Running Renaissance: One Skip Ahead of my Doom

[DopeyBadger]

I haven't used the marathon predictor you posted, but this one from fivethirtyeight has been weirdly accurate for me over the years.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/marathon-calculator/

That's the Vickers calculator:

A New Race Predictor developed by Vickers: My analysis of the paper

The short of it was that there are a lot of flaws in the design of their study and thus the calculator can be wonky.

Here's 538's writeup (link).

What was your typical weekly mileage leading up to this race?

An interesting and very loaded question in my mind. What does typical mean? Average, presumably. But for how long prior to the desired race distance? 5 weeks, 6 weeks, 10 weeks? There is no guidance to say everyone answered this question the same. How is the mileage divided up amongst the week? Does that matter? I'd argue yes, but that isn't captured here. So someone who runs 7 days a week totaling 50 miles, is the same as someone who runs one day a week at 50 miles. Obviously these aren't the same, but for this data set they would be.

I go through in the breakdown about the diminishing returns of the calculator as well.

I prefer the data from the Ian Williams paper.

Ian Williams: An Updated Race Equivalency Calculator Attempt

 

[SheHulk]

Ah funny! Looks like you did that writeup just as I made an account here. I actually did fill out that questionnaire so I am a datapoint in that paper! It was when I was just starting out and was really, really slow. Maybe that's why it's so accurate for me, it's modeled on me.

I don't remember having so much trouble answering the questionnaire as your writeup seems to assume someone would. The questions didn't seem tricky to me, but probably because I didn't do any speedwork so I didn't have to puzzle over whether I do more intervals, tempo, hills, etc. My training was very straightforward (and not enough).

The only bone I really have to pick with your writeup is about Strava as a better alternative for data input. I don't use Strava, but I would imagine if I did, I would not be putting any kind of notation into my runs re: whether I ran a race all out or not, or whether I was injured or not. So the data would be a mess and not worth modeling. Maybe other people are better at putting notes on their races/workouts and it wouldn't be so bad. But when someone consciously decides to provide data, and is instructed to only put in info where you ran the race for real, you know at least they put in their best effort on that day.

I do not remember reading your writeup at all, although I must have read it, because I didn't make an account here right away when I found the forum and just read for info.

 

[DopeyBadger]

The only bone I really have to pick with your writeup is about Strava as a better alternative for data input. I don't use Strava, but I would imagine if I did, I would not be putting any kind of notation into my runs re: whether I ran a race all out or not, or whether I was injured or not. So the data would be a mess and not worth modeling. Maybe other people are better at putting notes on their races/workouts and it wouldn't be so bad. But when someone consciously decides to provide data, and is instructed to only put in info where you ran the race for real, you know at least they put in their best effort on that day.

That's fair, but I believe Strava has an algorithm these days that analyzes all your training runs and can determine what is and isn't a race without you having to denote it. They then sell that data to researchers with that algorithm active. I'd have to dig to find where I read that.

 

[GollyGadget]

I pick the whole training cycle, like 16 weeks, which is about 30 mi/week on average for me

I used the average weekly mileage for my plan - about 46 mpw.

Do your plans change mileage as you get closer? If I were to take the whole 18 week mpw it would be 5 lower than the last 6 weeks. Which maybe isn't that big of a deal in the calculator, but becausr of the way the plan increases over time, I didn't think it made sense to include those earlier weeks. On the other hand, I see a lot of internet experts touting the importance of high mileage year round. I guess it all goes back to @DopeyBadger comments about how everyone could define it differently. Could be 52 or 5 or anywhere in between.

Yeah, that's weird. I tried putting in the 10M first too, and it gave me a 3:54 for just the 10M and a 4:02 again for both. So to summarize...

• 10K (48:47) alone: 3:52
• 10M (1:21:51) alone: 3:54
• 10K + 10M, in either order: 4:02

... huh?

That is definitely a head scratcher!

That's fair, but I believe Strava has an algorithm these days that analyzes all your training runs and can determine what is and isn't a race without you having to denote it. They then sell that data to researchers with that algorithm active. I'd have to dig to find where I read that.

They could use heart rate as a proxy for effort. They'd need to individualize this per runner, but it's pretty easy to tell that my easy run yesterday with a max hr 45 BPM fewer than my run today are two totally different effort levels.

As someone who looks at data daily for my job, user entered data is my worst nightmare. There's way too much human error for it to be reliable.

 

[SheHulk]

My plan increases for sure, but yeah basically I don't think it matters enough to the calculator to make a big difference. And if anything I'd rather get a conservative estimation.

My take on any race prediction calculators (warning: Boring soapboxing that I try to avoid around here):
Every study has problems, and, yes, user-entered data is definitely a problem. But to me, I'd prefer user-entered data with thousands of entries including many recreational runners (for my purposes) than an underpowered study (not enough entries) using only elites. And internet user entry is one way to get a LOT of regular people.
1) Runners, even recreational runners, are serious about their times, and less likely to enter lies or mistakes than the average person. Especially when they are voluntarily doing it for a research study rather than for a business, and it's anonymous so they won't get judged for their times. Not foolproof but better than normal internet entry.
2) Studies with not enough participants (underpowered) are basically worthless as we have sadly learned over the years, and
3) it's not my area of expertise, but I feel like elites just have so little in common with me, genetically or lifestyle, that I can't take away much about my performance from studies that focus on them. Yes, we have the same general physiology, so run more = better times, generally will hold, but trying to fit a curve to see where I land on it, when it was based on elite, or even D1 athlete info, probably isn't useful for me. All of that said, I'd love to see more studies on older athletes, there are so few, to see what curves look like for us. But there isn't enough even on all recreational runners so I don't see that happening.

Add to all this the fact that you are never going to get a prediction that is pinpoint perfect, you may stop to go to the bathroom, or even just not totally optimally fuel on the days before, who knows, and these calculators are mostly for fun. That said, the fivethirtyeight calculator is *way* more accurate for me than the Daniels or any of the others I have tried. By like a half hour in many cases. Again, I'm a middle aged lady so YMMV.

Sorry for hijacking your journal

 

[WillRunForPizza]

Do your plans change mileage as you get closer? If I were to take the whole 18 week mpw it would be 5 lower than the last 6 weeks. Which maybe isn't that big of a deal in the calculator, but becausr of the way the plan increases over time, I didn't think it made sense to include those earlier weeks. On the other hand, I see a lot of internet experts touting the importance of high mileage year round. I guess it all goes back to @DopeyBadger comments about how everyone could define it differently. Could be 52 or 5 or anywhere in between.

Not significantly. I started my mileage out a lot higher than many standard plans because I knew what I had done in the past and didn't have to do quite as much buildup as I did for my first marathon. So I mostly have 2 weeks of 50-something followed by a 40-something week throughout.

ETA: I did not include the marathon itself in my average, so with that added the average is close to 48. I don't think it makes much difference though.

 

[DopeyBadger]

That said, the fivethirtyeight calculator is *way* more accurate for me than the Daniels or any of the others I have tried. By like a half hour in many cases. Again, I'm a middle aged lady so YMMV.

No disagreement there. Many calculators overestimate marathon performance because most use a conversion around 1.06-1.08 when using the Riegel formula. Whereas the Vickers and Williams data sets show that the recreational runner average conversion is around a 1.15. That’s why I prefer my probability model based on Vickers and Williams. Instead of giving you one time, I give you the probability of all times across the board. What are some recent race times and I can tell you what my calculator spits out for comparison?

 

[GollyGadget]

My plan increases for sure, but yeah basically I don't think it matters enough to the calculator to make a big difference. And if anything I'd rather get a conservative estimation.

My take on any race prediction calculators (warning: Boring soapboxing that I try to avoid around here):
Every study has problems, and, yes, user-entered data is definitely a problem. But to me, I'd prefer user-entered data with thousands of entries including many recreational runners (for my purposes) than an underpowered study (not enough entries) using only elites. And internet user entry is one way to get a LOT of regular people.
1) Runners, even recreational runners, are serious about their times, and less likely to enter lies or mistakes than the average person. Especially when they are voluntarily doing it for a research study rather than for a business, and it's anonymous so they won't get judged for their times. Not foolproof but better than normal internet entry.
2) Studies with not enough participants (underpowered) are basically worthless as we have sadly learned over the years, and
3) it's not my area of expertise, but I feel like elites just have so little in common with me, genetically or lifestyle, that I can't take away much about my performance from studies that focus on them. Yes, we have the same general physiology, so run more = better times, generally will hold, but trying to fit a curve to see where I land on it, when it was based on elite, or even D1 athlete info, probably isn't useful for me. All of that said, I'd love to see more studies on older athletes, there are so few, to see what curves look like for us. But there isn't enough even on all recreational runners so I don't see that happening.

Add to all this the fact that you are never going to get a prediction that is pinpoint perfect, you may stop to go to the bathroom, or even just not totally optimally fuel on the days before, who knows, and these calculators are mostly for fun. That said, the fivethirtyeight calculator is *way* more accurate for me than the Daniels or any of the others I have tried. By like a half hour in many cases. Again, I'm a middle aged lady so YMMV.

Sorry for hijacking your journal

No apology needed. I enjoy the interaction. Also fully agree on your point about elites.

The popularity of fitness trackers makes it easy to gather data from us hobby joggers. Not that the trackers are perfect either, just less likely to transpose numbers or some other typo. I haven't had enough free time but I've always thought it would be a fun side quest to use the Strava API to compare training with race times across the population.

 

[GollyGadget]

I'm a middle aged lady

Umm... How old does one need to be to be considered middle-aged?

I’m 36 going on 76

 

[SheHulk]

No disagreement there. Many calculators overestimate marathon performance because most use a conversion around 1.06-1.08 when using the Riegel formula. Whereas the Vickers and Williams data sets show that the recreational runner average conversion is around a 1.15. That’s why I prefer my probability model based on Vickers and Williams. Instead of giving you one time, I give you the probability of all times across the board. What are some recent race times and I can tell you what my calculator spits out for comparison?

I *love* that you do this and think it is extremely wise

 

[SheHulk]

Umm... How old does one need to be to be considered middle-aged?

I’m 36 going on 76
View attachment 793456

Oh yes that is an early warning sign!
I am 52 and have been calling myself middle aged since about 40.

 

[striker1064]

That said, the fivethirtyeight calculator is *way* more accurate for me than the Daniels or any of the others I have tried. By like a half hour in many cases.

I totally buy this. VDOT says I'm a 3:41:58 marathoner. My chances of running that anytime soon are near zero. I'm far more likely to barely make the 4:01:44 from 538.

Umm... How old does one need to be to be considered middle-aged?

I’m 36 going on 76
View attachment 793456

I get the ones from Trader Joe's all the time! Although I'm a few years older than you, so maybe I'm not the best point of comparison. My kidneys are fabulous, though.

 

[GollyGadget]

I get the ones from Trader Joe's all the time!

I’m traveling for work this week and the hotel breakfast left a lot to be desired so this is what I could find at Walgreens.

 

[jmasgat]

Umm... How old does one need to be to be considered middle-aged?

I’m 36 going on 76
View attachment 793456

The answer is: when you start buying prunes (dried plums). But actually, I love dried plums, and Dorie Greesnspan has a great recipe for a Prune Armagnac Cake (which is intensely chocolately and moist)

And dried plums are a better form factor than the stewed prunes my mother used to eat back in the day.

 

[GollyGadget]

The answer is: when you start buying prunes (dried plums). But actually, I love dried plums, and Dorie Greesnspan has a great recipe for a Prune Armagnac Cake (which is intensely chocolately and moist)

And dried plums are a better form factor than the stewed prunes my mother used to eat back in the day.

I actually never had a plum until this summer and it was delicious! But now I can’t find them at any of my regular grocery stores which likely explains why I had never had one before. I’ll be on the lookout for prunes now that I know what they are

 

[RuntheMouse]

I actually never had a plum until this summer and it was delicious! But now I can’t find them at any of my regular grocery stores which likely explains why I had never had one before. I’ll be on the lookout for prunes now that I know what they are

Wait…..what? NEVER?

Well now that you know you like them, also look for Pluots or Plumcots in the store. Apricot/Plum hybrid. Those are incredible! I know I’ve bought them at HyVee.

 

[GollyGadget]

Wait…..what? NEVER?

Well now that you know you like them, also look for Pluots or Plumcots in the store. Apricot/Plum hybrid. Those are incredible! I know I’ve bought them at HyVee.

Yeah, we stopped in Whole Foods a month or so ago and i randomly bought a box of plums but now I can’t find them at my regular hyvees. I went to a different Hyvee last weekend after volunteering at the zoo and was very excited to find plums there but they are not nearly as good. I did see the plumcots but was too scared to try them . I used dried apricots as race fuel one year and haven’t liked them since.

 

[GollyGadget]

Marathon Training Week 2/18

The second thing I’m looking forward to during marathon weekend is a pool party with my niece and nephew! This past year, I got the pleasure of being their supervising adult while their parents went to dinner. I live quite far away and only see them a couple of times a year so it’s always fun to have some together time. Throw in the magic of a pool at wdw and what more does one need? Fortunately those pools are heated

11 Sept - 6 miles
Running wise, this felt really good. It’s hopping insect season though and I could do with fewer crickets landing on me while I run. My legs were still tired from the strength training on Friday so I did a quick 10 min routine instead of 20 again. Plus I did 15 squats at Girls on the Run and another mile and a half off run/walk

12 Sept - 12x400
This was my first paced workout since early June and I was a bit nervous if I’d be able to run fast. My first two intervals started out waaay too quick and I had to throw on the brakes mid interval to get the pace in range. Goal was 1:50 per rep and I ended up with 1:50, 1:53, 1:51, 1:48, 1:52, 1:49, 1:51, 1:52, 1:51, 1:53, 1:50 & 1:43. I was definitely pushing at the end but pretty good pacing for my first go at it. The only bad part of this workout was that my right hip was extra grumpy afterward. I’m sure the 6 hour drive immediately following did not help. On the bright side, it feels like fall and it’s beautiful out.


13 Sept
A well earned rest day. Since my hip was grumpy, I did a 20 min yoga routine and that was an excellent way to start my day.

14 Sept - 6 miles
I am not a morning runner but my schedule this week dictated that I become one. The weather was amazing and I explored this cute little arboretum near the University of Illinois.


15 Sept - 6 miles
It took me a bit to get going, I blame the morning, but the run felt good and I was happy to be back on my favorite elevated trail in Chicago


16 Sept - 6 miles
Just a nice slow and steady run. I didn’t have time to do my strength on Friday so I snuck in a 10 min glute workout.

17 Sept - 8 miles
You know you’re following a Hanson plan when the Sunday “long” run day isn’t the longest run of the week. I went nearly 9.5 on Tuesday with the warm up and cool down. It was pouring down rain when I woke up and the rain just sat on top of us for a while. Eventually I just had to get going even with a little rain. The rain cleared pretty quick and it got humid just as quick. There were lots of other folks out running and I was happy to “only” run 8 miles. I’m guessing many of the others were in the thick of Chicago Marathon training.

Week 2 is in the books, 41.7 miles.

My runalyze marathon prediction changed. All three numbers went down. I find it kind of odd that the percentage dropped but their calculation expects 45 mpw and I didn’t quite hit that mark. It also expects an 18+ mile long run so I’m not sure how high I’ll actually get. I’m mostly hoping the prognosis drops to something sub 4 and more realistic as my training progresses.

 

[azrivest]

Those are some beautiful pictures.

And I mean a 1:42 Half prediction... Don't worry about being fast

 

[GollyGadget]

And I mean a 1:42 Half prediction... Don't worry about being fast

I hadn’t even looked at the half prediction . Would be a massive pr if I can pull that off. I have a hm in 4 weeks so we’ll know then how much faith to put into this calculator.