Take one of your personal records and see what you can run on other distances. The table on this page makes it possible, also for distances that you run only in training. Every distance can be taken as base, so it is possible to start with your record on 100 m and see what you can run on 100 km - but that of course is silly. More inaccuracies are possible, therefore the following remarks:
1 You get the best results with distances that are close to each other.
2 Sprinters get too optimistic times for long distances.
3 For distance runners it is the reverse: the table will give too optimistic times for short distances.
4 In general: everyone is most talented and best trained for a limited range of distances; for both shorter and longer distances the table gives too optimistic results.
5 Accuracy is pretty good, but for women distances above 100 km are too pessimistic.

Background and use
Thise table follows from my comparison of running records. You can take every distance as a base, but to make it more easy I have already chosen some common distances: 100, 800, 3000, 10000 and marathon. When I for example want to know what I can do on 1500 m, than I have to look in the column for 800 and I see that 1500 takes 2.07069 as long. That is: when I am equally talented for both distances and when I have trained for both.
To start with my time on 200 m I can make an estimate for 10 km. Both are in column 800. By dividing 15.73829 (10 km) through 0.18892 (200 m) I get the proportion of these two distances. It is 83.3066. Because I do not train for long distances the time found, 41 minutes, is much too optimistic.
Sillier it is to go from 100 m to 100 km. You can find it in the blue part of column 100: 2215.11737. For me that would mean a running time of more than nine hours, but some more hours should be added!

Weia Reinboud (weiatletiek (@) (More on athletics here.)

[graph as picture]