Forums >General Running>Most accurate pace prediction calculator I have EVER found
You're male--I input for the female option.
Oh.
Are we there, yet?
I tried it and got some weird results. Using 57.8 as my 400m input time from my mid-20s and comparing to my all-time PBs, it gives times much faster than I could run for 100m and 200m, much slower than what I did run for 800m, mile, and 5000m, but only a slightly slower time for the HM.
100m - 12.29 vs 12.8
200m - 25.33 vs 26.7
800m - 2:15.67 vs 2:06.3
mile - 5:05:15 vs 4:41
5000m - 17:17:79 vs 16:23
HM - 1:20:59 vs 1:19:03
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
Why is it sideways?
Why are those "weird" results? They just show that you are better at distance events than sprints, which is something you would expect for a distance runner. I think it would be weird if the results you got showed that you were better at sprinting than distance running.
What I found weird was that as a distance runner, the calculator was more accurate for the HM than for the middle distances. Other calculators show a gradual deterioration in performance as the distance increases, but this one showed first a sharp improvement, then changed course and showed less.
As a non sequitur, the calculator will not work for 5K times slower than 23:01.
5000m - 17:17:79
Holy shit. Were you pulling a tractor-trailer?
Runners run
I think he ran 16:23...
Then his HM time is pretty weak sauce.
#artbydmcbride
It worked okay for my slow times.
It failed to predict my heptathlon from my 5k pr, I'm disappointed.
Know thyself.
Can someone compare and contrast this with the McMillan, Daniels, and the RA running calculator?
Please be thorough, use decimals, not fractions, and color charts and graphics.
Sorry about the typo. The 5K calculator time should have been 17:17.79. My HM time was weak and my marathon time even weaker. I definitely have performed better at 800m to 5K than I have at shorter or longer distances, though I will note that my HM time was run in mid-August and it was a trifle warm.
Here's how predictors/calculators work.
You punch in your time(s).
You read the results and then do one of three things:
a) if it's off, you adjust the results to your own performance and declare it 'pretty good' after the adjustment
b) if it's correct, you declare it 'pretty good' as is
c) you declare it bunk for anything less than a perfect match.
Same as all other calculators for me - I have not performed up to my genetic potential in any event, but I am a lot futher away in some
I am fuller bodied than Dopplebock
d) no idea if it is any good or not, but recognize that your performances have been inconsistent at best ... in the end you do not really care
Here's how predictors/calculators work. You punch in your time(s). You read the results and then do one of three things: a) if it's off, you adjust the results to your own performance and declare it 'pretty good' after the adjustment b) if it's correct, you declare it 'pretty good' as is c) you declare it bunk for anything less than a perfect match.
In order to understand pace calculators, you must attempt a Copernican revolution and attempt to see your running as a set of data points in an empty and indifferent space rather than as the center of a caring and concerned universe.
This is difficult for most runners.