RunningAHEAD - Topic: Nerd Alert!: Pace Calculators

Onionbag1

posted: 3/30/2009 at 7:13 PM

Or is that Noob Alert? Alright, I’ve my first marathon (race, although not the distance) coming up toward the end of April. One online pace estimator suggests the following marathon times based on, respectively, my latest 5k and 10k times: (1) 3:26:11 (7:53 pace) (2) 3:29:04 (7:59 pace) The last time I ran a marathon distance was 26.8 miles in 3:59:21 (8:56 pace, running on my lonesome; which is more or less a 3:54:13 marathon). 3: 2x: xx is certainly much faster (relatively) than 3:54:13, but my questions are as follows: (a) Does your personal experience suggest these projected times seems reasonable (not ultimately important, just reasonable); and (b) Does it do me any good to aim for the suggested pace times? Thanks!

“I used to be a runner. Uh-huh. Not a marathoner. A runner. Marathons are bullshit. They’re all hype. Some official picks a random day, and rain or cold, you’re out there pounding the pavement alongside 50,000 other dumbfucks. No. There’s some things it’s better to do all by yourself.” Augustus Hill, Oz

TanyaS

posted: 3/30/2009 at 7:28 PM

My experience has been that the only distance that can even remotely predict a vague ballpark for the marathon is the half marathon. And even that can be sketchy. There are just too many variables, possibilities, and miles in a marathon to get a prediction based on a 5k or 10k. However, I do find that a marathon can be a good predictor for a marathon. Tongue

Jeff

Why is it sideways?

posted: 3/30/2009 at 7:33 PM

Hmm. Which should you trust more: your own actual empirical experience racing or the numbers that are produced by a methodology that you don't understand and which appear on a random webpage? My first reaction is to write something probably rather elitist and insulting about how information is replacing wisdom and about how it just amazes me that one of the last SIMPLE activities on the face of the earth is getting caught up in the cacophonic whirlpool of virtual reality but instead I will control myself and explain gently how these predictors assume a well-trained marathoner under ideal conditions, and since the well-trained marathoner is a pretty dadgum scarce commodity these days its best to see these predictors as indicators of what you may be able to do after a year or more of regular, progressive training rather than as a goal for the marathon coming up next month or three months from now or what have you.

Onionbag1

posted: 3/30/2009 at 7:39 PM

Quote from Jeff on 3/30/2009 at 7:33 PM:

My first reaction is to write something probably rather elitist and insulting about how information is replacing wisdom and about how it just amazes me that one of the last SIMPLE activities on the face of the earth is getting caught up in the cacophonic whirlpool of virtual reality[.]

No, I'm with you. That's why I phrased my questions as I did. I'm rather skeptical of such estimators, but just wanted the input of more experienced runners.

“I used to be a runner. Uh-huh. Not a marathoner. A runner. Marathons are bullshit. They’re all hype. Some official picks a random day, and rain or cold, you’re out there pounding the pavement alongside 50,000 other dumbfucks. No. There’s some things it’s better to do all by yourself.” Augustus Hill, Oz

Jeff

Why is it sideways?

posted: 3/30/2009 at 7:44 PM

Quote from Onionbag1 on 3/30/2009 at 7:39 PM:

No, I'm with you. That's why I phrased my questions as I did. I'm rather skeptical of such estimators, but just wanted the input of more experienced runners.

Right on. There's no real need to be skeptical of them, just a need to understand their purpose.

xor

posted: 3/30/2009 at 8:24 PM

one of the last SIMPLE activities on the face of the earth is getting caught up in the cacophonic whirlpool of virtual reality[.]

I said the same thing when I received my electric peanut butter and jelly sandwich maker. Or the electric dog polisher. Or this thing.

But you know what? I don't want my Fart Machine to be called "#2". That ain't right.

Greg Rowe

The shirtless wonder

posted: 3/31/2009 at 7:38 AM

Using some of my half marathon times in the pace calculators I've found that I've run the marathon distance 10 minutes slower than the calculators predicted. As I understand it the calculators provide a very good estimate of your potential. I haven't run a perfect marathon and it would take a ton of practice to do so. For my next marathon I'll likely use the calculators as a starting point to choose my pace but I'll pad the numbers by 10 minutes.

run.therowes.net

mikeymike

posted: 3/31/2009 at 8:53 AM

Quote from Onionbag1 on 3/30/2009 at 7:13 PM:

Or is that Noob Alert? Alright, I’ve my first marathon (race, although not the distance) coming up toward the end of April. One online pace estimator suggests the following marathon times based on, respectively, my latest 5k and 10k times: (1) 3:26:11 (7:53 pace) (2) 3:29:04 (7:59 pace) The last time I ran a marathon distance was 26.8 miles in 3:59:21 (8:56 pace, running on my lonesome; which is more or less a 3:54:13 marathon). 3: 2x: xx is certainly much faster (relatively) than 3:54:13, but my questions are as follows: (a) Does your personal experience suggest these projected times seems reasonable (not ultimately important, just reasonable); and (b) Does it do me any good to aim for the suggested pace times? Thanks!

The fact that your 5k best and 10k best predict a time that's nearly 3 minutes different, should tell you about all you need to know. You don't have enough of a base or enough of a racing history for these calculators to be of any value. I have found that, after maybe 10 years of somewhat consistent training and racing, the calculators work fairly well for me at last. My three best races from 2008 (a half marathon, a 4-miler and a marathon) all predict each other pretty closely--within seconds actually--if I plug them in to the mcmillan calculator. However, with as much experience as I have, I also predicted those times with even better accuracy just based on my own training and how fit I was "feeling" going into those races. Therefore, in my experience, these calculators are all but useless unless you have enough of a base and enough experience training in racing to not need them anyway.

Runners run

jayvil

posted: 3/31/2009 at 9:00 AM

I'm right with Greg. The Marathon pace is about 10 minutes fast in the calculator. I obviously have a different "curve" as the length of the race grows. It's not a bad way to find a ROUGH BALLPARK, but I wouldn't shoot for the result you see for the first time. Add 10 or 15 minutes. There's a lot of training to find out if the paces seem easy enough to ramp it up.

2010 Goals: Danbury Half Marathon: <1:42:00; boston="" run="" to="" remember:=""></1:42:00;><1:42:00; nyc="" marathon:=""></1:42:00;><3:45:00; finish: run amuck and warrior dash! finish:="" run="" amuck="" and="" warrior=""></3:45:00; finish: run amuck and warrior dash!>

Onionbag1

posted: 3/31/2009 at 9:37 AM

Thanks for all of the input.

“I used to be a runner. Uh-huh. Not a marathoner. A runner. Marathons are bullshit. They’re all hype. Some official picks a random day, and rain or cold, you’re out there pounding the pavement alongside 50,000 other dumbfucks. No. There’s some things it’s better to do all by yourself.” Augustus Hill, Oz

Jim2

posted: 3/31/2009 at 11:39 AM

Projecting a marathon goal time from performance in a shorter race, including a HM, with no personal history to base it on can be tricky because of variables that calculators don't and can't consider, such as how well trained one is for the marathon distance. For comments/suggestions, see Predicting A Marathon Time, HM pace vs. Marathon Pace, and Marathon vs. HM Comparison.

Onionbag1

posted: 3/31/2009 at 5:59 PM

Thanks for the links, Jim2. (Really difficult not to write "Electric Boogaloo" after your screen name.)

“I used to be a runner. Uh-huh. Not a marathoner. A runner. Marathons are bullshit. They’re all hype. Some official picks a random day, and rain or cold, you’re out there pounding the pavement alongside 50,000 other dumbfucks. No. There’s some things it’s better to do all by yourself.” Augustus Hill, Oz

Buckeye

posted: 3/31/2009 at 11:01 PM

jim2 and Andre_Media , Thanks ... that HM to Marathon pace study was awesome. Funny thing is while on 3 mile walk at lunch today I was thinking over the very thing. I am running a half this Saturday and have marathon in 6 weeks and as a mid packer shooting for 1:55 range, which as you notice in article would just put me close enough to 4:00:00 marathon to try to go sub 4:00?? Figured me just second guessing or maybe wanting to play it safe, but did I want to plan marathon on best case scenario?? Your article proves prbably not. We will see how the halfd goes, but thinking more to be conservative is the way to go....Its that darn 3 vs 4 --- 3:59:00 vs 4:04:00 is still just 5 minutes I guess but sounds a lot more than 3:54:00 vs 3:59:00. Thanks again.

"It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it Great!

Jim2

posted: 4/1/2009 at 6:50 PM

Quote from Onionbag1 on 3/31/2009 at 5:59 PM:

Thanks for the links, Jim2. (Really difficult not to write "Electric Boogaloo" after your screen name.)

Electric Boogaloo???? Confused

xor

posted: 4/1/2009 at 6:55 PM

Quote from Jim2 on 4/1/2009 at 6:50 PM:

Electric Boogaloo????

Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive! He's making a reference to the fact that you are not merely "Jim", but in fact you are Jim2. As if you are perhaps the sequel to Jim. One of the more infamous sequels of all time is infamous not for the movie itself, but simply because of its name. Seriously. And that movie? Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo

Nerd Alert!: Pace Calculators (Read 1150 times)