The New McMillan Running Calculator

50k, 50mi, 100k, 100mi added. Also, instead of "middle" and "long" distance, it's now "speedster" and "endurance monster." At the bottom of the page, says it'll be adding age/weight/gender variables soon.

Or am I way late on all this?

I saw the same changes the other day too. I also noticed a "current time" and a "goal time" but it only seems to calculate the times on just the "current time" and not some kind of combination of the two, which is what you would think it would do if you had both times. However, the "goal time" could be for another purpose and I haven't figured it out.

Joel H wrote:I saw the same changes the other day too. I also noticed a "current time" and a "goal time" but it only seems to calculate the times on just the "current time" and not some kind of combination of the two, which is what you would think it would do if you had both times. However, the "goal time" could be for another purpose and I haven't figured it out.

Perhaps he has the current time and goal time to emphasize that fact that your training paces should be based on your current times.

T Miller wrote:

Joel H wrote:I saw the same changes the other day too. I also noticed a "current time" and a "goal time" but it only seems to calculate the times on just the "current time" and not some kind of combination of the two, which is what you would think it would do if you had both times. However, the "goal time" could be for another purpose and I haven't figured it out.

Perhaps he has the current time and goal time to emphasize that fact that your training paces should be based on your current times.

I get exactly what you are saying but why have both of them required (little red star) if the goal time doesn't do anything? From a technical standpoint it doesn't make any sense to have both fields required if one of them isn't going to do anything to the formula. Plus it seems to be confusing to the end user (at least to this end user) why it is on there if it doesn't do anything.

I think the paces changed. I believe the long run pace started at MP+30, now it starts at about MP+5 to 7.

Alex Kubacki wrote:I think the paces changed. I believe the long run pace started at MP+30, now it starts at about MP+5 to 7.

Crud, you are right! I have been living off of the old one for years and have it printed out and I just compared it to the new calculator. There used to only be a 30 second range for the recovery runs and now there is over 40 seconds with faster pace being "OK" as the addition. Long run pace was also made a little faster and a wider range and easy run pace expanded from a tight range of 30 seconds to 60 seconds ranging from just over MP to the fast end of recovery pace.

The stamina workouts (steady state and tempo) paces were not changed too much and the speed/sprint workouts were just slightly altered, all to make them faster.

Here's what's REALLY weird....the equivalents are different.

The 5k is exactly the same as it was, the half marathon on the new calculator is 11 seconds SLOWER but the 10 mile is 9 seconds FASTER. Wacky. We are not talking about big differences in pace (1 second per mile) but it is odd.

Summing it all up, it seems like the biggest material change is that the calculator now expanded the range of recommended training run paces to include faster stuff than it did before. Everything got slightly faster or simply became a larger range to include the faster stuff. Works for me. I've often had some long runs and many recovery runs that dipped just below his recommended paces (too fast) and now they would be comfortably in there.

I'm in the same boat with my long/recovery runs. By the end of a good cycle, they're about 15-20 seconds faster than at the beginning. Actually, all my paces are.

Speaking of the equivalents, the ultra distances are way too slow. Way, way too slow.

Who cares? McMillian is for amateurs.

Wow, I was about to post here on this same topic. I went to the site yesterday and printed paces, and they seemed definitely faster than last time I generated a list. In fact, some of the times seemed intimidating. I wonder if he's gotten feedback that people weren't making their target times using the training paces, so he made the paces more aggressive?

Mike MacLellan wrote:I'm in the same boat with my long/recovery runs. By the end of a good cycle, they're about 15-20 seconds faster than at the beginning. Actually, all my paces are.

Speaking of the equivalents, the ultra distances are way too slow. Way, way too slow.

Not sure if I agree with you about the ultra paces and equivalents being way to slow. It looks like the paces are 10 seconds slower for the training runs then marathon time for the 50 mile distance from an eyes glance. Which would make sense to me due to the distance is more about endurance than vo2max or speed.

As for the equivalents if they are based off of running a 50 miler on roads maybe it could be debatable but as for running on trails, hills or mountains I would almost think the times could be a little aggressive. Example my marathon PR he says would be equal to running 6:14 for 50 miles. Do I think I can do that sure but look at last year running JFK through the AP trail I ran 7:45. Sure if I was running the Chicago Lakefront 50 miler I don't think without a question I could run 6:14. So I would like to know more about what those times are based off. I will see if I can get some answers from Andrew about what they are basing that off.

That's a good point, Schuey. I meant roads. Especially the 100km/100mi distances. Super slow.

I just got the McMillan newsletter and it said this about the faster paces and changes in ranges for paces:

You'll also notice that we've widened the Recovery Run, Long Run and Easy Run pace ranges. We found that runners who wear speed/distance monitors were forcing themselves to jump right into the pace ranges whereas those who ran more by effort eased into the paces. So, we widened the range to better match what runners should do - start easy and gradually pick up the pace. Research and practical experience also taught us that while runners at the front of the pack did their easy runs slower than marathon pace, runners at the middle and back of the pack needed to spend more time at around marathon pace (or even slightly faster) so some runners will notice that their Endurance Workout paces should be a little faster.

Wow! My training times have drastically changed based on this new calculator. Using my half marathon PR of 1:56:47, it orginally predicted a marathon of 4:06:18 (9:25min/mi) and my old paces were given to be:
Recovery Jogs 10:55-11:25
Long Runs 9:55-10:55
Easy Runs 9:55-10:25
Tempo 8:33-8:55.

Now I am given a marathon time of 4:05:46 (9:23min/mi) with training paces:
Recovery Jogs 10:20-11:06
Long Runs 9:18-10:35
Easy Runs 9:16-10:13
Tempo 8:22-8:36.

After the race where I PR'd my half marathon time, I got cocky and started running all my training runs too fast, which were almost in line with his new recommend training paces. I got myself into trouble with some ITBS and learned to hard way to SLOW DOWN. I have returned to watching my pace and running paces more in line with his original calculator. Maybe this new calculator is good for speedy runners and seasoned, well-experienced quasi-elite runners, but this new calculator will spell nothing but trouble for me. I wish he had never messed with it.

I kind of agree, Stephanie. Those "easy" runs are way too fast for me to think they're easy (for a 2:56:30 marathon), but a 6:45 pace feels perfect as MP. Maybe these new paces are better suited for when you're approaching the end of a training cycle.

Mike MacLellan wrote:I kind of agree, Stephanie. Those "easy" runs are way too fast for me to think they're easy (for a 2:56:30 marathon), but a 6:45 pace feels perfect as MP. Maybe these new paces are better suited for when you're approaching the end of a training cycle.

I have never found Greg's "Easy" runs to be "easy," so I think that becomes a matter of subjectivity in terms of what is "easy." But, throughout the 4 cycles I've done following McMillan plans and paces, I have found that I've been able to do his "Easy" Runs within his published ranges and within the intended 75% to 80% of Max HR, and equivelent to other coaches' "General Aerobic Runs" in terms of both pace and effort.

I'm finding the times in this new Calculator to be much better aligned with my training paces and race paces. For example if I put in 2:59:59 as my goal marathon time (my "A" goal the past two marathons that wasn't realized due to weather, but certainly what I was training towards), I get a 5K equivalent of 18:27 (my PR is 18:26) and a half of 1:25:31 (my PR is 1:25:43). As for training paces, as a McMilllan client, I'd have no issue with maintaining long runs in the range of 7:06 - 8:18 (usually in the range of 7:45 - 8:15 but with some Fast Finish Miles as low as 6:25), Easy Runs of 7:00 - 8:00 (usually in the range of 7:15 - 7:30), Steady State Runs of 6:26 - 6:45 (usually in the range of 6:30 - 6:45) or Tempo Runs of 6:12 - 6:27 (usually in the range of 6:15 - 6:25).

Does the Calculator make more sense if we take into account that the primary intent of the Calculator is to determine target training paces for Greg's clients, meaning that they have bought into Greg's intended training philosophy?

Mike MacLellan wrote:I kind of agree, Stephanie. Those "easy" runs are way too fast for me to think they're easy (for a 2:56:30 marathon), but a 6:45 pace feels perfect as MP. Maybe these new paces are better suited for when you're approaching the end of a training cycle.

Oh yes maybe that's a good way to approach these paces. It was just such a nice calculator to use even as a novice runner but now I'll have to be careful using it.

Martin VW wrote:Does the Calculator make more sense if we take into account that the primary intent of the Calculator is to determine target training paces for Greg's clients, meaning that they have bought into Greg's intended training philosophy?

Seems like a reasonable assumption to me. I am definitely not ready to be one of 'Greg's clients' just yet so maybe down the road this will be the perfect tool.

I wonder if they've gotten feedback, as many here have mentioned, that the using it as a predictor doesn't work well. So he made the paces faster across the board to help people be able to make the predicted times more often, if they use those paces.