A question for the experts

An environment where you can be open & frank about your quest for speed

User avatar
Joe Dwarf
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2183
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Saskatoon, SK

Re: A question for the experts

Postby Joe Dwarf » Wed May 30, 2012 5:16 pm

Joe Dwarf wrote:The calculators are based on a maximal effort for that distance only.
By "maximal" I believe it is meant your own capacity max effort. The VDOT concept incorporates the individual's willingness to suffer. I've never puked at the finish so maybe I'm not that committed - but then I'm not inclined to puke in general.

Pat Menzies
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Ontario

Re: A question for the experts

Postby Pat Menzies » Wed May 30, 2012 7:31 pm

Joe Dwarf wrote:
Dstew wrote:The calculators give one a ball park but there would seem to be a number of interactive factors as it applies to the individual. How many kilometers was the person running when they ran a 5K. Did they burst a lung and puke crossing the finish line and could not take another step or was it a comfortably hard race. The genetic make up as to be a factor - fast v slow twitch muscles.
The calculators are based on a maximal effort for that distance only. As Michael pointed out, the endurance factor for the marathon is a big factor. That applies to a lesser degree for all the distances, I believe. It's easier to put in max effort over 2 k than 21.1 k. Of course if you train to run 5 ks but not halfs you are not going to hit your prediction if you try a half on a lark.

I don't think slow twitch vs fast twitch comes into it as very few of us are trying to extrapolate a distance race out of a sprint time or vice-versa.


It's easier to put in a max effort over 21.1 as opposed to a 2k? Not true at all.
Fast twitch versus slow twitch does come into play if you definitively know you are a sprinter who just happens to like long distances.
Assuming you have more fast twitch because your 5km is pretty good and performance deteriorates over long distances isn't really a reflection of muscle fiber type.
All those intermediate distances require essentially the same type of physiological requirements.
Many top coaches would say that the best training a person can do is 5km training. If you train to run a good 5km you will certainly be capable of running a great half on a lark because there is a good chance your fitness will be even greater than if you only trained for the half.
Check out my site, Bamboo Bikes by Pat Menzies, to see and order my handmade bike frames.

User avatar
MichaelMc
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:07 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: A question for the experts

Postby MichaelMc » Wed May 30, 2012 9:46 pm

The real question is how well does one hold their short distance speed as the race gets longer: endurance.

How many people can hold 90% of their 10k pace or 80% of their 5k pace for a marathon? Not most folks, but that is what McMillan assumes.

It is pretty simple math, and it is representative of a high mileage experienced runner rather than an average runner. Their may be others who have very high endurance even with low mileage (or high mileage folks who don't respond), but that isn't typical. All it assumes for "intestinal fortitude" is the same for both distances: reasonable since it is the same person.

The McMillan thing is simply a side show: the training shouldn't be based on a prediction or goal, but current fitness.

Dstew
Bill Crothers
Posts: 3421
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:41 pm

Re: A question for the experts

Postby Dstew » Wed May 30, 2012 10:46 pm

I have to agree that race predictors can create more problems than they are worth if the person using them treats it as gospel. As pointed out, they would probably lead many, if not all, to train at paces that are too fast. I can say with absolute certainty that although the predictors tell me I have a 3:30 - 3:35 marathon in me with based upon the 22 minute comfortably hard 5 K race I ran, in reality I would be fortunate to go out tomorrow and run a 4:00 - 4:15 marathon. And I know it would hurt like hell.

The value I see in them is to set what my company would call a "stretch" goal. With proper training and luck, that if everything came together and was not rushed that one might be eventually be able to run a marathon in "X" number of minutes. The brass ring that might help someone such as myself who has less than ideal motivation at times not skip a run,etc. The problem for a person such as myself is that I might be too tempted to cheat and increase the paces as I have done in the past to meet that stretch goal.

And as public goal setting is an important tool as well, I can officially say I have changed by "stretch" goal to 3:45 and plan B is 3:59. The consensus would seem to indicate with with the demands of my job and other considerations, I am not likely to meet the necessary mileage on as consistent basis as I need. I am also determined not to cheat in order to make up for that lack of miles and so 3:45 is roughly top 25% overall and close to top 25% in my current age category. 4:05 - 4:10 is roughly the top 50% but for me, a marathon time with a "3" as the first number is more appealing. And so if I do make it down to 3:30 following a sensible training regime, good for me.

User avatar
jamix
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1811
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:18 pm

Re: A question for the experts

Postby jamix » Thu May 31, 2012 12:23 am

jonovision_man wrote:
jamix wrote:Does anyone know what the algorithm(s) are for calculating race performance in one distance based on performances in another?


McMillan uses this... I won't say how I found it! ;) But it's very figure-out-able.

This is for the pace based on marathon distance - so they expect your 30k pace to be 97.7% of your 42.2km pace, your 5k pace to be 86.6% of your marathon pace, etc.

Code: Select all

42.2      100.0%               
30          97.7%
25          96.3%
21.1       94.8%
15          92.9%
10          89.9%
5 miles   89.2%
5            86.6%
4            84.8%
3            82.7%
2            79.2%
1 mile     77.6%
1.5         77.3%
1            73.6%


Thanks jono

For programming purposes that is fairly simple.

I would've thought there would've been some exponential function like the following say;

Pace (D) = P * (1.05^(log2(D/M))

P = mile race pace

D = Distance in meters

M = 1609

Pace(D) = pace one could cover over "D" distance.......

Sorry I wish I could input Latex or something :? .

..............................................................................

The idea of creating a prediction table based on what high-mileage athletes have accomplished would be a very tough project I think. One has to wonder just how successful the current data-collecting attempts have been :think: . While it maybe easy to look at world records to derive what elites can do over different distances, this doesn't mean the same algorithm would hold for sub-elite populations doing similar volumes of work. Have they're been data collections on such sub-elites to create these algorithms ?
2013 GOALS:

- Compete in the "Early Bird Sprint Triathlon" in May
- Run a 5km pb during the "Bushtukah Canada Day Road Race"
- Complete an Olympic distance triathlon
- Cycle > 33 km / hr during the cycle portion of a Sprint Triathlon.
- Stay healthy and happy

Races

April 28th: Manotick 10km (40:16)
May 18th: Ottawa Early Bird Sprint Triathlon (DNF)
June 8th: Riverkeeper SuperSprint (2nd overall)
July 1st: Bushtukah Canada Day 5km (18:37)

User avatar
Joe Dwarf
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2183
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Saskatoon, SK

A question for the experts

Postby Joe Dwarf » Thu May 31, 2012 1:42 am

Pat Menzies wrote: It's easier to put in a max effort over 21.1 as opposed to a 2k? Not true at all.
I said the other way around, at least for me. And by "easier" I meant pacing-wise, not effort wise. The longer it goes for me the harder to pace it so at the end I've got nothing left.

User avatar
narr
Tom Longboat
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:19 pm

Re: A question for the experts

Postby narr » Thu May 31, 2012 5:57 am

jamix wrote:Does anyone know what the algorithm(s) are for calculating race performance in one distance based on performances in another?


--- I haven't read the whole thread. --- Hi dstew!

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/general/r ... /1681.html

A RW Article wrote:The formula was originally devised by Pete Riegel, a research engineer and marathoner, and published in Runner's World, most recently by Owen Anderson in 1997. It has been widely used since then. The formula is T2 = T1 x (D2/D1)1.06 where T1 is the given time, D1 is the given distance, D2 is the distance to predict a time for, and T2 is the calculated time for D2.


I hope this helps,

narr
narr = not a real runner

Running is a privilege.

Pat Menzies
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1434
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Ontario

Re: A question for the experts

Postby Pat Menzies » Thu May 31, 2012 8:22 am

Joe Dwarf wrote:
Pat Menzies wrote: It's easier to put in a max effort over 21.1 as opposed to a 2k? Not true at all.
I said the other way around, at least for me. And by "easier" I meant pacing-wise, not effort wise. The longer it goes for me the harder to pace it so at the end I've got nothing left.

My mistake with the reversal of distances. I would bet that the average runner has just as much trouble pacing a 2k so that they also have nothing left at the end.
Check out my site, Bamboo Bikes by Pat Menzies, to see and order my handmade bike frames.

User avatar
MichaelMc
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:07 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: A question for the experts

Postby MichaelMc » Thu May 31, 2012 12:06 pm

jamix wrote:The idea of creating a prediction table based on what high-mileage athletes have accomplished would be a very tough project I think. One has to wonder just how successful the current data-collecting attempts have been :think: . While it maybe easy to look at world records to derive what elites can do over different distances, this doesn't mean the same algorithm would hold for sub-elite populations doing similar volumes of work. Have they're been data collections on such sub-elites to create these algorithms ?


It has been done by a number of people. High mileage runner predictions are not that hard, they TEND toward similar endurance. They tend to be efficient, experienced, fit, healthy and have a good training background. What is hard is a table predicting results for AVERAGE runners, since their athletic histories and training patterns vary so wildly. How do you account for runners who run low mileage but constantly at a high pace and runners who run slowly all the time and overweight people, coach potatoes... ? Those people form the vast majority of runners, even marathoners and need the MOST help choosing paces.

120 - 160km/week folks are not "typical" runners, and most of them can TELL you what they can run at their favorite distances.

User avatar
jamix
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1811
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:18 pm

Re: A question for the experts

Postby jamix » Thu May 31, 2012 9:42 pm

narr wrote:
jamix wrote:Does anyone know what the algorithm(s) are for calculating race performance in one distance based on performances in another?


--- I haven't read the whole thread. --- Hi dstew!

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/general/r ... /1681.html

A RW Article wrote:The formula was originally devised by Pete Riegel, a research engineer and marathoner, and published in Runner's World, most recently by Owen Anderson in 1997. It has been widely used since then. The formula is T2 = T1 x (D2/D1)1.06 where T1 is the given time, D1 is the given distance, D2 is the distance to predict a time for, and T2 is the calculated time for D2.


I hope this helps,

narr


Thanks narr....

Hmmm, they seem to missing an exponential as well as a "log" in that formula. For instance, plug in D1 = 5km and D2 = 42.2.......If you can run 5km in 13 minutes, then the equation predicts you running a marathon in 1:56:18 :shock: :? :lol:

When I plug in those numbers into the boxes and hit "calculate" I get something else however ( :? ), which means there not using the mentioned equation at all!
2013 GOALS:

- Compete in the "Early Bird Sprint Triathlon" in May
- Run a 5km pb during the "Bushtukah Canada Day Road Race"
- Complete an Olympic distance triathlon
- Cycle > 33 km / hr during the cycle portion of a Sprint Triathlon.
- Stay healthy and happy

Races

April 28th: Manotick 10km (40:16)
May 18th: Ottawa Early Bird Sprint Triathlon (DNF)
June 8th: Riverkeeper SuperSprint (2nd overall)
July 1st: Bushtukah Canada Day 5km (18:37)

User avatar
turd ferguson
Ben Johnson
Posts: 28512
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:11 am
Location: It's a funny name
Contact:

Re: A question for the experts

Postby turd ferguson » Thu May 31, 2012 11:37 pm

jamix wrote:
narr wrote:
jamix wrote:Does anyone know what the algorithm(s) are for calculating race performance in one distance based on performances in another?


--- I haven't read the whole thread. --- Hi dstew!

http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/general/r ... /1681.html

A RW Article wrote:The formula was originally devised by Pete Riegel, a research engineer and marathoner, and published in Runner's World, most recently by Owen Anderson in 1997. It has been widely used since then. The formula is T2 = T1 x (D2/D1)1.06 where T1 is the given time, D1 is the given distance, D2 is the distance to predict a time for, and T2 is the calculated time for D2.


I hope this helps,

narr


Thanks narr....

Hmmm, they seem to missing an exponential as well as a "log" in that formula. For instance, plug in D1 = 5km and D2 = 42.2.......If you can run 5km in 13 minutes, then the equation predicts you running a marathon in 1:56:18 :shock: :? :lol:

When I plug in those numbers into the boxes and hit "calculate" I get something else however ( :? ), which means there not using the mentioned equation at all!


T2 = T1 x (D2/D1)^1.06

13:00 5k predicts a 2:04:42 marathon by that formula. McMillan says 2:04:44. Close enough.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams

User avatar
jamix
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1811
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:18 pm

Re: A question for the experts

Postby jamix » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:57 pm

Thanks Turd. The formula is more simple than I thought and seems to match up with the tables fairly well.

If D2 / D1 = 2, than 2^(1.06) = 2.0849, suggesting a constant fatigue rate of 4.24% in pace as the distance doubles (for any initial distance D1).

I agree with the author that its less accurate for times less than 3 1/2 minutes (for instance, plus in 1:42 for 800 meters and you get a prediction of 1:53:45 for the marathon).
2013 GOALS:

- Compete in the "Early Bird Sprint Triathlon" in May
- Run a 5km pb during the "Bushtukah Canada Day Road Race"
- Complete an Olympic distance triathlon
- Cycle > 33 km / hr during the cycle portion of a Sprint Triathlon.
- Stay healthy and happy

Races

April 28th: Manotick 10km (40:16)
May 18th: Ottawa Early Bird Sprint Triathlon (DNF)
June 8th: Riverkeeper SuperSprint (2nd overall)
July 1st: Bushtukah Canada Day 5km (18:37)


Return to “The Speed Zone”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests