Half marathon as predictor of marathon time

Racing Flat

Now might be a good time to firm up the Theory of shels4ever, i.e (HM time x 2) + (x% of HM time) = marathon time. Last time we ended up with x = 14, what about now?

To get the ball rolling...

Haile Geb
HM = 58; Mar = 2.04.
HM x 2 = 1.56
Mar - (HM x 2) = 8
8/58 = 14%
x = 14%

RF
HM = 83; Mar = 2.59
HM x 2 = 2.46
Mar - (HM x 2) = 13
13/83 = 16%

Use nearest time in minutes (no seconds); use most relevant HM closest to marathon.

Might make it easier in future when people ask 'what time should I aim for?' considering many of us don't have faith in mcmillan calculator for marathon predictions.

osnola ibax

HM = 104
M = 270
HM x 2 = 208
270 - 208 = 62
62/104 = 60% :eek:

Racing Flat

osnola ivax wrote: »

60% :eek:

Good job you didn't listen to anyone who said 'multiply your half by 2 and add 10minutes' then.:D

happygoose

HM = 97
M = 236
HM x 2 = 194
M - (HM x 2) = 42
42/97 = 43%

Didn't do the long runs x 5 in my preparation and it shows here. Fail to prepare...

earlyevening

HM = 84
M = 187
HM x 2 = 168
187 - 168 = 19
19/84 = 22%

nomadic

HM = 101
M = 255
HM x 2 = 202
M - (HM x 2) = 53
53/101 = 52%

ike

HM = 95
M = 225
HM x 2 = 190
225-190=35
35/95=.36

X=36% Marathon Training was not up to scratch

(if I had got the training right and got a 3:25 time I reckon X=15%, which would put it in line with the first 2 example)

rainbow kirby

HM: 118
M: 264
M - (HM*2): 28
28/118: 23.7%

Needs more long runs, tbh.

Slogger Jogger

Doesn't this all depend on the route in each case? No point comparing a flat HM with a hilly M and vice versa.

osnola ibax

Racing Flat wrote: »

Good job you didn't listen to anyone who said 'multiply your half by 2 and add 10minutes' then.:D

Longest run was 7 weeks ago, 17.6 miles 2:40. ITBS since then.

rigal

HM = 94
M = 207
HM x 2 = 188
207 - 188 = 19
19/94 = 20%

M was flat / HM was quite flat.

menoscemo

HM:108 M:255
HM x 2 = 216
M- (HM x2)= 39

39/108 = 36%

I am not built for endurance (by about 10 kilos me thinks )

Racing Flat

Racing Flat wrote: »

use most relevant HM closest to marathon.

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

Doesn't this all depend on the route in each case? No point comparing a flat HM with a hilly M and vice versa.

Hence the relevant in the OP

chinguetti

HM 96
M 210
HM x 2 192

M-HM x 2 210-192 = 18

18/96 = 18%

:eek: did it 3 times and still coming up with this answer. It has to be wrong, someone tell me its wrong

actwithoutwords

HM = 103
M = 238
HM x 2 = 206
M - (HM x 2) = 32
32/103 = 31%

Injuries on the day of the marathon, and injuries leading to me missing both 20 mile LSRs causing that. Disappointing, but shows how much room for improvement there is...

kennyb3

Racing Flat wrote: »

Now might be a good time to firm up the Theory of shels4ever, i.e (HM time x 2) + (x% of HM time) = marathon time. Last time we ended up with x = 14, what about now?

To get the ball rolling...

Haile Geb
HM = 58; Mar = 2.04.
HM x 2 = 1.56
Mar - (HM x 2) = 8
8/58 = 14%
x = 14%

RF
HM = 83; Mar = 2.59
HM x 2 = 2.46
Mar - (HM x 2) = 13
13/83 = 16%

Use nearest time in minutes (no seconds); use most relevant HM closest to marathon.

Might make it easier in future when people ask 'what time should I aim for?' considering many of us don't have faith in mcmillan calculator for marathon predictions.

started a thread on lsr pace earrlier this morning and kind of questioned this, so dying to see the full results of this

osnola ibax

Even looking at the numbers already posted, there is a world of difference between the half marathon and full marathon. You can't predict how you will react to full marathon distance compared to your half time. In my case, badly. I would say this particulary true for marathon virgins. Maybe you could move closer to the magic 14% as you complete more marathons.

Pisco Sour

osnola ivax wrote: »

Even looking at the numbers already posted, there is a world of difference between the half marathon and full marathon. You can't predict how you will react to full marathon distance compared to your half time. In my case, badly. I would say this particulary true for marathon virgins. Maybe you could move closer to the magic 14% as you complete more marathons.

So based on my 1:49 Half in Wexford is a sub 4 Rotterdam Marathon (my first one) out of the question? The stats on this thread seem to suggest so.

rigal

04072511 wrote: »

So based on my 1:49 Half in Wexford is a sub 4 Rotterdam Marathon (my first one) out of the question? The stats on this thread seem to suggest so.

You shouldn't compare two race times that are c. 1 year apart. Do a 1/2 marathon at some point in your Rotterdam training plan (preferably 4-6 weeks before the race itself) and that'll give you a better indication.

osnola ibax

04072511 wrote: »

So based on my 1:49 Half in Wexford is a sub 4 Rotterdam Marathon (my first one) out of the question? The stats on this thread seem to suggest so.

No, certainly not out of the question by any means. That's exacty my point, some react better than others, I don't have the endurance at present but I hope to rectify that. Also, any sniff of sun really seems to get to me. I've been training since January so I have a lot of experience to gain. You have some time to go to Rotterdam? So don't rule it out, or even a bit better.

osnola ibax

rigal wrote: »

You shouldn't compare two race times that are c. 1 year apart. Do a 1/2 marathon at some point in your Rotterdam training plan (preferably 4-6 weeks before the race itself) and that'll give you a better indication.

+1

MrCreosote

M- 196
HM-86

HMx2=172

M-(HMx2)= 24

24/86= 28%

Had a good day on the HM, went out too fast for the full+ not enough distance in training.

Pisco Sour

rigal wrote: »

You shouldn't compare two race times that are c. 1 year apart. Do a 1/2 marathon at some point in your Rotterdam training plan (preferably 4-6 weeks before the race itself) and that'll give you a better indication.

Are there any Half Marathons in Ireland in February/ very early March by any chance?

Sub430

M: 258
HM: 113

HMx2=226

M-(HMx2)= 32

32/113= 28%

Blew up at mile 20 and walked quite a bit of the final 6.

rigal

04072511 wrote: »

Are there any Half Marathons in Ireland in February/ very early March by any chance?

This was on last year - http://www.stbrigids.net/marathon.htm I didn't run it but I'm hoping it'll be on again as the timing would suit me. Don't know of any others.

Husavik

M - 208
HM (Phoenix park) - 95

HM X 2 = 190

208 - 190 = 18

18/95 = 18%

McMillan does not seem accurate and it seems to worsen the slower the pace, no?

I was secretly hoping for a 3hr 20 time and knew it wasn't going to happen by the 30km banner. It was lucky I told everyone that sub 3.30 would be great because otherwise it could have been a mental hurdle too far.

Abhainn

RF Interesting stuff

Abhainn

HM = 78; Mar = 2.47
HM x 2 = 2.36
Mar - (HM x 2) = 11
11/78 = 14%

Blueskye

HM = 124; M = 306
HM x2 = 248
M - (HMx2) = 58
58/124 = 47%

But it was a nightmare run, hopefully will improve with the next ones...

Slogger Jogger

HM = 86; M = 181
HM x2 = 172
M - (HMx2) = 9
9/86 = 10%

HM was hilly.
M was flat.
Don't have any non-hilly HM to use. But, if I use my last Connemarathon marathon time of 3:17 it comes out at 29%

jlang

HM = 97; M = 208
HM x2 = 194
M - (HMx2) = 14
14/97 = 14%

From March/April this year. Half route was hillier, but balanced by hotter conditions at the marathon. September's HM is now down to 88, but I think I can take a bit off the marathon time too

tunney

Going to have to say that this is as useful as a calculator.

If most of my training has been for shorter faster stuff and I can knock out a 75 half that has absolutely no correlation with what my marathon time would be if I ran a marathon off that back of my half training.

What calculators could tell you is. If you trained for a half and ran X, and if you trained for a marathon you could run Y. Doesn't mean that if you went out and ran you would. Means you could.

neilc

HM = 112; M = 290
HM x2 = 224
M - (HMx2) = 66
66/112 = 59%

I'm putting my results down to not been able to do any of my scheduled 3 week taper at all due to injury. My 20 mile long run which was just over 4 hr pace, was the last run I did before the marathon. Saying all that I'm over the moon having completed my first marathon.
Neil

Racing Flat

tunney wrote: »

What calculators could tell you is. If you trained for a half and ran X, and if you trained for a marathon you could run Y. Doesn't mean that if you went out and ran you would. Means you could.

Exactly. In fairness, most of the calculators say 'as long as you race on a similar course in similar conditions and do teh appropriate training for the distance to be predicted'. Whereas it seems clear enough form here that for whatever reason, that does not appear to be the case, most typical boards pundits seem a fair bit out from what would be predicted.

So in future when someone asks me what they should aim for based on a 2.00 half, I'll lean towards 4.45, rather than 4.15-4.20...

christeb

HM = 93; M = 215
HM x2 = 186
M - (HMx2) = 29
29/93 = 31%

too high!

aero2k

HM 85
M 119
M-(2xHM) = 9
9/85 = 10.6 %

The HM course was a little tougher, and I wasn't 100% on the day - I think 83 min was a closer reflection on my ability which would make the result of the above calculation 15.5%.

shels4ever

Racing Flat wrote: »

Exactly. In fairness, most of the calculators say 'as long as you race on a similar course in similar conditions and do teh appropriate training for the distance to be predicted'. Whereas it seems clear enough form here that for whatever reason, that does not appear to be the case, most typical boards pundits seem a fair bit out from what would be predicted.

So in future when someone asks me what they should aim for based on a 2.00 half, I'll lean towards 4.45, rather than 4.15-4.20...

I'd agree with that too upto a point, Based on a 1:59 half i was going to try a sub 4 marathon ... which was never going to happen but i'm fairly sure I would have run a 4:20 with out much problem. The half mara was 8 week prior to the marathon on a harder course. Ok ended up injured maybe due to the target been too ambitious.


From the figures i see here it seems that the lower % seem to be from the more experienced runners , i'd say this is due to consistent training over years so both half mara and mara were at close to peak performance.

The newer marathon runners seem to suffer more, but will see a better % improvemnet over time. I think what i'm getting at is running a marathon is possible with a 16 week program but running a fast marathon is a sum of years of work. If your going to be 4+ hours on your feet the chances of things going wrong increase compared to the 2:30-3:00 gang.

shels4ever

aero2k wrote: »

HM 85
M 119
M-(2xHM) = 9
9/85 = 10.6 %

The HM course was a little tougher, and I wasn't 100% on the day - I think 83 min was a closer reflection on my ability which would make the result of the above calculation 15.5%.

Nice sub 2 horus marathon

aero2k

shels4ever wrote: »

Nice sub 2 horus marathon

Ah, how cruel of you to tread on my dreams - should have stopped by that laser vision stand at the expo. (119 looks a lot like 179 on my screen!) Sums were still good though...

smmoore79

HM 81
Mar 190
HM x 2 = 162
190-162 = 28
28/81 = 35%

Have no idea what this figure tells me .... room for improvement?

tunney

Racing Flat wrote: »

Exactly. In fairness, most of the calculators say 'as long as you race on a similar course in similar conditions and do teh appropriate training for the distance to be predicted'. Whereas it seems clear enough form here that for whatever reason, that does not appear to be the case, most typical boards pundits seem a fair bit out from what would be predicted.

So in future when someone asks me what they should aim for based on a 2.00 half, I'll lean towards 4.45, rather than 4.15-4.20...

All comes down to experience.

If hunnymonster was to say, "I will run 2:29 in a marathon based on the position of the moon and stars on the first day of tulips blooming this year" I'm going to believe her. Doesn't really matter what she is basing it on, she knows herself, her fitness, her form and what she could knock out.
If a newbie says "Well I ran 42:00 in my first 10km and based on macmillion I should run 3:39" I'm going to think more 4:15-4:45

tunney

shels4ever wrote: »

I'd agree with that too upto a point, Based on a 1:59 half i was going to try a sub 4 marathon ... which was never going to happen but i'm fairly sure I would have run a 4:20 with out much problem. The half mara was 8 week prior to the marathon on a harder course. Ok ended up injured maybe due to the target been too ambitious.


From the figures i see here it seems that the lower % seem to be from the more experienced runners , i'd say this is due to consistent training over years so both half mara and mara were at close to peak performance.

The newer marathon runners seem to suffer more, but will see a better % improvemnet over time. I think what i'm getting at is running a marathon is possible with a 16 week program but running a fast marathon is a sum of years of work. If your going to be 4+ hours on your feet the chances of things going wrong increase compared to the 2:30-3:00 gang.

If you are going to be 4+ hours on you're feet then the chance of something going wrong are increased because of a lack of fitness not because of time on feet. To be honest expected to go from zero to marathon with a 16 week programme is a bit of a joke and there is no way you can predicit anything. Getting to the start line is an achievement as I'd imagine a significant proportion get injuries due to demanding too much too soon from their bodies.

shels4ever

tunney wrote: »

If you are going to be 4+ hours on you're feet then the chance of something going wrong are increased because of a lack of fitness not because of time on feet. To be honest expected to go from zero to marathon with a 16 week programme is a bit of a joke and there is no way you can predicit anything. Getting to the start line is an achievement as I'd imagine a significant proportion get injuries due to demanding too much too soon from their bodies.

Yep thats exactly what I mean,

Jenfer

HM -117
M- 244
HM x 2- 234
244- 234 = 10
10/117 = 8.5%

think i could have knocked a few min off HM though- started too far back, went out a bit conservatively in hindsight.

Bobby04

HM - 97
M - 220
HM x 2 - 194
220 - 194 = 26
26/97 => 27%

The half I'd say was as good as it could have been in Sept, while for the full I slowed dramatically with the legs just giving up. Really thought I had 3:30 in me if everything had worked on the day, which would have been 16%. So even if things had gone ideally for me on the day, I'd have been nowhere near 10% rule of thumb!

kennyb3

another point has to be how soon into their schedule is the 10k or HM, if its in the first few weeks for example they may make big improvements off a low base. if the HM time is later on you can start adding 20% plus.

anyway like tunney points out its a futile exercise - there seems to be such a wide range. however it is still a very interesting thread and something i was thinking to myself teh day after the marathon

mrak

Good idea rf - last year:

Half 01:14:46
Full 02:37:37
Halfx2 02:29:32
Diff 00:08:05
% 10.81%

2004 one when just getting into running was:

Half 01:30:10
Full 03:20:40
Halfx2 03:00:20
Diff 00:20:20
% 22.55%

I'd guess that anyone with > about 15% probably hasn't trained enough to reach their potential (I know that was the case with me).

ike

mrak wrote: »

I'd guess that anyone with > about 15% probably hasn't trained enough to reach their potential (I know that was the case with me).

I'd definately agree with that would have got x=15% if I'd put in the effort for Berlin..

Art of Noise

HM: 109 mins
FM: 238 mins
HM x 2: 218 mins
Diff: 20 mins
20/109 = 18%

Peckham

Interesting thread, especially that even the best results from recent times here are coming out with c.15% variance.

However, as has been pointed out - a lot of marathon results are based on insufficient training. Also, marathons are going to expose more mistakes than a half marathon will.

For example, go out too fast in a half marathon, you'll probably hang on if your training is good. Go out too fast in a marathon, you're a goner regardless of how good you're training is. Similarly, putting a fast segment in a half is fine, not so in a marathon.

All things being equal, the 10% rule is probably accurate (doesn't it work fine for the elites?). The problem with us is that our collective racing experiences are littered with mistakes, but they only impact on our times over 26.2 miles.

psychozeb

HM; 98
M; 200
HMx2 196
200-196=4
4/98=3.92%


i'm a one speed guy.half marathon was in blarney with the killer hill.my best marathon so far was dublin 09 first half 1:40:10 second half 1:40:10 giving me my pb of 3:20:20.need to do speed work badly.

and for the record dublin 08 2nd half of marathon 1:40:13-consistent

hawkwing

HM; 106
M; 250
HMx2 212
250-212=38
38/106=36% :eek:

I certainly am not built for 26.2 miles