Maybe it's a coincidence, but do you notice a resemblance in the following two photos?
|It's gotta be the shoes.|
(Photo credit: Xaarlin)
Pete uses the McMillan calculator to predict his running times. In several instances, the results have been scary accurate. For example, it predicted his 1-mile racing time would be 5:07, and last weekend he clocked a 5:08 (read his recap here).
Three years ago, I wrote this post about racing predictors. In summary, my racing times are comparatively stronger at shorter distances. All of the predictors consistently indicate that I should be able to run the longer distances much faster than I do.
Given Pete's success with McMillan, I decided to take another look at what it would predict for me. I entered a 5K time of 25:35, which is my most recent PR. Here are the results:
While in general these predictors make my eyes bulge, it made me start thinking about how I run with expectations. During my long training runs, no matter how slow the pace, I frequently get tired around the 80% completion mark. It makes me wonder what would happen if I did attempt paces closer to these predictor levels. Would it simply lead to the age-old tradition of fizzling out from starting too fast? Or is that part of the fundamental mental block, too?
Amanda!!!). While it would be cool for me to go for broke and miraculously nail the predicted time, I know the practical answer is that I should try to train closer to the predicted levels. The point is that the predictor indicates that I likely have the capability - with the right preparation.
Maybe even with adequate training, I still can't nail a sub-2. But at the very least, there's a big difference between sub-2:10 and sub-2 that could probably be narrowed, right? Any and all progress would still be terrific.
Inaugurally linking up with Annmarie, Michelle, Nicole, and Jen for Wild Workout Wednesday.