Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2010-04-08 7:01 AM |
Master 1655 NJ | Subject: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator My HM is coming up on May 2nd. I'd like to race it as opposed to just running it for the enjoyment of it. My goal is 2:00 or less which translates to a 9:10/mm. Using the running calculator, I can easily hit the tempo pace, long run pace, cruise paces, etc.... so in theory, the HM pace should be doable. My problem is, I get soooo out of breath running that speed for a long period of time. Do I just suck it up and get it done or is this pace unrealistic? In the past, I've raced for the enjoyment of racing more so than to be competitive and therefore, I think it's more mental than physical. Thoughts? Oh, not really using a plan, just running~ one long, one speed/tempo and a few ez ones thrown in. Long ones are outside, tempo's on the t-mill and others are mix of t-mill and outside. |
|
2010-04-08 7:17 AM in reply to: #2776224 |
Extreme Veteran 439 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator Hi when you say out of breath do you mean breathing hard? as this is perfectly normal, you are working hard your breathing gets louder and faster, this was something i had to get used to, i would think surely i should not be breathing this hard, but, i now know that its part of a good hard run. As for mcmillan running calculator i used it as a guide line and just ran my fastest 5k in 22:39 @7:18mm, for me it worked Enjoy your race, maybe you could run splits , this is what i did first mile 6;55 so i knew the next mile i could slow just a wee bit then i picked it back up, good luck , you'll get lots of good advice here. regards sarah |
2010-04-08 7:18 AM in reply to: #2776224 |
Veteran 268 Boulder | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator McMillan is great - but if it comes down to it, and you can't run that fast, there is no calculator that says you can. How "out of breath" is "really out of breath"? Like, 70%? You can hold that for 2 hours. 90%? You can't hold it for two hours. |
2010-04-08 7:30 AM in reply to: #2776224 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator Mental. It's a race. You SHOULD be breathing hard to some extent. Because you are trying to run hard. If you've never actually tried to run at current potential, then you're going to struggle a bit with the idea of actually having to push yourself mentally and physically. Trust me, you can do it. Just takes practice, and the will to push yourself. It will be easy to give in to the voices that say "This hurts. You should back off. You're going to hurt yourself, or blow up and not finish." Pay those voices no mind. They don't want you to succeed; they are far happier not having to work. Be strong, and when the gun goes off, just run baby. |
2010-04-08 7:41 AM in reply to: #2776300 |
Expert 618 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator As he ^^ said, if you are hitting all the training ranges that McMillan is suggesting and you have the adequate level of training, then you should be able to reach your goal. It is a mental game to run relatively hard for that long. |
2010-04-08 7:54 AM in reply to: #2776224 |
Expert 1091 St. Paul, MN | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator I'm going to offer different advice. I know how people on the internet LOVE to do this! I looked back at your training logs, and the biggest thing that jumped out is that the majority of your runs - from 2.5 miles up to 10 miles - were all done at about the same pace. I think to race well, you need to mix that up. On some of those 4-6 milers, you need to up the pace as much as you can to get your body used to running hard. That way, when you're cruising home over the last few miles of your half, you body KNOWS what "hurt" is and it knows that it CAN do it. I like to run my long runs a little easier, but then I go pretty hard for my mid-distance tempo runs to get used to that pain. And it REALLY helped my racing! I know that advice does nothing for you now, but maybe for your next one... As far as McMillan goes, I think everyone has different results with that calculator. When I plug in my shorter races, it tells me I SHOULD be much faster than I am over LONGER races. And vice versa. (When I plug in my half marathon times, it tells me I should be running a 5K slower than I really can.) I've learned that it always does this. Example: I just ran a 17:11 5K on a certified course. That "translates" to a 1:19 half marathon. Well, I've done 3 half marathons, and they've all been within a few seconds of 1:29. I looked through your training log, but I didn't look through your racing log - do you have other races you could plug into the calculator to see what they say? So here are my 2 cents for race day. Try to go out as EVENLY as possible. Try to run your "goal splits" for the first 5 miles. If at mile 5 you still feel really good, then try to up the pace a LITTLE. Maybe you can make a "cushion" of time so that if you slow down near the end, you'll still be able to hit your goal. But try to avoid going out TOOOOO hard, because then you're doomed from the start (at least that's what always happens to me). Go out where you need to be, see what happens, and try to build as you get closer to the finish! You might be surprised!!.... Good luck!! |
|
2010-04-08 8:06 AM in reply to: #2776359 |
Expert 749 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator stevestenzel - 2010-04-08 7:54 AM I'm going to offer different advice. I know how people on the internet LOVE to do this! I looked back at your training logs, and the biggest thing that jumped out is that the majority of your runs - from 2.5 miles up to 10 miles - were all done at about the same pace. I think to race well, you need to mix that up. That is a mistake that far too many of us (yes, I end up doing it too) make. Easy runs aren't easy enough making it so that we don't have it in us to go hard on our hard runs. I fuss at my husband in the pool on our 100 sprint sets when he is not sucking wind. I am about to vomit from working so hard. We went out on the track yesterday for a workout. I was upset that my times were, well sucky. He threw it back on me - you were breathing heavy, but not nearly working as hard as you do in on those 100 sprints in the pool. It's hard to make yourself run that hard, I do think, like you said there is a big mental block that makes us- (well the sane ones of us : ) back off. I think just by doing the pain work in training you can increase your pain threshold and mentally get some good prep with how to keep yourself moving towards the pain instead of letting off. Having said that I agree with Steve, run your splits even for 5 miles, you'll know if you feel fresh still that you can kick it in and start passing folks for the last half! Then when you get done are recover look at your run training and force yourself out to the track or to do some intervals. |
2010-04-08 8:44 AM in reply to: #2776359 |
Expert 618 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator stevestenzel - 2010-04-08 8:54 AM Example: I just ran a 17:11 5K on a certified course. That "translates" to a 1:19 half marathon. Well, I've done 3 half marathons, and they've all been within a few seconds of 1:29. I would then say you were way undertrained for the distance. Running a low 17 5k there is absolutely ZERO reason you should not easily be low 1:2X in a half. You are over a minute faster than my best 5k and my 1/2 PR is 1:24. I would also opine that just because someone is running a similar pace for the majority of their runs that does not necessarily mean they are going easy. Almost all of my efforts are in the same range (Z3 for HR followers even though I do not train by HR) except some recovery days. While it is important to mix it up - paces that is - it is not necessary to be able to put up a good time. You see it all the time where people put in the volume and frequency but not the intensity and still are able to run fast times. As I've heard here, run lots, sometimes fast but mostly slower. Just my opinion. |
2010-04-08 8:58 AM in reply to: #2776557 |
Expert 1091 St. Paul, MN | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator Road Phoenix - 2010-04-08 8:44 AM stevestenzel - 2010-04-08 8:54 AM Example: I just ran a 17:11 5K on a certified course. That "translates" to a 1:19 half marathon. Well, I've done 3 half marathons, and they've all been within a few seconds of 1:29. I would then say you were way undertrained for the distance. Running a low 17 5k there is absolutely ZERO reason you should not easily be low 1:2X in a half. You are over a minute faster than my best 5k and my 1/2 PR is 1:24. I would also opine that just because someone is running a similar pace for the majority of their runs that does not necessarily mean they are going easy. Almost all of my efforts are in the same range (Z3 for HR followers even though I do not train by HR) except some recovery days. While it is important to mix it up - paces that is - it is not necessary to be able to put up a good time. You see it all the time where people put in the volume and frequency but not the intensity and still are able to run fast times. As I've heard here, run lots, sometimes fast but mostly slower. Just my opinion. I don't know that I was undertrained for those half marathons, but I probably wasn't training as "smartly" as I could have been. Also, all 3 of those halfs were in the dead of a MN winter, so those extra layers might be slowing me down! And I didn't mention anything about saying that she was running easy, I just said that she should really try going HARD sometime. I run my long runs "easier," but I rarely go on an "easy" run. For me, there's a big difference between 85% effort and 97% effort. Going PRETTY hard is not the same as going HARD HARD now and then. My suggestion was to make sure there are some HARD tempo runs in there. Sorry, Kristin, if it came across as if I made it sound like you were running easy all the time - that was not my intention. |
2010-04-08 9:23 AM in reply to: #2776611 |
Expert 618 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator Okay, I get that. |
2010-04-08 9:40 AM in reply to: #2776224 |
Expert 2555 Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator OK, in the past couple months you've only done a few short runs at around your goal pace. How did those feel? Do you think you could keep that pace for 13.1 miles? What I don't see in your training is any real speedwork. While it's possible to improve running speed through higher volume of easy paced running, that method requires far more volume than you've been doing. When only doing somewhat low volume, it becomes imperative to incorporate speedwork. That would be a weekly workout at about 5K pace. I like mile repeats for half marathon training. The workout would be doing a series of mile repeats at 5K pace with a rest interval. Over a period of a couple months the repeats would build from 3 to about 6-7. The last repeats are difficult and it takes mental as well as physical effort to push through. However, too late for that now. A little different from what others have suggested, I like to start out the first mile at faster than goal pace, then back off to goal pace for the next 8-9 miles, and try to pick it up again at the end. However, some tactics depend on course profiles and must be adjusted accordingly. For me, one of the things that has made a difference is to race often. Learning how to push hard in 5K, 10K, and 10 milers makes it much easier to guage effort levels for longer races. |
|
2010-04-08 10:38 AM in reply to: #2776300 |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator Scout7 - 2010-04-08 8:30 AM Mental. It's a race. You SHOULD be breathing hard to some extent. Because you are trying to run hard. If you've never actually tried to run at current potential, then you're going to struggle a bit with the idea of actually having to push yourself mentally and physically. Trust me, you can do it. Just takes practice, and the will to push yourself. It will be easy to give in to the voices that say "This hurts. You should back off. You're going to hurt yourself, or blow up and not finish." Pay those voices no mind. They don't want you to succeed; they are far happier not having to work. Be strong, and when the gun goes off, just run baby. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you want to race it, it will hurt! I based the start of my one and only HM in Feb on pace determined by what my HR was at the top of Z2 range in training. So I started there and kept it there the best I could. After 10 miles I was hearing the voices and grunted out the next 5k. My farthest run race before this was two 15k's last year so it was new territory for me after that point. |
2010-04-08 11:04 AM in reply to: #2776224 |
Veteran 234 Newport News | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator Ok my thoughts…First off what is the best 1/2 time you have put in so far? Looking at the course it does roll a bit and you are running up to its highest elevation from mile 9ish to about 12 which is the problem zone for many 1/2 runners. At least you have a downhill for the finish! It may not look like much of a rise on the profile but it can be an issue that deep into the race and you need to take that into account. I’ve glanced at your logs over the past 6 weeks and would guess that you will probably hit on the 2:04 ish range for this race. I am also seeing the transition for the treadmill to the road looks like it is causing some physiological issues common to the transition. Looking at the running training, you are putting in the stamina miles as of late but not the endurance/speed work you need to do to get you under 2:00. |
2010-04-08 11:30 AM in reply to: #2776224 |
Extreme Veteran 565 Silicon Valley | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator I'd say you can do it pretty easily. You'll surprise yourself on race day. I had that experience - my previous best was 2 hours and after some time away from running I decided to get back into it. I was hoping for a 1:52 but it seemed like it might be a stretch. Mile one was sub-7:30. Crap - I'm going out way too fast...slow down, don't blow it. Miles 2 and 3 were around the same pace. That's when I realized that I didn't FEEL as fast as I was going. It was comfortable...well, let's just say it wasn't killing me. I stopped looking at my watch and just ran on feel. Around mile 9 I felt myself slowing down a little and had to push a little for the first time in the race. I finished with a 1:41...a PR by 19 minutes! If you've been doing treadmill tempo runs in addition to the long runs then I'm guessing you'll find lots of race day speed! |
2010-04-08 12:06 PM in reply to: #2776224 |
Expert 1087 Portland | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator I have my first HM coming up on Saturday (getting pretty pumped). I'm a little nervouse about trying to hit my goal time though. HOWEVER, I do have a twinge of confidence because in a 12 mile run I did several weeks ago I pushed it a bit and managed to come in averaging SLIGHTLY faster than my goal time pace. This helped build my confidence that I can do it. Its going to hurt, you have to understand that, but just remember the pain IS temporary. I have a similar plan to what most have outlined here. I KNOW the first mile will be fast (they always are at races), but I plan to hold my goal time pace (even if I feel fine). with 2-3 miles left I'll evaluate what's happening and kick it in from there. I would suggest pushing (towards the end of a long run) your goal pace for 5-6 miles and see how you feel. You'll start to feel that pain but then you'll learn that it WILL go away. |
2010-04-08 12:09 PM in reply to: #2776224 |
Master 1678 Olney, MD | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator I never race with a Garmin and only, occasionally, glance at my watch for this reason. In training, if I try and run at a HM pace, I'm really out of breath and can only hold it for a short period of time. Somehow on race day, it all comes together and I'm always surprised by what I can do. If I tried to race, while constantly checking my splits and monitoring my pace, I'm not sure what would happen.... probably mentally self destruct. Looking at your logs, I think you are going to hit your goal time. Good luck!! |
|
2010-04-08 12:36 PM in reply to: #2776224 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator As some have alluded to, those calculators are pretty good "assuming you're properly trained for the distance". And they don't operate by plugging in a goal pace and then seeing if you can hit the training paces it spits out. You use a race result and then train at the paces suggested by that result. I glanced at your logs and, while I have no doubt you will do fine in a half marathon, it would be a stretch to expect to hit a pace calculated from a shorter distance given your mileage. But, that does not appear to be how you are using the calculator. And, given the paces you have run in training, your goal pace does not appear outlandish. So I agree with Scout. Expect it to be "uncomfortable" and just run with it. See what happens! Good luck! |
2010-04-08 4:24 PM in reply to: #2776224 |
Master 1655 NJ | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator Thanks for all the help - I have been doing speedwork 1x a week on the t-mill but sometimes get lazy about logging it. Usually 10min. wu - either 4' at about 7.2 on t-mill and 2' at 6.0 5x thru or I'll do 3-4 miles at between 6.8 to 7.0 after a mile wu at 6.0. On the t-mill Im fine but to do that outside on a track it's hard for me to keep an even pace. I just started using my garmin 205 again. It's like a small carry on attached to my wrist and I'm constantly looking at it playing mind games w/ myself so I will not be wearing it for the race. My best HM time was about 2:06 10 yrs. ago - I just figured 2 hrs. would be a challenging goal but hopefully attainable. Im glad so many have mentioned how the voices will be begging me to stop and slow down..gotta keep them quiet and focus... |
2010-04-09 10:50 AM in reply to: #2776224 |
Expert 938 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator considering you'll be about 12 minutes faster than me, save me a beer will ya'? Running my first 2hr run of the year this weekend...should be fun! |
2010-04-09 11:56 AM in reply to: #2776224 |
Master 2460 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator The Mcmillan calculators have been extensively examined on runners/marathoners forums. They seem to work fairly well with the big IF you have put in the requisite mileage for the race distance. The longer the race, the more the calculator "overpredicts" - apparently, the calculator works best (or was based) on runners who trained 70 miles per week of running. That's a lot of running. When I ran 80+ miles per week, all the Mcmillan times from 5k to HM lined up perfectly. The marathon, however, was still an overconfident prediction. For BT triathletes who are usually running under 25 (often under 20) miles per week, you really can't reliably use the Mcmillan calculator, or at best use it as a "best-case" scenario given perfect conditions and a flat/downhill course assist. |
2010-04-09 12:00 PM in reply to: #2780342 |
Expert 1091 St. Paul, MN | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator agarose2000 - 2010-04-09 11:56 AM The Mcmillan calculators have been extensively examined on runners/marathoners forums. They seem to work fairly well with the big IF you have put in the requisite mileage for the race distance. The longer the race, the more the calculator "overpredicts" - apparently, the calculator works best (or was based) on runners who trained 70 miles per week of running. That's a lot of running. When I ran 80+ miles per week, all the Mcmillan times from 5k to HM lined up perfectly. The marathon, however, was still an overconfident prediction. For BT triathletes who are usually running under 25 (often under 20) miles per week, you really can't reliably use the Mcmillan calculator, or at best use it as a "best-case" scenario given perfect conditions and a flat/downhill course assist. I TOTALLY believe this! That all makes complete sense to me. Agarose, where did you find this data? Do you remember? Again, it's not that I don't trust it, but I'd like to show a friend these thoughts! Thanks! |
|
2010-04-09 12:30 PM in reply to: #2780360 |
Master 2460 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator Sorry - I don't have the exact link onhand, but I was a die-hard marathoner for 3 years prior to triathlon, and the Mcmillan calculator was debated EVERY DAY on those forums. In fact, nearly daily, one most common laments on the marathon forums is by first-second timers crying "Why am I 20-30 minutes slower than my McMillan estimate?" The "based on 70mpw runners" was frequently cited, by very reliable and knowledgable veteran runners. Even better, the results were confirmed amongst about 50 of us over 2-3 years who jumped onto the sub 3:10 goal team thread, where we shared our training and results. Those doing 70+mpw came close (but still often didn't hit the Mcmillan goal.) Very few people hit their Mcmillan estimates for the marathon if it was based off a 5k/10k PR. <25% for sure, and the ones that did were mostly on downhill courses like CIM or St George which are not even allowed to be used as Olympic qualifier because the times are so skewed fast by the downhill. It definitely seemed to work much better for runners doing 70+mpw. I honestly can't remember anyone who beat their Mcmillan estimate on a roller-hill type course like San Francisco. |
2010-04-09 12:33 PM in reply to: #2780091 |
Master 1655 NJ | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator kagoscuba - 2010-04-09 11:50 AM considering you'll be about 12 minutes faster than me, save me a beer will ya'? Running my first 2hr run of the year this weekend...should be fun! Thanks for posting - I was gonna have some chocolate milk on hand for ya (although you're looking quite fast in your logs so dunno about who's getting drinks for who) |
2010-04-09 12:35 PM in reply to: #2776224 |
Member 281 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator I think the Mcmillan calculator works. Times for races in 2009 5K 17:03 8K 28:15 10K 35:20 1/2 Mary 1:18:51 The times are very close to Mcmillan predicted times. Total running miles in 2009 1223 for average of 23.5 per week. Race weight around 158 lbs. I don't plan on getting any results for the marathon but believe it would work at the 26.2 mile distance also. |
2010-04-09 3:25 PM in reply to: #2780477 |
Expert 618 | Subject: RE: Half Mary time - based on mcmillan running calculator I also have had relatively good success with McMillan - up to the marathon that is. But then again I have only REALLY trained at the correct level to hit the "proposed" time it says for me once and then I got the flu right before the goal race so had to drop out before I could find out what I was really capable of for the distance. At that time I was averaging around 50+ miles a week and all the rest of my times were in line across the board. |
|