It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
TT - good to know I hadn't mis-remembered about the prednisone. I can't remember who got banned for it though, going to have a look now!
Jooligan - good spot on the XTalons. Yes, I'm probably on the grass around 20% of the parkrun mainly due to overtaking/lapping, so useful for grip. It was actually pretty frozen last weekend so not slippery, but with the buggy there is way more resistance on the grass so still slows you down quite a bit.
CW - a motor in the buggy, that's a good idea! Unfortunately I don't have anywhere near the required engineering skills.
OO - yes, I'm pretty fed up with this winter too, can't wait to go away on Sunday! Today is looking good here though and the forecast for the next few days is decent,
Excellent - a motor in a 3-wheeler buggy while you chase after it over uneven, slippy ground. What could possibly go wrong? :-)
Another one here fed up with the weather. Track session last night was nice down the back straight, then getting blown across into lane 2 or 3 on the bend and struggling into driving rain all the way up the home straight. I was the only one there, nobody else was mad enough to be out there!
Anyone else at Wokingham on Sunday?
UDS - some good stats, but I don't think looking at past data is a very good indication of what should be achievable when converting HM times to M times. 1.06 seems about right to me, but most people don't do the miles or screw up the race.
It's a bit like that guy who wrote a huge blog post about how a significant positive split must be the best approach because that's what most people do (and to ignore the elite runners who don't do this because they are outliers).
The back half of this week is not looking good training-wise as mini-Padams is ill again, so not in nursery and trying to get him better before we go away on Sunday. With packing, Mrs Padams having to do a Speed Awareness Course tomorrow (nearly 2 hours drive away...) etc. I think this will have to be a "recovery week".
Little M.iss Happy said:
Is that Fetch's formula Stu? Miles out for me if so.Yes it is LMH. I think the article is more enlightening than the calculator. I agree its quite pessimistic. A 1.28 half gives me a 3.15 marathon. That just doesn't seem right but it is based on a good sample. Runners in the sample have all run at least 5 halves and five marathon so it isn't skewed by first timers. Agree though OO it doesn't take into account you super fast vets!!! Has it changed my approach to training in the last 8 weeks?.... I won't change much but I will ensure I get my 20 mile long runs in. I won't get five in though. And it has probably helped me to manage my expectations for Brighton. Stats are stats. So if I'm only in 1. 25 half form then it's going to be very close. I won't be disappointed with any particular time I get at Brighton. It was always meant to be a training marker in the continued build up to Warsaw in September. Apparently if I change sex and run as a female I stand a much better chance!!
Joe/ Jools - I'll be happy with something around 1:18 as well. Last year was 78:26 and the year before (on a very windy day) 78:24. Difficult to tell in advance these days.
Interesting stats. I suppose there are two types of predictor - the one that tries to predict what you should be capable of, and the other that tells you what on average you're likely to end up with. Only the first one is useful, IMO, but as padams points out there have been those in the past who say you should aim for the average because that's what you'll end up with. FWIW 1.06 seems reasonable to me as a decent target. The years I've run Wokingham & London have been conversions of between 1.02 & 1.07: the 1.02 was off that windy day in Wokingham so a bit of an outlier. TippTop has some ridiculously good conversions as I recall, as does CW.
TT - that 1.02 was really down to poor conditions for the half compared with the full that particular spring. If I go by PBs, set a year apart some time ago, the factor comes to 1.066.