McMillan V IAAF Scoring Tables - Which is more reliable?

Pisco Sour

I have to say I am very unconvinced about McMillan. And from looking at the IAAF Scoring tables it appears that that is a much better way of estimating your times over various distances. Yet nobody every mentions the IAAF Scoring Tables here, and people seem to swear by McMillan.

A few reasons why I think McMillan is a waste of time and the IAAF Tables are the way to go:

1) From an elite point of view, per IAAF Scoring Tables a 10.00 seconds 100m equates to 44.47 over 400m and 2:09.09 over the marathon. It is fair to say that these comparisons appear to be reasonable.

But McMillan thinks differently. A 10 second 100m, translates to an astonishing 41.80 seconds for 400m (a full 1.38 seconds faster than Michael Johnson's WR), and to a 1:54.37 Marathon. This is crazy, a time that possibly wouldnt qualify you for an Olympic 100m Final, is supposedly equivalent to a time in the Marathon which probably wont be achieved for another 50-60 years at least.

2) From a personal point of view, and the main reason I started thinking about this. Today I ran 800m of the track in Belfield on my own against the clock, just to see how fast I could do it in. I managed a 2:42. So I decided to see how that compared to my PB's over longer distances.

According to McMillan, my 2.42 800m time equates to a 3hr 22 marathon. So basically me showing up to a track, having done absolutely no training, havent run in 4 months, and run against the clock, with no pacemakers whatsoever to pull me along to a fast time, equates to a 3hr 22 marathon. There is just no way!! I trained hard for the Rotterdam Marathon, and 4:07 was the best I could achieve, so there is just no way on earth this 2.42 800m can equate to a 3:22 marathon! But McMillan says it does.

So I then looked at the IAAF Scoring Tables and a 2.42 800m equates to a 4:06.12 Marathon, which is roughly in line with my 4:07.35 Marathon PB!

So I have to say I remain unconviced about McMillan. I think it is pretty flawed and that the IAAF Scoring tables seem the way to go. Yet it never seems to get a mention here, and everyone seems to discuss McMillan.

What are peoples thoughts?

shazkea

Imteresting post. I have never heard of these tables but am just a novice. Would you happen to have a link to them?

Pisco Sour

shazkea wrote: »

Imteresting post. I have never heard of these tables but am just a novice. Would you happen to have a link to them?

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/ScoringOutdoor2008_742.pdf

This is the 2008 tables. I'm sure there are updated ones somewhere but I cant imagine they have changed that much.

I think McMillan gives people an unrealistic target based on PB's over shorter distances.

BeepBeep67

I'd ignore trying to extrapolate the shorter distances, but it is good for MD and LD - also calls out that you need to do the equivalent training for the distance that you are targetting - so running 2:42 for 800 suggests you can run 3:22 for the marathon if you put in the training.

When I say "Equivalent Performance", I mean what would be an equivalent race time at one race distance based on your recent race time at another distance. For example, if you run 31:24 for 10K, you might wonder what you could run for a 5K or for the marathon or for a 30K or 15K. Using my Running Calculator, you'll now know. Of course, I must say that these are "estimates" of what you can run. Actual results will vary depending on the course, the weather, if it's your day or not and a myriad of other factors. However, I think you'll find that within a small variation, these estimates are accurate. (Do keep in mind that a 5K runner is unlikely to run the equivalent time in the marathon off of 5K training. The runner would obviously need to train for the marathon to accomplish this equivalent time.)

Pisco Sour

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I'd ignore trying to extrapolate the shorter distances, but it is good for MD and LD - also calls out that you need to do the equivalent training for the distance that you are targetting - so running 2:42 for 800 suggests you can run 3:22 for the marathon if you put in the training.

But I put absolutely zero training into that 800m at all. Just went out and ran to see how fast I could do it. So equivalent training would be zero.

BeepBeep67

I think you'll find the effort required to run a marathon is a little different than running 2 laps of the track.

Pisco Sour

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I think you'll find the effort required to run a marathon is a little different than running 2 laps of the track.

Absolutely. There is no comparison.

Just these equivalent times appear way off.

robinph

I don't think you can expect any kind of match between the extreme ends of the distance ranges. Compare a 100m to a 400m time, or a 10km to a half time, but much more than that and it's just for curiosity.

Is it just me or does them matching a 1:21 half to a 3hr marathon time seem a bit wrong?

Krusty_Clown

There is little point in comparing distances at either extreme of the running spectrum. I have found it very effective for distances from 5k up to marathon. I would imagine the margin for error increases as the distances / speeds go up.

I don't think anyone swears by McMillan. It's just another tool to help you predict your target and training paces, in the absence of accurate race data.

*Edit* Damn must stop agreeing with RobinPh.

Pisco Sour

Just looking at my PB's and comparing them to an equivalent marathon time for each of the 2 methods:

McMillan

5K - 21.02 - Equates to 3:25.03 Marathon
10k - 45.32 - Equates to 3:33.41 Marathon
HM - 1:49.06 - Equates to 3:50.06 Marathon

My actual Marathon time is 4:07.35

IAAF Scoring Tables

5K - 21.02 - Equates to 4:06.42 Marathon
10k - 45.32 - Equates to 4:05.43 Marathon
HM - 1:49.06 - Equates to 4:10.17 Marathon

My actual Marathon time is 4:07.35

So according to McMillan I am getting comparitavely slower and slower as I move up in distance, while according to IAAF Scoring Tables all my PB's seem in line with each other, which makes a lot more sense.

Krusty_Clown

When I ran 3:00:50, I ran a 10k in 38:45 shortly afterwards (13 seconds out).
MacMillan times are based on appropriate training for the distance. Maybe you should read something into that (i.e. you have more marathon potential, if you train a little better). When I was running 45 minute 10k's, I was also running 3:25 marathons.

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

When I ran 3:00:50, I ran a 10k in 38:45 shortly afterwards (13 seconds out).
MacMillan times are based on appropriate training for the distance. Maybe you should read something into that (i.e. you have more marathon potential, if you train a little better). When I was running 45 minute 10k's, I was also running 3:25 marathons.

Interesting point that.

I'd love to know more about this IAAF Scoring Tables though. Why are they so different to that of McMillan?

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

Interesting point that.

I'd love to know more about this IAAF Scoring Tables though. Why are they so different to that of McMillan?

You gotta also figure that performance based formulas will only work for a cross section of runners. Some runners will have more ability in short/medium/long distances, and might be more suited to a specific type of race (e.g. slow/fast twitch fibres, etc, etc).

robinph

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

*Edit* Damn must stop agreeing with RobinPh.

It's just a phase your going through, you'll grow out of it soon enough.


...or I'll say something really stupid.

Gringo78

04072511 wrote: »

Just looking at my PB's and comparing them to an equivalent marathon time for each of the 2 methods:

McMillan

5K - 21.02 - Equates to 3:25.03 Marathon
10k - 45.32 - Equates to 3:33.41 Marathon
HM - 1:49.06 - Equates to 3:50.06 Marathon

My actual Marathon time is 4:07.35

IAAF Scoring Tables

5K - 21.02 - Equates to 4:06.42 Marathon
10k - 45.32 - Equates to 4:05.43 Marathon
HM - 1:49.06 - Equates to 4:10.17 Marathon

My actual Marathon time is 4:07.35

So according to McMillan I am getting comparitavely slower and slower as I move up in distance, while according to IAAF Scoring Tables all my PB's seem in line with each other, which makes a lot more sense.

McMillan's calculator is set up specifically with the purpose of being used to estimate what time you could achieve over another distance based on a race performance. Its a best fit of data and on average is correct.

However, it can be up to 15% out (slower or faster) depending on the athlete. So for your 45min 10k time, McMillan multiplys it by 4.7 to give a predicted marathon time of 3:33. However, that factor could be as much as 5.5 or as little as 4. But if you take 10 athletes who run 45min 10k, most of them will run around 3:33 if they train for the marathon. however, 2 or 3 will run out at the extremities.

You can interpret that in a number of ways, looking at your PB's and in light of your experiment at the track, you seem to be more a fast twitch muscle athlete and so your short distance times are going to be poor predictors of long distance times, and you need to add about 15% to the times McMillan predicts. Or another way of looking at it is, your training for longer distance events is not optimal and there is significant room for improvement. There might not be any room for improvement, but only you can look at your marathon training and see could you do any better.

The IAAF tables seem to be compiled from race stats and therefore I don't think are useful at the slower times as the data used to compile the relationships is going to be sparse and they state that the tables are to be used to rank athletes from highschool up so the slower times are not really meant ot eb used for anything.

Interestingly, if you compare Dervals time & David Gillicks time from the euros, they both score 1194 points putting them equal which is about right really (apart from the fact Derval got a medal). So the IAAF tables are probably very useful for comparing elite athletes, but no more.

For predicting performance for the average amateur runner, McMillan has been designed and tweaked exactly for that purpose and is on average, correct. its for you to decide whether you are content to go with times slower than McMillan predicts to whether you feel you can beat the McMillan prediction.

tunney

I'm no fan of MacMillian however it does assume that the appropriate training is done for each distance. More an indication of potential.

meathcountysec

Gringo78 wrote: »

McMillan's calculator is set up specifically with the purpose of being used to estimate what time you could achieve over another distance based on a race performance. Its a best fit of data and on average is correct.

The IAAF tables seem to be compiled from race stats and therefore I don't think are useful at the slower times as the data used to compile the relationships is going to be sparse and they state that the tables are to be used to rank athletes from highschool up so the slower times are not really meant ot eb used for anything.

Its horses for courses really. McMillan is designed to extrapolate a time for one distance into a time for a different distance. The IAAF tables are designed to compare performances within the same distance.

mrak

for what it's worth in 2008 when I was racing very regularly mcmillan had me bang on in every distance from 800m to marathon, based on plugging in my half marathon time. Probably depends on the individual but it worked for me in that period of my running life.

Gringo78

meathcountysec wrote: »

Its horses for courses really. McMillan is designed to extrapolate a time for one distance into a time for a different distance. The IAAF tables are designed to compare performances within the same distance.

IAAF tables are used to compare performances over 2 different distances or events....they just seem to be formulated and tweaked with elite times in mind, not the average joe. But yeah, horses for courses.

one thing I would say...the vast majority of people on boards have not reached their full potential, may never do so and also might be surprised and disbelieving at what their true potential is. Not believing a target is achievable will go a long way towards ensuring you don't achieve it. The OP has chosen to find a different system of performance estimation to coincide with his beliefs of his capability rather than accepting that perhaps he can run a much better marathon.

Based on OP's 10k time of 45min, 3:30 is what he should be shooting for. If he selects and trains for 4:05 instead, well thats what he'll get as his training paces will be too slow for 3:30...you get what you train for. PMP for 4:05 is 9:20 so LSR's would be run at fastest 10:00 pace with a few miles at 9:20 PMP. PMP for 3:30 is 8:00, with LSR's at 8:40 to 9:30 pace maybe. Hence unless the OP sets a target of 3:30 and trains for it, he will never get close to it and will just reinforce the belief that IAAF tables are a good predictor of his own performance....self fulfilling prophecy.

heffsarmy

I find mcmillan a decent guide for me, I ran a 10miler 57.1?? in dungarvan, plugged that into mcmillan gave me 2.40 which is what I ran in Rotterdam.

MaroonTam

I find that McMillian can be the "cart driving the horse" for me. I will put in a recent 5km time say before a 5 mile race.
I would then use the McMillian time as a target and train towards and more importantly pace towards during the race.
As a result I am usually pretty close to the McMillian time.
Does that mean McMillain predicted the time correctly? or I adjusted my goals to suit the formula and potentially over / under achieved? :cool:

Pisco Sour

Gringo78 wrote: »

You can interpret that in a number of ways, looking at your PB's and in light of your experiment at the track, you seem to be more a fast twitch muscle athlete and so your short distance times are going to be poor predictors of long distance times, and you need to add about 15% to the times McMillan predicts. Or another way of looking at it is, your training for longer distance events is not optimal and there is significant room for improvement. There might not be any room for improvement, but only you can look at your marathon training and see could you do any better.

The IAAF tables seem to be compiled from race stats and therefore I don't think are useful at the slower times as the data used to compile the relationships is going to be sparse and they state that the tables are to be used to rank athletes from highschool up so the slower times are not really meant ot eb used for anything.

For predicting performance for the average amateur runner, McMillan has been designed and tweaked exactly for that purpose and is on average, correct. its for you to decide whether you are content to go with times slower than McMillan predicts to whether you feel you can beat the McMillan prediction.

Gringo78 wrote: »

The OP has chosen to find a different system of performance estimation to coincide with his beliefs of his capability rather than accepting that perhaps he can run a much better marathon.

Based on OP's 10k time of 45min, 3:30 is what he should be shooting for. If he selects and trains for 4:05 instead, well thats what he'll get as his training paces will be too slow for 3:30...you get what you train for. PMP for 4:05 is 9:20 so LSR's would be run at fastest 10:00 pace with a few miles at 9:20 PMP. PMP for 3:30 is 8:00, with LSR's at 8:40 to 9:30 pace maybe. Hence unless the OP sets a target of 3:30 and trains for it, he will never get close to it and will just reinforce the belief that IAAF tables are a good predictor of his own performance....self fulfilling prophecy.

Fair points there, and very interesting aswell. Theres no doubt I could have trained better for the marathon, I wont deny that. (though I did train hard for it).

But this equivalent training thing I'm finding hard to get my head around. For my 800m time of 2.42, I did this with absolutely no training whatsoever, and also as a solo time trial. So according to McMillan if I put in the equivalent training for the marathon then I will come out with a 3:22 marathon. But I didnt put in ANY training for the 800m at all. So if I was to go by this equivalent training thing then I could look at it and say "if I can run 2.42 for 800m without any training at all then according to McMillan I should run a 3.22 marathon without any training at all". Maybe I am not interpreting this correctly.

But there is no doubt that it is a hell of a lot easier to run a 2.42 800m than it is to run a 3.22 Marathon, thats why I'm a bit confused with McMillan.

If I was to train hard for 800m and run in a graded meet race (where I have faster people around me to drag me along to a faster time, then I think 2.20 is not beyond me at all. This equates to a 2:54 Marathon according to McMillan. I've no doubt which of those 2 would be easier for me to achieve.

Back when I was 18 I ran a 1500m in 5.16 on the back of a few weeks pretty poor training (just me going down to the track and timing myself every few days). This equates to a 3.11 marathon! Odd I find it!

BeepBeep67

It's not the equivalent training to run your 800mt time, it's the equivalent training to run a Marathon - a 3:30 marathon training schedule as outlined by Gringo.

Gringo78

04072511 wrote: »

But there is no doubt that it is a hell of a lot easier to run a 2.42 800m than it is to run a 3.22 Marathon, thats why I'm a bit confused with McMillan.

YOU find an 800m easier....others would find the marathon easier. I would struggle to break 2:30 in the 800m and I've run a sub 3 marathon. I know a 2:40 marathon runner who would struggle to run 2:20 for 800m...he does no speed work at all, all endurance work. He hates 5k races...they're too fast, he doesn't like the pain of being in the VO2max zone. He would much prefer to race a HM or marathon. You're the opposite. You prefer the shorter races any day of the week. You obviously lack endurance and if you are training for the marathon again, thats what you need to pay attention to. Work on your weaknesses. A rule of mine is if for whatever reason you have to skip a session, skip the session you enjoy the most cos thats your strength....never skip the session you hate cos thats your weakness. McMillan is actually good for pointing out your weakness, shows which comes easier to you, speed or endurance. You're obviously more David Gillick than John Treacy.

TFBubendorfer

04072511 wrote: »

But there is no doubt that it is a hell of a lot easier to run a 2.42 800m than it is to run a 3.22 Marathon, thats why I'm a bit confused with McMillan.

Maybe there's no doubt for you, but there is for others (i.e. me).

2.42 for 800, that's 5:24 for the mile, pretty much the fastest mile I could hope to do at the moment.

A 3:22 marathon, on the other hand, would be closer to a training run than a race for me.

I sure would find the marathon time easier to achieve.

shels4ever

04072511 wrote: »

I have to say I am very unconvinced about McMillan. And from looking at the IAAF Scoring tables it appears that that is a much better way of estimating your times over various distances. Yet nobody every mentions the IAAF Scoring Tables here, and people seem to swear by McMillan.

A few reasons why I think McMillan is a waste of time and the IAAF Tables are the way to go:

1) From an elite point of view, per IAAF Scoring Tables a 10.00 seconds 100m equates to 44.47 over 400m and 2:09.09 over the marathon. It is fair to say that these comparisons appear to be reasonable.

But McMillan thinks differently. A 10 second 100m, translates to an astonishing 41.80 seconds for 400m (a full 1.38 seconds faster than Michael Johnson's WR), and to a 1:54.37 Marathon. This is crazy, a time that possibly wouldnt qualify you for an Olympic 100m Final, is supposedly equivalent to a time in the Marathon which probably wont be achieved for another 50-60 years at least.

2) From a personal point of view, and the main reason I started thinking about this. Today I ran 800m of the track in Belfield on my own against the clock, just to see how fast I could do it in. I managed a 2:42. So I decided to see how that compared to my PB's over longer distances.

According to McMillan, my 2.42 800m time equates to a 3hr 22 marathon. So basically me showing up to a track, having done absolutely no training, havent run in 4 months, and run against the clock, with no pacemakers whatsoever to pull me along to a fast time, equates to a 3hr 22 marathon. There is just no way!! I trained hard for the Rotterdam Marathon, and 4:07 was the best I could achieve, so there is just no way on earth this 2.42 800m can equate to a 3:22 marathon! But McMillan says it does.

So I then looked at the IAAF Scoring Tables and a 2.42 800m equates to a 4:06.12 Marathon, which is roughly in line with my 4:07.35 Marathon PB!

So I have to say I remain unconviced about McMillan. I think it is pretty flawed and that the IAAF Scoring tables seem the way to go. Yet it never seems to get a mention here, and everyone seems to discuss McMillan.

What are peoples thoughts?

good thread, but maybe ready a bit more into the Mcmillan thing the point is that if you run X for y distances, then if you train for the marathon you could run z time. The whole thing is based on a big IF you train for the event. It doesnt mean if you run 800m today in 2 :00 you will run a marathon tomorrow in 2:30...

T runner

04072511 wrote: »

Just looking at my PB's and comparing them to an equivalent marathon time for each of the 2 methods:

McMillan

5K - 21.02 - Equates to 3:25.03 Marathon
10k - 45.32 - Equates to 3:33.41 Marathon
HM - 1:49.06 - Equates to 3:50.06 Marathon

My actual Marathon time is 4:07.35

IAAF Scoring Tables

5K - 21.02 - Equates to 4:06.42 Marathon
10k - 45.32 - Equates to 4:05.43 Marathon
HM - 1:49.06 - Equates to 4:10.17 Marathon

My actual Marathon time is 4:07.35

So according to McMillan I am getting comparitavely slower and slower as I move up in distance, while according to IAAF Scoring Tables all my PB's seem in line with each other, which makes a lot more sense.

I think there is a big clue there. Youre times in the shorter distances are better than your times in the longer distances (I think).

This means either that you are a runner with a lot of fast twitch fibres or a runner who does not do the equivalent training for each event.

If you trained 30k a week to get your 5k time, you would need 50-60k for your 10k, 80-90k for your HM and so on.

If you have more speed fibres than endurance ones you may never reach your long distance equivalents.

Also McMillan may measure what you are capable of. All things being equal if you are capable of a 1:49:06 half yiou are also capable of a 3.50 marathon.

I would suspect the IAAf calculations are based on actual times.

As you know a lot can go wrong during a marathon compared to a shorter race, a mistake can cost you 5% time wise or worse. This is not as true as you shorten the race distance.

I think McMillan measures what you could run if you trained correctly, and run well without error.

IAAF will tell you what you are actually likely to run statistically. This is a different time to what you could run based on another PB.

I would imagine IAAF is very useful at the elite level so may hold its purpose for national rankings etc. McMillans predictions at elite level would be similar to IAAF rankings.

In the IAAF model, once you go further up the times the rankings favour the marathoners as the bad marathon runs seem to be counted as mush as the good ones.