My 5K and 10K times on Mr. McMillan's running calculator are within a few seconds of each other.  I suspect (not yet proven - haven't run a half in 3.5 years) that I could hit near the predicted HM time, but there is a snow balls chance in hell that the marathon time is likely to occur.  Now, part of that is training related (can't quite work up the dedication to go beyond 40 to 45 miles per week), but I suspect that some of us are just genetically not enabled for the longer distance.  I'm not talking about the difference between sprinters, middle distance (i.e.; 800 to 1600 meters) and long distance;  I know that is genetics.  But what about purely in the long distance category?

What say you?

I don't know if it's necessarily genetics, but the calculator assumes that you do optimal training in order to be able to achieve that prediction number.  Other people have explained this better than I am right now.  But it's not saying you could go out right now and run that time, but that you likely could with proper training.

Exactly.

Personally, when I put in my best HM time, my 5K time actually comes up slower than what I'm able to run. I'm really not sure how it would all play out. I'm of the belief that marathon training makes you slower in shorter races, though, unless you're a pretty new runner and still reaping the benefits of strictly increasing your miles. I hit the point though, where when I was running marathons my short race times suffered because of the lack of race-specific speed work. In short I think there's probably not a one size fits all answer. But I am not as up on a lot of the science, so people like George or scrape. might know more.

I'll need to go back to samples from when I raced marathons, so that will take us back 30 years or so. My training has always been somewhat unorthodox because I race at a variety of distances rather than focusing on distance specific training in most cases. This means my marathon training includes much more speedwork and few or no long runs over 16 miles, but also means when I'm training for 5k that I'm running LRs up to 16 miles. In terms of volume, if I was racing marathons my weekly average, not peak, for at least 4-6 months would be 55 miles or more with peak mileage hitting 70 or more. Adding in the years of running and cumulative mileage, I think that lays a sufficient foundation that lack of training volume would be a minor consideration.

My times should a consistent across the years bias for better times at shorter distances. There was usually a slightly bigger drop going from HM to marathon than for other race distances, but if you through in the rare 30K, it smoothed out some. With the inclusion of more than normal volumes of speedwork and often faster than prescribed by training plans, it was not unusual for me to run season bests at widely divergent distances within months of each other. 1980 was probably the best year to use for illustrative purposes. Using my marathon time of 2:56:38 I get the following times for other standard distances:

5K - 18:08               ran 17:44 5 weeks before marathon

10K - 37:39             ran 36:15 5 months before marathon ( wondered about accuracy since my next best was 37:53)

10M - 1:02:55         ran 1:02:05 3 weeks before marathon

HM - 1:23:56           ran 1:25:04 7 weeks before marathon (Sept in Philly so it could have been warm)

Of course this doesn't take into account temps, course, taper, and other factors possibly affecting the results.

That year was probably the closest I've come to matching McMillan times. If I take my all time PBs and use WMA age grade ratings the bias is much clearer. Starting with the mile with an AG of 79. 2, I drop to 78.0 for 5K, 76.3 for 10K, 75.3 for 10M, 75.2 for the HM, and 71.2 for the marathon. While this is only one sample, you can see both with the space of a few months and also over years that there is a consist bias for me. The bias should be different for each individual because it's probably related to the proportion of slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibers as well as training and mental discipline in racing.  The marathon and the 5K have very different challenges one must face in racing and we probably face them differently and not always with the same degree of success. That too can contribute to relative success at the different distances.

Blue, I've been training for three full years for nothing but the marathon. My 10k, 10 mile and HM times (in training, I admit) indicate a 3:31 marathon. My last PR in the marathon, 3 months ago, was 3:32, but it didn't go well. I think I had a 3:30 in me, with better race execution. All this indicates on McMillan's chart that I can run a low 21:00 5k and something like a 6:18 one mile. There is no way in hell that I will EVER be able to hit that. I just feel it in me. Whether it's because of my constant marathon training, my genetics or my liking more longer distances, I'm not 100% sure. I think that at our level, it has less to go with genetics and more with the type of training we do and what we truly like doing.

Lily, yep - I could go with that.  I'd rather be doing mile repeats than 16 mile long runs.  (Actually, I'd much rather be eating pizza, drinking beer and watching sports on TV, but that only gets me fat and then I have to do all this running to get back in shape).   

WC - your age grade progression is what I see.  If I look at my absolute PRs I go from 76.8 @ 5K to 69.9 in the marathon.  Back to what Lily said - it probably has a lot to do with what you like.

There's nothing wrong with pizza and beer. Sports on TV? Meh... How about watching a good chick movie? That's fun!  Anyway... it's all about balance, isn't it?

 

You have awesome PRs, by the way. The ones from years past and the present ones as well. And so does George. You guys are impressive at so many distances. That's not easy, I'm sure.

Thanks Lily - sweet of you to say.  Your Bermuda trio was truly impressive.

My DW and I saw Parker (Jason Stratham) this weekend.  Does that qualify as a chick movie?      

arg, double post, sorry!

My HM is my best time.  It predicts a 10k at the speed of my 5k PR, and a 5k PR 50 seconds faster than what I have run.

My 10k is really soft so I know I can at least come closer to my McMillan prediction than I am right now, but I don't know if I would be able to maintain sub-8 miles for a 10k when a 5k at that pace was pretty painful.

My 5k didn't feel soft, and I ran it exactly a week before my HM PR.  I could probably shave some time off by doing 5k specific speedwork closer to the race (and perhaps by not being stuck standing outside in 30 degree weather in shorts for 45 minutes before the start of the race), but 50 seconds seems kind of crazy.

I'm pretty sure I can run a faster marathon than my marathon PR, so I won't consider it for now.  There is no way I could hit the 3:52 that my HM predicts.  I'm hoping to try for a sub-4, but I'm borderline on that.