The RW Race-Time Predictor

1356710

Comments

  • Was correct for 5k, 10k and 10 miles.... got a lot of work to do to get 1/2 and full to agree ;-(
  • Puts my mara too fast (3:22 from 44min 10k) - PB 3:41 (though may have been better trained for 10k - had to walk recent M with injury.
  • 1:37 not bad for 1/2mara though (maybe 2 mins fast).
  • Just had a play with RunPaces and it does a pretty amazing analysis based on all or the best two of your races. Predicts a pretty miserable marathon time for me though :(

    The study describing how he wrote it is interesting too.
  • Sean, you're welcome to use that, and any other statistical analysis you want doing just ask.

    It might be quite an interesting research project if I ever need something else to do at uni for a few more cracks at BUSA! MSc by research in Sports Science... like the sound of that! And I agree with Bazza, people aren't doing enough miles anymore to do themselves justice at the marathon, me included so far, but will try and up the mileage this year.
  • Its not quite right for me as my times tend to get relatively better the more distance. So my marathon PB predicts a 5k time I will never get near. But thats fine by me, miss consistent!
  • Just tried the predictor - predicts faster marathon times for me than the previous model, which is encouraging. However I also tried it on my all-time PBs (18 years ago!), and it was only 20 seconds out from 10k to 1/2 marathon, but predicted 6 minutes quicker than my actual marathon PB. So maybe the marathon predictions are a little on the quick side?
  • Bazza / Mike - what would you say is a sufficient mileage to do the marathon justice?
  • runpaces takes mileage into account.

    Also this page mentions 10k->marathon prediction multiples based on mileage:

    Mileage Ratio
    30-35 mpw 5.5
    40 mpw 5.0-5.3
    55 mpw 4.9
    60 mpw 4.75-4.85
    70 mpw 4.7-4.8
    80-100 mpw 4.55-4.65
  • Foo Bar - Thanks for the explanation, which does make sense (used to play with Assembler in a previous life - you can tell I'm a Vet!)
  • apparently I can run comfortably under 2:30 marathon




    ........you mean there's something wrong with me using a 1/2 mile time to predict a marathon time? :D
  • The calculator underestimates my times, but I suspect that is me rather than the Calculator. I seem to be faster over the shorter distances, my 10km time suggests I can do a half marathon 45 seconds quicker than my PB, and a marathon 39 minutes quicker.
    Going the other way from my best marathon my 10km time is 8 and 1/2 minutes better than it should be.
  • Sorry if anyone's already said this (read: he can't be bothered to read rest of thread :-) but it doesn't factor in glycogen usage (well, how could it).

    Therefore it's spot on for my race times up to 13.1M, but where I haven't yet sussed this M running yet, my PB is half an hour over what they say.

    Take it to the extreme - for a 1:23 1/2M, it says I could do a 100mile ultra in 11 hours!! Nice!! That'll be me in the Guiness book 'o' records, then...

    So after glycogen has run out, this is not useful.

  • My Half Marathon time is about 5 minutes out which is probably right as I've only done two halfs, and this is my first year running.
  • BR - sufficient mileage to do justice in the marathon is a thorny subject I guess! I would suggest that for 95% of runners it's simply a case of doing more than they do at present. Obviously not everyone has the time to run more miles, and some people just don't want to - which is fine. But there's no escaping the fact (IMHO) that the miles you run the better your chance of fulfilling your marathon potential. I can't imagine that anyone has reached their marathon potential by clocking 50mpw. Some may do pretty well at 70mpw but 90-100mpw is nearer the mark. Of course, some guys (and girls!) do even more than that!

    I'm also very much in the 'miles in the legs' camp. Some runners can do a decent marathon off relatively low mileage, but these tend to be people that have been running for a long time and have built up a large base. I feel that most people run a marathon far too soon after beginning running. I would advise anyone to run for at least a couple of years before attempting a marathon. Most people don't spend long enough on the shorter distances.

    and just going back to the original theme - my times up to 1/2m are pretty much in line with the calculator, and also with other prediction methods I have picked over the years. That makes me feel quite happy that I pretty much got the best out of myself for most distances, but is also a reflection of the fact that I used to race a lot.
  • I don't know. 60-70 with two speed sessions and a few longer runs (i.e. classic 10k / HM training) got me to within about 6 minutes of my predicted time last year, so by no means a disaster.
    This year I'm looking for an average of 80-90. Tulloh mentions 100 in a book as a sensible maximum, but he doesn't really give a reason why. Rather than just aiming for a nice round number I think the medium - long runs at marathon pace are what make the difference. Run 98 miles a week as 7 easy every morning, 7 easy every evening won't do the trick, would be much better doing what I did last time round.

    Blackers - agreed - thats why the formula is useless for ultras (50k plus), but propper training should alow an athlete to run the marathon without hitting the wall. The half times of the worlds best at the marathon show that.
  • hmmm it set my marathon time at 16 minutes faster than my pb. Its either wrong, or I have something to go for next time...
  • god
    my first ever distance race was a mara
    after 2 10ks


    but i agree abiut mileage
    just gotta find the time
  • This calculator is not very accurate, it's 5 minutes out on the calculation I did for half marathon and I know I could not do a 3hr 50 min marathon on another calculation. Some runners are much faster on short distance and the information cannot be transposed onto longer distance and visa versa. It can be manipulated by your readers saying I could get that time if I do this or that I could train more on this or that. Seems totally useless to me!!!
  • Chris, try the runpaces link. That does exactly as you suggest, it takes into account how you scale between races to predict the other ones.
  • Mary here, not Simon. Gives my mara time based on 5k pb as 3.13.27 up to 3.22.43 for my 1/2. My actual time is 3.29, and I had considered that my times were pretty much steps of the stairs up to that. That said I did miss out on key long runs in my mara training.

    Perhaps it is more accurate for peple who race regularly.

    The counter doesn't ask if you're male or fmale which is significant. If it did then my times would be even further out.

    Am aiming for sub 3.15 in Rotterdam - so I hope it's rught.
  • Interesting - on my best 10k and half marathon times my predicted marathon time only differs by 4 seconds, but my 5k time takes it up almost another 3 minutes.
    My actual best marathon time is 3.12.48, my predicted time 2.53.11; 2.53.15; 2.57.06. I'm happy to go with it being accurate. Hoping for 3.00ish at FLM with some proper training behind me.
  • I am a powerfully-built, muscular type - the sort that should be banned from attempting endurance events. As you might expect, my 5k times predict halfmarathon and marathon times that are the stuff that dreams are made of.
  • race predictor was exact for me ran preston 10 miles on sunday in 55.52 prediction for 10k was 33.44 ran wesham 10k today in 33.44 same conditions and similar course
  • Bryn - I also predict that one day you will run a sub-2.30 marathon. Perseverence is the key.
  • Tom.Tom. ✭✭✭
    10M time predicts 1/2M time within 5 secs, but overestimates 10K time by 35secs - makes me think that my 10K isn't quite as soft as I thought it was.
  • Works pretty well for me within my narrow racing range (5k, 5m, 10k). Best times over the last 2 years as follows:

    5k of 14.56 = 24.43 5m = 31.08 10k
    5m of 24.58 = 31.26 10k
    10k of 31.27

    (so I'm slightly better at the shorter stuff, which is true)

    The calculator suggests I should be capable of a 2.23 or 2.24 marathon.

    Shame I can only do 30-40 mpw without breaking down though...probably would end up with about a 2.45 marathon off that!
  • To be honest I've seen many of these before and for me its absolutely way off once I get over half-marathon.

    Before I was injured (in 2002) and training for the marathon I had race bests of 39:01 for 10k and 1:31 for the half. Using the predictor that nets me usefully under 3:15 for the full marathon.......not on your nelly. I ran two marathons in 2002, the first in 3:40 and the second in 3:46.



    ........oh all right the second was run three weeks after the first (with the merest hint of a suggestion that i wasn't fully recovered) and the first may have been run in torrential freezing rain.........but.......




    ......interestingly, my best ever times for 10k of 36:40 and the half marathon 1:22 suggest a time of 2:48 to 2:51....hmmmm.....a long time ago in a galaxy far, far awy
  • If you look at the formula there is a factor of 6% used in the calculation, which controls how much slower the model says you will go the further you run.

    If you use any of your own times over 2 different distances you can work out your own factor*. If it is more than the 6% used in the RW web-site you are better speed-wise and less than 6% better stamina wise than the typical athlete assumed by RW.

    My most recent times give me a factor of 11%, i.e. I am very biased to speed. Predicting my marathon time from my 10k time using my own factor would add 15'30 to the time shown on the RW web-site. And that would still require me to seriously change my training.

    Going back 12 years to when I was much fitter (running 1 minute/mile faster than I do now) my factor comes out at well under 6%. I find this very strange as at the time most of my training was for football, which I would have thought would have developed my speed bias, whereas now I am solely focused on my running.

    * this requires a knowledge of logarithms or how to use the goal seek function in an Excel spreadsheet
Sign In or Register to comment.