I can think of a couple people who frequent this blog that are going to totally disagree with me. In fact, one that I can think of is actually doing a custom plan by McMillan himself. But, his math just doesn't quite work for me.
My contention is that I'm a better short distance runner. I'm built better for it. Or perhaps, I'm not built well for long distance. Others will tell you that you need to "train for the distance". I think that is a funny statement. It seems to imply that I am doing 5k training to run a half marathon. Huh? Really? I'm totally not doing that. I train for the distance.
Also, I'm totally willing to concede the full marathon as a distance I have not trained "well" for yet. So, throw that result out. But, in looking back at my half marathon during my full marathon training (read: trained for the distance), I ran a 1:54:55. If you plug that into McMillan, it gives you a 5k equivalent of 24:52. At that point (in fact well before that), I had already run a 23:15. Well ahead of the equivalent performance.
So, what gives? I don't know. Am I just not at a point where my running has been consistent enough to fall in a good range for McMillan's calculator? Or, am I on to something? Could some people be freaks (read: me)? If you know me at all, you know that I'm a freak. So, that's a definite possibility.
So, what do you think? Am I crazy? Let me first say that I love the calculator. I just wish the results were more consistent for me. Or, I was more consistent for the results.