It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sean Fishpool
✭✭✭

in Training

Hello all

we'd love to know whether this calculator (click the link above) matches your real-life race times.

It's based on a well-established formula - what do you think?

My first reaction was that its predictions were too fast, but I think that was because

a) I have a bit more speed than endurance; and

b) my instinct was to try to predict times at the extreme ends of the distance spectrum (eg marathon time from 5K time)

Sean, RW

we'd love to know whether this calculator (click the link above) matches your real-life race times.

It's based on a well-established formula - what do you think?

My first reaction was that its predictions were too fast, but I think that was because

a) I have a bit more speed than endurance; and

b) my instinct was to try to predict times at the extreme ends of the distance spectrum (eg marathon time from 5K time)

Sean, RW

0

## Comments

I very much hope it's accurate, because it's tipping me for a 2:53 marathon ;o)

About a minute out from my PB of 36:58, based on a 10 mile time of 1:02:43.

I have a copy of this formula in my running log to give me an idea of how easy or hard a run really was - every run is converted to a predicted time for a half-marathon so that I have a standard to measure against.

Well according to my recent marathon I'm in 35:17 10k shape - let's see if we can take a couple of secs off that on Sunday;)

My 10k pb predicts a sub 2:35 marathon - lol!!

Both times do fit in with my aim to do 11 min miling for my next marathon.

A 2:53 marathon from a 37:42 10K seems a bit aggressive.

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/forum/forummessages.asp?UTN=36728&URN=11&dt=4&srchdte=0&cp=23&v=6&sp=

which I did a few days ago. It shoes how to test the relationship between your times. For my 5k, 10k, 10M and HM times the relationship is Riegel's exactly but with 1.0508 instead of 1.06. The r-squared value of the relationship for my pbs is 1 which is the real proof in Riegel's hypothesis when applied to me.

Have you seen this race-time ranking calculator on RW US? It's a hidden link that has now been replaced by 'under construction' message on the front of their site, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

That's another one to adapt for the UK

my half marathon "should" be faster than my PB even if I enter my PW 10k time

Rather interesting to see that should I ever do a complete U-turn and actually try a marathon, that I'd be on for five hours, when I thought it would be much nearer six...

according to 10k time should take 30 seconds of 5k best (not run since sept) and 8 minutes of my half (last one was in June)

Personally I find that most race time predictors are too optimistic for the longer distance races.

I wonder if most of us are just under-developed in terms of endurance (compared with speed). Certainly when Riegel first came up with the equation in the late 1970s, I guess the norm was towards training at much higher mileage than now.

Current form : 10k and HM in last 3 weeks - HM should have been 8 mins quicker

PB form in the Spring - HM should have been 5:30 quicker - 97 secs off that 90 min barrier, whereas in reality I'm a whole 7+ minutes away!

I've discovered that up to about 5k road is faster than TM on 2%, after that it goes the other way. 10k I have to add 1 min. I think it's something to do with the stride length?