123

# McMillan's Running Calculator (Read 2818 times)

va

What has been your experience with the McMillan's Running Calculator? Does it provide an accurate prediction of your race times? I ran a 5 mile race today in 48:13. Using my 5K race time from two weeks ago, the McMillan's Running Calculator predicted a 5 mile finish time of 48:17 - an error of only 4 seconds or 0.14 %. Not bad!
I ran a 5 mile race today in 48:13. Using my 5K race time from two weeks ago, the McMillan's Running Calculator predicted a 5 mile finish time of 48:17 - an error of only 4 seconds or 0.14 %. Not bad!
I wouldn't call 4 seconds an "error" :-). Seems pretty accurate to me!

Derek

va

Whoops, the race was actually an 8K (4.97 miles), so the calculator's prediction is 48:01, an error of -12 seconds or -0.25% (still pretty good!).
That is pretty accurate! For me, it predicted a 10K race of 55:32 and 2 months later I ran a 56:39 10K, but i did have to walk for 2 mintues with an awful side cramp, so I'd say that overall it was close for me too. I do most of my easy runs at a pace faster than they recommend though...hmmm...
I think it gives you a good idea of what to expect. I always do better than the Macmillan Race preditor. The shorter the race, the less I beat it by...for instance, I did a 10k last month and it predicted me to finish in 48+ minutes and I came in a minute under. I came in 6minutes under it's predicted time for my marathon. It gives me a good range to think about.
Jennifer mm#1231
I think the calculator found on this very site is as accurate as any I've used.

Runners run.

These calculators are always too optimistic for me on the longer distances. Which tells me where there is room for improvement. I find the RunningAhead-calculator that Mikey pointed too the best and the easiest to use. Goes for the other calculators on this site too. bas

52° 21' North, 4° 52' East

va

Thanks for pointing the RA calculator out. I didn't realize it was there. I like that it allows you to tweak the performance coefficient.

I've got a fever...

Thanks for pointing the RA calculator out. I didn't realize it was there. I like that it allows you to tweak the performance coefficient.

On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

va

Excellent geekery. Thanks for posting this!
Mishka

Did someone say geekery? I put together a somewhat visual representation of my own performance degradation. The slope represents a degradation coefficient, although I'm not sure mine is scaled as Eric lays it out. The graphical depiction is interesting though. I also laid in world record paces to see how endurance degrades for the best in the world. The WR slope is more difficult to interpret the paces run are from different individuals. Still, an interesting comparison I think.

Mishka

Thanks...and "had", as you said, is the operative word. Sadly, the wheels have fallen off this wagon.

I've got a fever...

Mishka, Outstanding geekery, and some wicked sick times to boot! That 5k time sticks out, but I imagine that as a middle distance guy, you weren't training for that event -- you probably could've run sub-15 if you'd trained specifically for 5k. Amazing! BTW, coefficient of geekery for the World Records 1500m and up is 1.0777.

On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

Mishka

Thanks for the compliments on the geekery and the speedery. Speedery is quite relative though, as we all know. The sub-15 sounds fast, and I'd be thrilled if I ever ran that. But, back when I was serious with things, I trained with guys that ran 3:57 (mile), 13:35 (5k) and 28:26 (10k), and one guy has subsequently gone 2:14 in the marathon. Simply put, I was out of my league when it came to anything over 3 laps on the track. Back to the geekery...I tossed out the 5k as an outlier when I dropped in the trendline, so I agree that the 5k could optimally be high 14's. This reinforces the importance of the race quality concept on the performance coefficient. I never did take anything over 2 miles seriously, and it clearly shows here, that I've never run 5k on up to my potential.
123