MichaelMc wrote:McMillan is generally 5-10 minutes too optimistic for runners who are not HIGHLY experienced. If you had a recent series of races showing you lose VERY little speed as your distance went 5k/10k/Half, then I might try to meet McMillan. The average weekly training mileage of someone who meets a PROPER McMillan equivalancy is >100km per week. People with that training base are the runners who have the endurance to hold their speed. There are exceptions, but that is the average so just as many take MORE miles as those who do it with less.
The first marathon I did, it was bang on... but it was based on a 1/2 that was earlier that year (Feb) in the snow. So not exactly apples to apples, when you use these calcaulators it has to be with some consideration of the other factors.
Second marathon I was +11 minutes. McMillan told me to expect 3:33:22 (based on a recent 1/2)... I targetted 3:35, and came in at 3:44:06 - ouch! Not enough running mileage as you said, hoped I could push through on the strength of my cycling endurance... couldn't, muscles fatigued and I cracked.
Now it's telling me 3:22:28, again based on a recent half. Am I smart enough to have learned from last time?
jono