Donald, is that you?

Kg -- Kelvin grams? You're probably very cold and very light.

I'll play. Did my last marathon last year (actually only second one ever). Age 62, 160 lbs = 222. Actually did 3:45, so pretty close. Given I did that on my usual lame 20-25 mpw tri training with only a couple of ~30 mile weeks thrown in, maybe I'd have beaten the calculator if I'd done real marathon training. I'm actually planning to do that this winter for Boston, we'll see if I can beat this Slowtwitch Super Scientific Marathon Calculator time!

I must admit I am astounded at my Intuitive Mathematical Insight on this important and not nearly as well researched avenue of science as some believe, I think it may have valid application in politics. Considering I failed "O" Level math in England some 50+ years ago (for the English amongst us) this is a form of redemption.

:0)


Next bike and swim predictors...don't hold your breath.

Here's a few variables factors that I would like to know:

Just curious to see the impact of predict performance base on Daniels formula,
What's your height?
Current best 5km? What was the temperature?
Temperature you will be racing in?

Not even close for me:

176 lbs + 40 yrs old = 216 or 3:36

Ran a 2:46 last December and hoping for about the same in a few weeks.

So that would be a minus 50.

I did suggest earlier on that those who actually train, and that means over a 100 miles a month (if you do that in a week for example) will skew the results.

I'll bet you train.

:P)

55+185=240 is 4 hours.

I did 2 IMs this year with Marathons of 3:37 and 3:36.
I estimate I do a marathon solo in 3:10 (did that 6 years ago for the last time: this year a half marathon in 1:30.)

So the formula does not apply to me in the faintest sense.

End of thread

Love it, but it doesn't go to 68 :0(

phog wrote:

Love it, but it doesn't go to 68 :0(

That's because the behavior changes after 60 :-p

37 + 138 = 175 = 2:55 Ran 2:40 a couple of weeks ago, so not quite right.

My son, 1 + ~20 = 21, I think that's a bit low for someone who hasn't quite mastered walking yet :D

Cheers, Rich

Doesn't go to "11" either, but that's a whole other thing

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

If you drive your son around 75mi/h you should cover those 26mi in 21 minutes just saying! Seems to work ;)

My last marathon was in 2011.
52 + 175 = 227 for a 3:46
Actual was 3:44

Yeah, me too ;-)
29 + 120 = 149 min = 2:29

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Young supermodels and heroin addicts make awesome marathoners.

51 + 180 = 231 or 3:51. not quite. just ran 2 weeks ago and came in at 4:10

if i did run a 3:51, i would have beaten Ed Withlock 3:58 time. sadly, Ed is 34 years older than me

Chris Solinsky (past 10k AR holder) at his best: 161 + 25 = 3:04
Drew Barrymore (circa ET): 9 + 75 = 1:24
Fat Kid from StandbyMe: 100 + 11 = 1:51

35 + 190 = 225 (3 hours and 45 minutes) Seems legit for a 50k

---

_________________________________________________
When all is said and done. More is usually said than done
Ba Ba Booey

We (well you) may have to come up with some sort of scientific weighting to count for the female distaff.
All suggestions welcome, I used up all my scientific knowledge coming up with the first concept.

Although I did have the idea that as the average male is 1.3 times the average female in height (give or take) that for the same number of strides a man would travel at least 1.3 further, so multiply your age plus weight by 1.3 to make it fair (yeah right).

Of course if you are less than 5'4" you could add a smidgeon more (that's a scientific smidgeon).

:0)