few years. I'm already running about 60 miles per week. What do you think I'd need to be doing in training?

Peckham

Mods - can we split the discussion regarding the accuracy of running calculators and training plans into a separate discussion? It's an interesting debate, but I don't think it should clutter up the Dublin Marathon thread.

hunnymonster

I'll try..... don't blame me if it all disappears :-)

hunnymonster

after a shocking amount of messing, done!

Racing Flat

tunney wrote: »

Non-triathlon? 57 for the 10 miler in the park - lumpy and windy, finished and could have have gone on for a half no problems.

McMillian says that equates to a 2:40 marathon?? my h*le I could run that!

Personally I find mcmillan uncanilly accurate between 3k and half marathon, but for 800/1500 and marathon it is way out. I reckon most people would need to add a bit of time to the marathon time predicted.

Best thing to do might be to look at the times from last year for the 10mile in the Park for fellows around you and then see what they did in the marathon. I can tell you off the top of my head that a few lads who would have been around 56 did 2.43, 57 around 2.45 and 58 2.50ish. I'd say 2.45 would be a more resonable estimation, but you won't know until you do one. mcmillan predicts me around 2.40 based on my 800/1500 times, but my PB is 3.06 (good job I did'nt go out at 2.40 pace then!).

57 in the Park is agreat time though. Ditch the tri-athlon!

Racing Flat

cfitz wrote: »

I'm 25 and I'd like to break 2:30 some time in the next few years. I'm already running about 60 miles per week. What do you think I'd need to be doing in training?

I'd say you'd need to get your 10k time under 33. Not absolutely necessary, but most fellows running under 2.30 would be in the 32s for 10k. Also, as you're giving yourself a few years, do a marathon, in the meantime, just to see where you are and how realistic 2.30 is. Sub 2.30 and you'd be close enough to top 3 in the National Championships. That's serious running.

Your actual training may not change that much. You'll still do an interval session, just probably do longer intervals and maybe more of them, emphasis on endurance more than speed. Stretch your long run out to 22miles or so and your 3rd session a week would be long tempo runs or marathon paced runs. You might add 2 miles or so to your easy runs. Doing this you'll probably easily enough add 10-20miles bringing you up to 80.

But I would imagine most fellows running sub 2.30 probably do around 100miles a week, by adding extra easy runs, going to 2 a day a few times a week. Whether or not this helps I don't know. I remember a few years ago someone asked Mark Caroll if there is any need to do more than 70 miles a week, as there doesn't seem to be much evidence for increased fitness gains above this volume. Mark replied that he couldn't race well unless he was doing 120miles a week and that he did 70 miles a week before breakfast.

Stupid_Private

cfitz wrote: »

Please give us more details...

I'm 25 and I'd like to break 2:30 some time in the next few years. I'm already running about 60 miles per week. What do you think I'd need to be doing in training?

I think Racing Flat summed it up nicely there. First thing is to get the shorter distance times down and the rest will come down.

Pretty much I just do what my coach tells me to do. Advice is something I hate giving out because what works for me mightn't work for you and then everyone else has an opinion too. I've seen your training structure up here before and it's fairly similar to mine. 2 speed work sessions, 3 easy runs and a long run. That's year round - at marathon time you bump up the long run slightly (last year I didn't go above 18 but each to their own there. Next time I probably will go above that) and add a couple of miles to the rest of your sessions. Again nothing major. All pretty much what RF said. I think on Long runs you can't be afraid to do them fast. Slower than marathon pace, yes, but not just plodding around at 7.30 - 8 min pace.

I don't think you can really compare the miles done by someone aiming for 2:30 and an elite athlete though. Over the past few years I've trained with plenty of people running from 2:25 to 2:40 and none of them were putting in anything over 80 miles a week. The majority were in the 60 mile bracket. We just don't have the people getting the times over here at the moment. My time last year didn't even finish me in the top 10 of the club annual marathon finishers in London. That club I trained with would be known as more of a "jogging" club as well. That's why I think that when you have someone running 3:00 - 3:30 and running 60 miles a week the natural assumption is that you'd have to run 100+ miles to get 2:30. Not the case, it takes years of training, like you're doing now, and bit by bit your body will be able to handle running the miles faster. I don't think there's much science involved in getting down to 2:30... just run!

cfitz

Racing Flat wrote: »

I'd say you'd need to get your 10k time under 33. Not absolutely necessary, but most fellows running under 2.30 would be in the 32s for 10k.

According to the McMillan calculator I'll need to get down to 31:58

Racing Flat wrote: »

Also, as you're giving yourself a few years, do a marathon, in the meantime, just to see where you are and how realistic 2.30 is. Sub 2.30 and you'd be close enough to top 3 in the National Championships. That's serious running.

I figure if I'm going to make the jump up to marathon I'd wanna make it worthwhile!

Racing Flat wrote: »

Your actual training may not change that much. You'll still do an interval session, just probably do longer intervals and maybe more of them, emphasis on endurance more than speed. Stretch your long run out to 22miles or so and your 3rd session a week would be long tempo runs or marathon paced runs. You might add 2 miles or so to your easy runs. Doing this you'll probably easily enough add 10-20miles bringing you up to 80.

This sounds sensible, but I want the magic formula

Racing Flat wrote: »

But I would imagine most fellows running sub 2.30 probably do around 100miles a week, by adding extra easy runs, going to 2 a day a few times a week. Whether or not this helps I don't know. I remember a few years ago someone asked Mark Caroll if there is any need to do more than 70 miles a week, as there doesn't seem to be much evidence for increased fitness gains above this volume. Mark replied that he couldn't race well unless he was doing 120miles a week and that he did 70 miles a week before breakfast.

Yeah I reckon this high mileage is probably the way to go. My current strategy is to add the double days without hurting the quality of the existing runs. There's no point in pretending I'm an expert though, I'm gonna see if Stupid Private (or anyone else) can show me some alternatives...

Stupid_Private

cfitz wrote: »

According to the McMillan calculator I'll need to get down to 31:58

According to McMillan my 10k PB that I set this year means I'd run a marathon 2 minutes slower than I did last year...

cfitz

Stupid_Private wrote: »

I think Racing Flat summed it up nicely there. First thing is to get the shorter distance times down and the rest will come down.

Pretty much I just do what my coach tells me to do. Advice is something I hate giving out because what works for me mightn't work for you and then everyone else has an opinion too. I've seen your training structure up here before and it's fairly similar to mine. 2 speed work sessions, 3 easy runs and a long run. That's year round - at marathon time you bump up the long run slightly (last year I didn't go above 18 but each to their own there. Next time I probably will go above that) and add a couple of miles to the rest of your sessions. Again nothing major. All pretty much what RF said. I think on Long runs you can't be afraid to do them fast. Slower than marathon pace, yes, but not just plodding around at 7.30 - 8 min pace.

I don't think you can really compare the miles done by someone aiming for 2:30 and an elite athlete though. Over the past few years I've trained with plenty of people running from 2:25 to 2:40 and none of them were putting in anything over 80 miles a week. The majority were in the 60 mile bracket. We just don't have the people getting the times over here at the moment. My time last year didn't even finish me in the top 10 of the club annual marathon finishers in London. That club I trained with would be known as more of a "jogging" club as well. That's why I think that when you have someone running 3:00 - 3:30 and running 60 miles a week the natural assumption is that you'd have to run 100+ miles to get 2:30. Not the case, it takes years of training, like you're doing now, and bit by bit your body will be able to handle running the miles faster. I don't think there's much science involved in getting down to 2:30... just run!

Thanks for that.

That's why I think that when you have someone running 3:00 - 3:30 and running 60 miles a week the natural assumption is that you'd have to run 100+ miles to get 2:30. Not the case

I see what you mean here, but I would have thought that 60 was very low mileage for a marathon - so upping the mileage is an obvious way of improving your time. Like the way if you weren't doing a decent amount of interval work you might come to the conclusion that you could improve your time by doing more interval work.

Over the past few years I've trained with plenty of people running from 2:25 to 2:40 and none of them were putting in anything over 80 miles a week. The majority were in the 60 mile bracket.

That surprises me. A lot of runners I know would be putting in more than 60 miles per week. Perhaps they are all capable of 2:25 marathons. Or perhaps they aren't training well. I think a lot of our top athletes stay clear of the marathon though so perhaps that's why 2:25 looks like a fast time to someone like me - maybe there's loads capable of it, just not willing to move up to marathons.

hunnymonster

I think there is a triangle with marathon time, experience and mileage at the three corners.

If you ask a relatively inexperienced runner to increase their mileage a lot, you are asking for trouble. These inexperienced people might be very talented and therefore doing good times on modest training but ramp it up and they might actually get slower and even injured.

On the other hand, take an experienced runner who is doing more modest times and get him to increase his mileage (with usual caveat of quality not junk miles) and most likely you will see an improvement in times.

I'm only 4 years in the running game, I've won marathons and ultramarathons off the back of being lucky but it's only in the last 18 months that I feel I've been able to handle bigger mileages.

Racing Flat

Stupid_Private wrote: »

According to McMillan my 10k PB that I set this year means I'd run a marathon 2 minutes slower than I did last year...

Based on this and your 10 mile time in relation to your marathon time, as well as the fact that you did not go above 18 miles in training, I would say that you are probably naturally more inclined towards the longer distances. Maybe more slow-twitch fibres, better ability to use fat as an energy source etc. So you do better over the longer distances. I am the opposite. I know fellows who's mile PB would be around 5.20, yet there race pace for 5 miles is 5.30, while I can go 4.50 but my 5 mile race pace is 5.40...On average though, I would say that the majority of fellows under 2.30 can do 32mins handy enough for 10k.

cfitz

hunnymonster wrote: »

On the other hand, take an experienced runner who is doing more modest times and get him to increase his mileage (with usual caveat of quality not junk miles) and most likely you will see an improvement in times.

How would you define junk miles? And what would you see as the dangers of them?

Racing Flat

hunnymonster wrote: »

take an experienced runner who is doing more modest times and get him to increase his mileage (with usual caveat of quality not junk miles) and most likely you will see an improvement in times.

Exactly, don't incraese mileage just for the sake of increasing weekly totals, it'll increase automatically if your speed session goes from 8 x 200m to 6 x 1 mile, because you've switched from 1500m running to the marathon.

Racing Flat

cfitz wrote: »

How would you define junk miles? And what would you see as the dangers of them?

I would say any miles that are done without a specific purpose*. So all miles should be either to increase VO2max, increase lactate threshold, increase aerobic conditioning or recovery. I suppose the problem with this is that all jogging could be said to increase aerobic conditioning, so you might be inclined to do more and more. I think it's a little bit of trial and error - do as much as you can without impacting on your ability to do your key sessions as well as you want to. If the key sessions start to seem more difficult than they should, cut down the mileage on the easy runs.

When training for shorter distances because the speed sessions atre short and fast, they take their toll on my legs so I can only manage 6 miles or so the next day. When training for marathon, as the sessions don't tear up the legs as much, because they are slower, (but longer), I can manage 8-10 miles on easy days. As SP said, everyone different though, so take advice with a degree of caution.

* Added to this, pace is a factor in rubbish miles. Jack Daniels defines specific paces (based on ability) for easy runs, tempo runs, speed sessions etc. e.g. I might be prescribed 5.20pace (3k race pace) for interval sessions 6.00pace (1 hour race pace) for lactate threshold and 7.30-8.00 for easy runs. So running at 7.00 pace is too fast for an easy run and too slow for a VO2 max or lactate threshold benefit. Therefore I'm using up excess energy for no added gain. This would be considered junk miles. And I would say this is a trap that so many fall into. Do these easy runs slightly too hard, and then can't put enough into and get the most out of the key sessions.

cfitz

Racing Flat wrote: »

Exactly, don't incraese mileage just for the sake of increasing weekly totals, it'll increase automatically if your speed session goes from 8 x 200m to 6 x 1 mile, because you've switched from 1500m running to the marathon.

Indeed, but if you're running is still on an upward curve you should be increasing your mileage on a yearly basis even if you're still training for 1500s. I suppose then you have to decide what the optimal mileage is. From what I can see, there seems to be very few elite runners following low mileage strategies...

Racing Flat

cfitz wrote: »

Indeed, but if you're running is still on an upward curve you should be increasing your mileage on a yearly basis even if you're still training for 1500s.

Maybe not necessarily? Apparently Seb Coe never did much more than 35 miles a week outside of base training. Instead of upping the mileage, when running the shorter distances, maybe you could continue to improve by just doing the intervals faster / taking less time between intervals etc. rather than increasing mileage - increasing quality rather than quantity.

I agree with you though that although there doesn't sem to be much evidence for any need to go above 80 miels or so, every top marathoner is into the 100's, so maybe there's something to it.

hunnymonster

cfitz wrote: »

How would you define junk miles? And what would you see as the dangers of them?

Racing Flat defined it brilliantly in his post and I agree with everything he said. In fact only thing I can think to add is that miles are often added at inappropriate times. An extreme example is adding doubles (i.e. 2 runs on one day) and thinking you can do your LSR and speed session in the same day. It's a recipe for having your physio on speed dial.

cfitz

hunnymonster wrote: »

Racing Flat defined it brilliantly in his post and I agree with everything he said. In fact only thing I can think to add is that miles are often added at inappropriate times. An extreme example is adding doubles (i.e. 2 runs on one day) and thinking you can do your LSR and speed session in the same day. It's a recipe for having your physio on speed dial.

Ok thanks, and thanks Racing Flat also. For some reason I always think people mean double day jogs or long warm-ups and cool-downs when they say junk mileage. But I don't think jogging tends to do you much harm - whatever about the benefits, it doesn't take much out of you.

On a separate note, I would like if we could ban the term 'LSR' from this thread. 'Long easy runs'; if they end up being slow then so be it.

hunnymonster

we could just rename the "S"
long structured runs
long scheduled runs
lond saturday/sunday runs......

cfitz

hunnymonster wrote: »

we could just rename the "S"
long structured runs
long scheduled runs
lond saturday/sunday runs......

Sounds like a fair deal! But we'd need to use the full term during the change over period

tunney

cfitz wrote: »

Ok thanks, and thanks Racing Flat also. For some reason I always think people mean double day jogs or long warm-ups and cool-downs when they say junk mileage. But I don't think jogging tends to do you much harm - whatever about the benefits, it doesn't take much out of you.

On a separate note, I would like if we could ban the term 'LSR' from this thread. 'Long easy runs'; if they end up being slow then so be it.

I disagree - they are always slow runs. Slow being relative to the intended race pace of the marathon. Easy is not the correct work to use. Marathon pace is also "easy" for the first bit and then gets hard.

Racing Flat

tunney wrote: »

Marathon pace is also "easy" for the first bit and then gets hard.

Maybe for the average fun/club runner. But I'd doubt if it was easy at the start of the Olympic marathon the other night.

cfitz

tunney wrote: »

I disagree - they are always slow runs. Slow being relative to the intended race pace of the marathon. Easy is not the correct work to use. Marathon pace is also "easy" for the first bit and then gets hard.

Well we're getting into semantics now...

Do you think that your long run should never be progressive?

Racing Flat

hunnymonster wrote: »

doubles (i.e. 2 runs on one day)

Pfitzinger says that there is no need to do doubles until you are above 75 miles a week. Thoughts?

cfitz

Racing Flat wrote: »

Pfitzinger says that there is no need to do doubles until you are above 75 miles a week. Thoughts?

Cfitz says doubles are good because running becomes very much the norm - going out training becomes less of a big deal. You're body gets used to running and running and running. I'm no scientist though...

If you're training for a marathon you probably need to put in more distance in individual runs so you might have to be at about 75 miles per week before it would make sense to separate your daily mileage into 2 runs.

Peckham

Racing Flat wrote: »

Pfitzinger says that there is no need to do doubles until you are above 75 miles a week. Thoughts?

I agree (but I'm a big Pfitz fan!). If you're on less than 70-75 miles a week, then it's having a negative effect on your training - i.e. you'll find yourself splitting a 10 mile day into a double of 6 & 4, which provides nowhere near as much benefit as a single 10 (in fact, arguably they are junk miles), and there is probably no physical reason why you couldn't just go out and do 10.

(This is a great thread by the way - only have time to speed read it today, but will spend a bit more time digesting it later.)