Half marathon as predictor of marathon time

Racing Flat

Now might be a good time to firm up the Theory of shels4ever, i.e (HM time x 2) + (x% of HM time) = marathon time. Last time we ended up with x = 14, what about now?

To get the ball rolling...

Haile Geb
HM = 58; Mar = 2.04.
HM x 2 = 1.56
Mar - (HM x 2) = 8
8/58 = 14%
x = 14%

RF
HM = 83; Mar = 2.59
HM x 2 = 2.46
Mar - (HM x 2) = 13
13/83 = 16%

Use nearest time in minutes (no seconds); use most relevant HM closest to marathon.

Might make it easier in future when people ask 'what time should I aim for?' considering many of us don't have faith in mcmillan calculator for marathon predictions.

osnola ibax

HM = 104
M = 270
HM x 2 = 208
270 - 208 = 62
62/104 = 60% :eek:

Racing Flat

osnola ivax wrote: »

60% :eek:

Good job you didn't listen to anyone who said 'multiply your half by 2 and add 10minutes' then.:D

happygoose

HM = 97
M = 236
HM x 2 = 194
M - (HM x 2) = 42
42/97 = 43%

Didn't do the long runs x 5 in my preparation and it shows here. Fail to prepare...

earlyevening

HM = 84
M = 187
HM x 2 = 168
187 - 168 = 19
19/84 = 22%

nomadic

HM = 101
M = 255
HM x 2 = 202
M - (HM x 2) = 53
53/101 = 52%

ike

HM = 95
M = 225
HM x 2 = 190
225-190=35
35/95=.36

X=36% Marathon Training was not up to scratch

(if I had got the training right and got a 3:25 time I reckon X=15%, which would put it in line with the first 2 example)

rainbow kirby

HM: 118
M: 264
M - (HM*2): 28
28/118: 23.7%

Needs more long runs, tbh.

Slogger Jogger

Doesn't this all depend on the route in each case? No point comparing a flat HM with a hilly M and vice versa.

osnola ibax

Racing Flat wrote: »

Good job you didn't listen to anyone who said 'multiply your half by 2 and add 10minutes' then.:D

Longest run was 7 weeks ago, 17.6 miles 2:40. ITBS since then.

rigal

HM = 94
M = 207
HM x 2 = 188
207 - 188 = 19
19/94 = 20%

M was flat / HM was quite flat.

menoscemo

HM:108 M:255
HM x 2 = 216
M- (HM x2)= 39

39/108 = 36%

I am not built for endurance (by about 10 kilos me thinks )

Racing Flat

Racing Flat wrote: »

use most relevant HM closest to marathon.

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

Doesn't this all depend on the route in each case? No point comparing a flat HM with a hilly M and vice versa.

Hence the relevant in the OP

chinguetti

HM 96
M 210
HM x 2 192

M-HM x 2 210-192 = 18

18/96 = 18%

:eek: did it 3 times and still coming up with this answer. It has to be wrong, someone tell me its wrong

actwithoutwords

HM = 103
M = 238
HM x 2 = 206
M - (HM x 2) = 32
32/103 = 31%

Injuries on the day of the marathon, and injuries leading to me missing both 20 mile LSRs causing that. Disappointing, but shows how much room for improvement there is...

kennyb3

Racing Flat wrote: »

Now might be a good time to firm up the Theory of shels4ever, i.e (HM time x 2) + (x% of HM time) = marathon time. Last time we ended up with x = 14, what about now?

To get the ball rolling...

Haile Geb
HM = 58; Mar = 2.04.
HM x 2 = 1.56
Mar - (HM x 2) = 8
8/58 = 14%
x = 14%

RF
HM = 83; Mar = 2.59
HM x 2 = 2.46
Mar - (HM x 2) = 13
13/83 = 16%

Use nearest time in minutes (no seconds); use most relevant HM closest to marathon.

Might make it easier in future when people ask 'what time should I aim for?' considering many of us don't have faith in mcmillan calculator for marathon predictions.

started a thread on lsr pace earrlier this morning and kind of questioned this, so dying to see the full results of this

osnola ibax

Even looking at the numbers already posted, there is a world of difference between the half marathon and full marathon. You can't predict how you will react to full marathon distance compared to your half time. In my case, badly. I would say this particulary true for marathon virgins. Maybe you could move closer to the magic 14% as you complete more marathons.

Pisco Sour

osnola ivax wrote: »

Even looking at the numbers already posted, there is a world of difference between the half marathon and full marathon. You can't predict how you will react to full marathon distance compared to your half time. In my case, badly. I would say this particulary true for marathon virgins. Maybe you could move closer to the magic 14% as you complete more marathons.

So based on my 1:49 Half in Wexford is a sub 4 Rotterdam Marathon (my first one) out of the question? The stats on this thread seem to suggest so.

rigal

04072511 wrote: »

So based on my 1:49 Half in Wexford is a sub 4 Rotterdam Marathon (my first one) out of the question? The stats on this thread seem to suggest so.

You shouldn't compare two race times that are c. 1 year apart. Do a 1/2 marathon at some point in your Rotterdam training plan (preferably 4-6 weeks before the race itself) and that'll give you a better indication.

osnola ibax

04072511 wrote: »

So based on my 1:49 Half in Wexford is a sub 4 Rotterdam Marathon (my first one) out of the question? The stats on this thread seem to suggest so.

No, certainly not out of the question by any means. That's exacty my point, some react better than others, I don't have the endurance at present but I hope to rectify that. Also, any sniff of sun really seems to get to me. I've been training since January so I have a lot of experience to gain. You have some time to go to Rotterdam? So don't rule it out, or even a bit better.

osnola ibax

rigal wrote: »

You shouldn't compare two race times that are c. 1 year apart. Do a 1/2 marathon at some point in your Rotterdam training plan (preferably 4-6 weeks before the race itself) and that'll give you a better indication.

+1

MrCreosote

M- 196
HM-86

HMx2=172

M-(HMx2)= 24

24/86= 28%

Had a good day on the HM, went out too fast for the full+ not enough distance in training.

Pisco Sour

rigal wrote: »

You shouldn't compare two race times that are c. 1 year apart. Do a 1/2 marathon at some point in your Rotterdam training plan (preferably 4-6 weeks before the race itself) and that'll give you a better indication.

Are there any Half Marathons in Ireland in February/ very early March by any chance?

Sub430

M: 258
HM: 113

HMx2=226

M-(HMx2)= 32

32/113= 28%

Blew up at mile 20 and walked quite a bit of the final 6.

rigal

04072511 wrote: »

Are there any Half Marathons in Ireland in February/ very early March by any chance?

This was on last year - http://www.stbrigids.net/marathon.htm I didn't run it but I'm hoping it'll be on again as the timing would suit me. Don't know of any others.

Husavik

M - 208
HM (Phoenix park) - 95

HM X 2 = 190

208 - 190 = 18

18/95 = 18%

McMillan does not seem accurate and it seems to worsen the slower the pace, no?

I was secretly hoping for a 3hr 20 time and knew it wasn't going to happen by the 30km banner. It was lucky I told everyone that sub 3.30 would be great because otherwise it could have been a mental hurdle too far.

Abhainn

RF Interesting stuff

Abhainn

HM = 78; Mar = 2.47
HM x 2 = 2.36
Mar - (HM x 2) = 11
11/78 = 14%

Blueskye

HM = 124; M = 306
HM x2 = 248
M - (HMx2) = 58
58/124 = 47%

But it was a nightmare run, hopefully will improve with the next ones...

Slogger Jogger

HM = 86; M = 181
HM x2 = 172
M - (HMx2) = 9
9/86 = 10%

HM was hilly.
M was flat.
Don't have any non-hilly HM to use. But, if I use my last Connemarathon marathon time of 3:17 it comes out at 29%

jlang

HM = 97; M = 208
HM x2 = 194
M - (HMx2) = 14
14/97 = 14%

From March/April this year. Half route was hillier, but balanced by hotter conditions at the marathon. September's HM is now down to 88, but I think I can take a bit off the marathon time too

tunney

Going to have to say that this is as useful as a calculator.

If most of my training has been for shorter faster stuff and I can knock out a 75 half that has absolutely no correlation with what my marathon time would be if I ran a marathon off that back of my half training.

What calculators could tell you is. If you trained for a half and ran X, and if you trained for a marathon you could run Y. Doesn't mean that if you went out and ran you would. Means you could.