|
Mar 2022
10:27am, 21 Mar 2022
22,281 posts
|
Bazoaxe
SPR - pretty sure I often did but not always. i.e. tanda would suggest 3:10 ish when I was running low 3:0x times.
I know though that my average running speed is slower than most others but that seems to work for me. Or used to.
I am starting to wonder how much of an impact my cycle commute had on my running and I suspect it had a bigger impact than I realised as thats the main difference in my training right now.
|
|
Mar 2022
10:44am, 21 Mar 2022
17,411 posts
|
larkim
Just realised Tanda is penultimate 8 of the last 9 weeks of training, so the prediction isn't set in stone just yet. Probably will end up as a 3:10 prediction which makes me smile as my first ever race was a 1:35 half; 11 years later running that race and then the same again on the one hand feels good and on the other feels unimpressive!!
|
|
Mar 2022
10:53am, 21 Mar 2022
850 posts
|
Rog T
Tanda figures didn't predict too well for me on my marathons. 2015 suggested about 3:35 (i targetted 3:30) and got 3:27 and 2019 suggested 3:15 and I got 2:57.
|
|
Mar 2022
10:57am, 21 Mar 2022
1,995 posts
|
Brunski
I've never really bought into Tanda, and how you record your running can have a big impact, for instance something like including floats/recoveries in your sessions can bring the pace right down and make a set of 4 x mile repeats at 5:30s look like a 5 mile run at 6:20s. Similar with hills, I don't think Tanda distinguishes between running 500ft of elevation a month against running 4,000ft.
My Tanda says I'm in 2:58 shape, if I were to taper and run a marathon a week on Sunday I'd be disappointed with that.
|
|
Mar 2022
11:00am, 21 Mar 2022
1,996 posts
|
Brunski
*the 2:58 would be disappointing rather than a surprise. I'd probably overestimate fitness and run too fast (as usual), so Tanda may end up in the right ballpark 😬😂
|
|
Mar 2022
11:01am, 21 Mar 2022
36,474 posts
|
SPR
Larkim - Been discussed previously. Tanda might give decent predictions if your training is built on the training used to build the Tanda formula. If you're going to use it to decide to run faster indiscriminately just to get a better prediction it likely won't.
Training is more complicated than an average pace and volume.
I think most would have said 3:10 is reasonable for you without Tanda. Fine if that gives you the confidence to go for it. You've not games things and Tanda seems to be based on a P&D type schedule so should work fine.
|
|
Mar 2022
11:20am, 21 Mar 2022
12,212 posts
|
jda
I've generally beaten Tanda by 20-30 mins, I would be disappointed by that this time (predicted: 3:37!) but that's because a fair chunk of my training has been on the bike and also I haven't registered all the treadmill running. So mileage (on the fetch calculator) is unrealistically low. But even bumping it up to a more representative value, the prediction is nonsense for me.
|
|
Mar 2022
11:45am, 21 Mar 2022
1,486 posts
|
Daz Love
Just had a look at Tanda for mine
Marathon Date Eight week distance (mi) Training pace (min/mi) Prediction Outcome
Milton Keynes Marathon 4th May 2015 221.7 7:19 3:15:05 3:10:31
London Marathon 23rd Apr 2017 222.1 7:54 3:23:29 3:44:14
5 mins better on first one
Went out too hard on the 2nd one and paid for it, I tried to run a 3:10ish again when I was not in that shape and come a cropper!!
|
|
Mar 2022
12:04pm, 21 Mar 2022
17,412 posts
|
larkim
Larkim - Been discussed previously. Tanda might give decent predictions if your training is built on the training used to build the Tanda formula.
I don't think that's quite right - the formula was an output one and doesn't prescribe training; they input training and race outcomes for runners and identified a "best fit" algorithm based on what that told them. It was never intended to guide how to do training (though I will admit I've posited that in the past).
The inverse as a thought process is that if x miles at y pace = z outcome as a prediction, does that mean that if I plan x+n miles and +/-y pace does that mean z1 pace will pop out of the sausage machine. I agree that that thinking process is flawed.
Tanda does distill things down to a simple pace and volume formula, and that is clearly imprecise, but the purpose of the formula isn't to write off different approaches to training (e.g. jda's observation about bike training for example, or Baz's approach of volume miles which are slower than P&D might prescribe), it's just to say that in a bell curve view of these things, there is a tendency that suggest that a combo of volume and pace are very substantial part of what will turn out a race outcome, which I'd have thought was pretty unarguable. A plan of 60mpw with varying paces from 5k through to MP+10-30% will get most people into a decent marathon shape, and maybe create a window of 10 minutes of likely outcome achievement for 80% of participants. Or something like that.
|
|
Mar 2022
12:29pm, 21 Mar 2022
36,475 posts
|
SPR
Larkim - They took a bunch of runners, likely on similar schedules.
I think those last couple of sentences are optimistic.
|
RW sub3/3.15
Jan 2025