Calculators & the like

aquinn

I've bookmarked many posts over time yet still can't find the ones I need this morning so I'm looking for help and assistance.

Based on yesterdays race what should I now be aiming for in next race.

What pace should I be training at for easy/LSR.

All the calculators to tell you if you dropped so many lbs you'd be this much faster.

What other calculators do people use and how will they change my life

Thanks

annapr

https://www.mcmillanrunning.com

The infamous McMillan calculator... plug in a recent race time and it will tell you what to expect for various distances. It will also give you training paces (easy, tempo, recovery, etc) if you put in a goal race and goal time. Everyone warns though that it's not as reliable at predicting marathon times!

This, with the nutribullet, will change your life

Bungy Girl

www.runningforfitness.org

Lots of useful calculators and predictors.

aquinn

Bungy Girl wrote: »

www.runningforfitness.org

Lots of useful calculators and predictors.

Thanks but is that not the one that I previously reported as broken? :P

ultraman1

http://leixlip5k.appspot.com/

aquinn

ultraman1 wrote: »

http://leixlip5k.appspot.com/

What's going on here then? Oh I see now. Thank you.

Murph_D

http://runsmartproject.com/calculator/

Training paces; target times based on other distances; VDOT for comparing performances (i.e. how does your time yesterday compare with your 10-mile time etc)

menoscemo

I'd stay away from the McMillan calculator for paces. It has easy runs at too wide a range starting at faster than MP. Vdot calculator is much better for paces. McMillan tends to be quite good for equivalent race times. Vdot sets much tougher targets for marathon than McMillan based on shorter race times.

annapr

Here's another one for you, re. the effect of losing weight on running...

http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/diet/weighteffect

aquinn

That's the one. I knew it. 58 seconds off if I didn't eat the jellies and have the belly! 58 seconds!

annapr

aquinn wrote: »

That's the one. I knew it. 58 seconds off if I didn't eat the jellies and have the belly! 58 seconds!

:pac::pac::pac: just how many jellies did you eat yesterday morning...??

Bungy Girl

annapr wrote: »

Here's another one for you, re. the effect of losing weight on running...

http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/diet/weighteffect

Ah, so that's what happened my 4 seconds . And then some

aquinn

annapr wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac: just how many jellies did you eat yesterday morning...??

All evidence has disappeared

Firedance

hijacking your thread A (but not your jellies!!)

what is the best way to calculate a progression pace for a half marathon? so if you wanted to run one in 1.59.59 your even pace should be 9.09, but if you wanted to run the first few miles at 9.30 (for eg) and then progress up, how would you calculate what pace you need to be as the race progresses (does that even make sense??!) All the calculators seem to give just an even pace for a specific time.

Bungy Girl

Firedance wrote: »

hijacking your thread A (but not your jellies!!)

what is the best way to calculate a progression pace for a half marathon? so if you wanted to run one in 1.59.59 your even pace should be 9.09, but if you wanted to run the first few miles at 9.30 (for eg) and then progress up, how would you calculate what pace you need to be as the race progresses (does that even make sense??!) All the calculators seem to give just an even pace for a specific time.

I'm pretty sure Runners World have a pace band calculator which allows you to calculate varying degrees of a negative (or positive!) split. I'll have a look for it later and post up the link. Otherwise I'd say you're looking at doing it manually with excel or pen & paper . If I was doing those sort of calculations I'd take the course profile into account too so you can bank some time on the faster sections and allow more time for the uphills etc.

annapr

Firedance wrote: »

hijacking your thread A (but not your jellies!!)

what is the best way to calculate a progression pace for a half marathon? so if you wanted to run one in 1.59.59 your even pace should be 9.09, but if you wanted to run the first few miles at 9.30 (for eg) and then progress up, how would you calculate what pace you need to be as the race progresses (does that even make sense??!) All the calculators seem to give just an even pace for a specific time.

Sounds like a question for Meno

my first reaction is why would you want to do that? Isn't most of the advice to try to pace evenly throughout? I wouldn't like to be depending on picking up speed at the end of 13 miles... then I suppose the simple way is to just take the 20 sec/mile off subsequent miles... e.g., 3 miles at 9:30, you have to gain 60 secs in next 10.... so 10 miles at 8:59 ish... approx, not allowing for the .1 mile etc.

Firedance

Bungy Girl wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Runners World have a pace band calculator which allows you to calculate varying degrees of a negative (or positive!) split. I'll have a look for it later and post up the link. Otherwise I'd say you're looking at doing it manually with excel or pen & paper . If I was doing those sort of calculations I'd take the course profile into account too so you can bank some time on the faster sections and allow more time for the uphills etc.

ha ha that sounds like harder work than the race!!

I just found this http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/racepaces/split?metres=21100&hr=1&min=59&sec=58&gamma=0.51&splits=q&Submit=Calculate which is very helpful

Bungy Girl

Firedance wrote: »

ha ha that sounds like harder work than the race!!

I just found this http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/racepaces/split?metres=21100&hr=1&min=59&sec=58&gamma=0.51&splits=q&Submit=Calculate which is very helpful

I think that's just like the Runners World one - sorted!

annapr

Firedance wrote: »

ha ha that sounds like harder work than the race!!

I just found this http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/racepaces/split?metres=21100&hr=1&min=59&sec=58&gamma=0.51&splits=q&Submit=Calculate which is very helpful

there's a calculator for everything apparently! I can't imagine trying to track different paces for each mile/km though... there's a lot to be said for the simplicity of remembering 5:30 per km all the way... running it is a whole other matter!

Firedance

annapr wrote: »

Sounds like a question for Meno

my first reaction is why would you want to do that? Isn't most of the advice to try to pace evenly throughout? I wouldn't like to be depending on picking up speed at the end of 13 miles... then I suppose the simple way is to just take the 20 sec/mile off subsequent miles... e.g., 3 miles at 9:30, you have to gain 60 secs in next 10.... so 10 miles at 8:59 ish... approx, not allowing for the .1 mile etc.

I'm not sure is the answer to that anna!! just a conversation with some runners regarding going off to fast, something I'm always doing, I've never tried this so was just wondering if it might be worth trying, having said that my fear is exactly what you've just said there about picking up the pace later in the race.

Some wise advice from Meno would be great :-)

Bungy Girl

Nothing wrong with the idea of a negative split FD, but the splits would need to be closer together than the example of 9:30 - 8:59 which I think would give you too much to do. I think you could tweak the numbers on the 51/49 calculations slightly to suit.

Meno ?!?

RayCun

you could run the first mile at 9.30, but why run three at that pace?
If you're 20 seconds down after 1 mile, then run the next 12 two seconds faster than goal pace.
Even better, take into account the fact that you won't run exactly 13.1 miles and build in a bit of a cushion. Goal pace should be more like 9:05/mile, and if you run the first mile slow the rest should be about 9:02/3 - call it 9 even.

menoscemo

Sorry guys, never tried this/no idea.

The only thing I could suggest is set the garmin to overall pace and aim to get it back on pace after 5-6 miles, so basically you're at 9:30 pace after mile 1 maybe 9:20 pace after 2 etc etc. but to be honest I don't like this strategy if you are racing, I'd prefer to just use a garmin in the first mile to make sure I haven't gone off too fast. After that race by feel, you don't want to run 1:59 when you could have run 1:57 just because you were trying to hold back. Also as rays says you are risking missing your time altogether if the garmin measures the course long. For that reason you are best to use a pace band ( if there are no pacers) and check your progress against mile or km markers as well as using a garmin for pace.

Firedance

menoscemo wrote: »

Sorry guys, never tried this/no idea.

The only thing I could suggest is set the garmin to overall pace and aim to get it back on pace after 5-6 miles, so basically you're at 9:30 pace after mile 1 maybe 9:20 pace after 2 etc etc. but to be honest I don't like this strategy if you are racing, I'd prefer to just use a garmin in the first mile to make sure I haven't gone off too fast. After that race by feel, you don't want to run 1:59 when you could have run 1:57 just because you were trying to hold back. Also as rays says you are risking missing your time altogether if the garmin measures the course long. For that reason you are best to use a pace band ( if there are no pacers) and check your progress against mile or km markers as well as using a garmin for pace.

I'd a feeling you were going to say that... pace bands, good idea and might be a better way to go. Thanks :-)