Forums >General Running>Most accurate pace prediction calculator I have EVER found
rather be sprinting
Injured but still thinking about running, I found this calculator on the letsrun board this morning.
http://www.slsathletisme.com/Inscriptions/calc.php?lang=1
Idly plugged in just my 400m time (64 sec.) and here's what it gave me as a prediction for other performances:
100m predicted: 13.29 actual: 13.3
200m predicted: 27.66 actual: 28 [hand timed]
mile predicted: 5:38.46 actual: 5:38
5k predicted: 19:24.48 actual: 19:25
half marathon predicted: 1:31:13 actual: 1:30:56
That's fairly amazing, so I thought I'd kick it out to all of you and see what you get, or if it's just this predictive for me (granted, I probably race the shorter distances more often so maybe it's biased that way).
PRs: 5k 19:25, mile 5:38, HM 1:30:56
Lifting PRs: bench press 125lb, back squat 205 lb, deadlift 245lb
Dream Maker
it underpredicted performance 10K and half from 5K/ but they are road not track and field so -nothing to see here-
Its not really a predictor but tells you equivalent performances. Like every other calculator it tells me I am basically a miler.
Runners run
Plus 400 m is a lousy predictor for anything more than the mile, and for fast twitch types even the 800 is a stretch. But like Mikey said it is an equivalent, not a predictor.
What's the difference (really) between equivalent and predictor? I suppose equivalent would mean you factor in different training, but isn't that true for predictions, as well--i.e. they take into account proper training for that distance?
Also, yes, I know 400m was a weird choice, which is why I was particularly surprised when it truly DID predict all of my race paces practically to the hundredth of a second. I didn't at all think it would. That's why I posted this, because it was so strangely accurate. But I suppose it isn't for everyone... I must just be perfectly balanced in terms of muscle fiber makeup or something.
What's the difference (really) between equivalent and predictor?
If Usain Bolt plugged in his 100m time, the calculator would give back WR times for 800m, 5000m, marathon--whatever distance he selected. Because the calculator just takes your time and calculates an equivalent performance based on the % of the world rankings (as of a few yeas ago). Obviously the calculator is not predicting that Usain Bolt could run a world record in the 800m, let alone the 5000. It's making an attempt to state what an equivalent performance would be.
What the calculator is telling you is that you have no specialty.
I put in my last marathon time. It said I'd throw the shot 6.15 meters and run a "Demi-Marathon" in 1:33.
CraY CraY accurate!!
I just put in my half marathon time and it told me I'd throw the Lancer du Cerceau 26.85 meters. I had no idea.
What is a Lancer du Cerceau? Google tells me a French hula hoop that is thrown on field day.
Why is it sideways?
I put in my best 400m time and also found the predictions to be close to my all time distance PRs. But then again I am a natural mid-distance runner, so that's to be expected--the qualities that made me halfway decent as a 400m runner were the same qualities that made me a decent distance runner.
For sprinters, it would be illogical to think that a 400 time would be predictive of distance performance because the qualities that allow a sprinter to run a good 400m have nothing to do with distance running.
For more pure distance types, the qualities that make them good distance runners don't carry down to the 400m distance, and then the calculator would not be predictive at all. They are often proud of the fact that they have such good distance times without having a good 400m time as if that meant that they worked harder to achieve their times, but really it just means that their specific profile doesn't carry down to that distance.
Would it be weird if I told you I love your blog (majored in philosophy in college) and just got a little starstruck that you replied to this thread?
But yes, I think the calculator may apply best to middle distance runners, which makes it pretty unique. Most calculators don't work as well for me, overpredicting either the very short or the very long races.
I put in my best 400m time and also found the predictions to be close to my all time distance PRs. But then again I am a natural mid-distance runner, so that's to be expected--the qualities that made me halfway decent as a 400m runner were the same qualities that made me a decent distance runner. For sprinters, it would be illogical to think that a 400 time would be predictive of distance performance because the qualities that allow a sprinter to run a good 400m have nothing to do with distance running. For more pure distance types, the qualities that make them good distance runners don't carry down to the 400m distance, and then the calculator would not be predictive at all. They are often proud of the fact that they have such good distance times without having a good 400m time as if that meant that they worked harder to achieve their times, but really it just means that their specific profile doesn't carry down to that distance.
#artbydmcbride
We all crush on Jeff!
Glad you like the blog -- and that you majored in philosophy!
I ran slower for 400 meters (67:39) in 1985 and got faster times than you got.
marathon predicted: 2:58:00 actual: 3:11:04
5k predicted: 18:02 actual: 18:56
half marathon predicted: 1::24:34 3 actual: 1:27:28
You're male--I input for the female option.
I ran slower for 400 meters (67:39) in 1985 and got faster times than you got. marathon predicted: 2:58:00 actual: 3:11:04 5k predicted: 18:02 actual: 18:56 half marathon predicted: 1::24:34 3 actual: 1:27:28
That equivalency calculator wildly underpredicts my long distance races vs my 400. It didn't even come close to my actual race times for the 800 and the 1500.
In 2010 I raced the 400 twice and the best I could muster was 67.57. Calculator / (actual race times from 2010):
800 - 2:39 (2:29)
1500 - 5:30 (4:55)
5,000 - 20:39 (18:22)
Mar - 3:24:51 (2:54)
Not such a good predictor for distance guys, apparently. Scapp, you're a sprinter and I guess it is aimed at sprint types.