More accurate marathon time calculator
davemunger
Posts: 1,139 Member
This is pretty cool:
Slate's Marathon Time Predictor
It definitely seems to be more accurate for me -- based on my 5k time, Runner's World says I should be able to run a 3:00 marathon. This calculator gives 3:15, and my actual PR in a marathon is 3:22.
From the article:
Slate's Marathon Time Predictor
It definitely seems to be more accurate for me -- based on my 5k time, Runner's World says I should be able to run a 3:00 marathon. This calculator gives 3:15, and my actual PR in a marathon is 3:22.
From the article:
A typical runner in our study with a 1:45 half-marathon time (8 minutes per mile) had a marathon time of 3:53:10 (that’s 8:54 per mile). Yet the Runner's World calculator predicts that this runner will finish in 3:38:55—15 minutes faster than the actual result. That’s an “absolutely massive” error, says Vickers. If this runner paced himself according to the Riegel prediction, he would start the race at a pace that was more than 30 seconds per mile too fast. “No wonder so many runners blow up and limp to the finish,” Vickers says.
0
Replies
-
Interesting.
Based on my 1:45 half pr, raced 4 weeks before my first full, I would have run a 3:54 marathon. My first marathon was a 3:49.
That half is still my pr, and I ran a 3:44 10 days ago...
So this actually predicts I would be slower than what I am. Maybe I need to race a half? lol
(PS: my 5K pr is predicting a 3:56 full...)0 -
Interesting. I'm a little surprised it doesn't ask your gender, because I have found that the traditional calculators are more accurate for women than men.0
-
I would suggest using races from this training cycle.0
-
davemunger wrote: »Interesting. I'm a little surprised it doesn't ask your gender, because I have found that the traditional calculators are more accurate for women than men.
With my 1:45 half, McMillan is predicting a 3:40 marathon.
It's the first time I hear about female vs male accuracy. Interesting.
0 -
DavidMartinez2 wrote: »I would suggest using races from this training cycle.
Then it would predict a 3:55 marathon. I ran a 3:44.
Maybe this prove that I need to work on shorter distances.
0 -
Useless. It is telling me I am predicted to run slower than my PR marathon based on significantly faster half-marathon times than I have had in the past and many more miles-per-week.0
-
This also has me slower than my most recent marathon by 20 minutes. Runners world prediction is off by just 3 minutes.0
-
I fall right in the middle of the two. I haven't been in marathon shape for years, but back in the day, Yasso 800s was very accurate for me.0
-
I used a 5K and HM, both current PRs in the current cycle. It forecasted a 3:34, and my marathon PR from this cycle is 3:30. I'd rather have the more conservative time than the 3:1X that McMillan/RW/Daniels tells me. I'm not a fan of exploding on a marathon.
*ETA: while useless after your first marathon, I'd much rather see people use this to get a feel for approximately where they'll finish. And that's if they absolutely must time their first - with few exceptions, most should train to finish rather than dump expectations on themselves.0 -
Odd. This calculator predicts a 3:40 marathon while McMillan predicts 3:38:30 (based from a 5k raced last weekend). I know I could have raced this at least a minute faster if my back would have cooperated, but it is what it is.
I am curious to know how they use the mileage based scaling in their predictive time. Weekly averages of 29 & 35 mpw (from the article) seem really low for someone actually working to achieve their predicted marathon time.
Just my $0.02.0 -
McMillan works pretty well for me.0
-
I think the bigger win for this is a first time marathoner, as in a "couch to marathon" person - not someone who has run multiple marathons, nor a comparable athlete who just started to run.0
-
Training2BeFast wrote: »davemunger wrote: »Interesting. I'm a little surprised it doesn't ask your gender, because I have found that the traditional calculators are more accurate for women than men.
With my 1:45 half, McMillan is predicting a 3:40 marathon.
It's the first time I hear about female vs male accuracy. Interesting.
Well, so far the responses here seem to bear that out.0 -
For gender difference (Riegel calculator adapted for some real-life stats), try this one:
http://www.fetcheveryone.com/training-calculators-improvedriegel.php?hours=1&minutes=24&seconds=52&update=Update0 -
0
-
0
-
I like the idea of the average prediction, but I think the inclusion of age grading skews the results, because age grading is based on the world record at a specific distance, not a comparison across distances. So it's not really a 'prediction' at all and isn't designed to do the same thing.0
-
For gender difference (Riegel calculator adapted for some real-life stats), try this one:
http://www.fetcheveryone.com/training-calculators-improvedriegel.php?hours=1&minutes=24&seconds=52&update=Update
That's a nice one...definitely seems to capture the gender difference I've observed. It's still 10 minutes on the optimistic side for me though...0 -
RW: 3:06 McMillan:3:08. This calculator: 3:14. We will see Sunday!!!0
-
So i used my HM from 3 weeks ago on a bad foot (not a pr) and my 5k from last week, not a pr, but i did record my fastest mile ever in the race even though i ran with my jogging stroller. There is a 10 min difference between using this with my recent races vs. my pr's. So I've decided to go out at the pace this predicts based on the recent times and work my way down some if i feel lovely at mile 16. We'll see how it goes on Sunday.0
-
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »
WOW! It's predicting a 3:30 for me... Bahahahaha not happening.
0 -
For gender difference (Riegel calculator adapted for some real-life stats), try this one:
http://www.fetcheveryone.com/training-calculators-improvedriegel.php?hours=1&minutes=24&seconds=52&update=Update
Predicting 3:53... 9 minutes slower than my current PR.
I think I'll stick with McMillan
0 -
For gender difference (Riegel calculator adapted for some real-life stats), try this one:
http://www.fetcheveryone.com/training-calculators-improvedriegel.php?hours=1&minutes=24&seconds=52&update=Update
Why would I be so much slower if i were a man with the same half time?
0 -
RunnerElizabeth wrote: »For gender difference (Riegel calculator adapted for some real-life stats), try this one:
http://www.fetcheveryone.com/training-calculators-improvedriegel.php?hours=1&minutes=24&seconds=52&update=Update
Why would I be so much slower if i were a man with the same half time?
Speaking in broad generalizations, women who are equally good at shorter distances are better than men at longer distances. There is a woman in our running group who can run about a 20:30 5k -- pretty fast, but my PR beats her by more than 2 minutes. But she has run a 3:15 marathon, 7 minutes faster than me!0 -
There's a woman in my club whose 5k PR is only 9 seconds faster than Dave's but who has run a 2:47 marathon!0
-
Oops, I meant 7 seconds.0
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions