POT (Proof of Time) Race Equivalency Cutoff Confirmed Times

Hey guys! I know I’ve been gone forever! I haven’t run a race since Star Wars last year and we walked that one.
You'll think I'm crazy but I was *just* thinking about you and how you haven't been posting! I met you and I think your daughter at Star wars 2019. I'm glad to see you back! I don't have an answer to your question I just wanted to say hi :flower1:
 
You'll think I'm crazy but I was *just* thinking about you and how you haven't been posting! I met you and I think your daughter at Star wars 2019. I'm glad to see you back! I don't have an answer to your question I just wanted to say hi :flower1:
Thanks! Yes we did meet! :) I haven’t been running at all so just felt guilty when coming on here lol! Hopefully I can get back at it soon! :wave:
 
So from what I’m seeing, runDisney is just trusting everyone to input a correct finish estimate? Can you even put in a POT if it’s slower than 2:30? And I have to trust them to put me in the 6:00 corral if I put that as my estimate?

Good to see you around here again @Dis5150!

If you choose an estimated finish for the Disney Marathon (or Goofy/Dopey) of 5:31-6:00, then it is presumed you will be placed in Corral F. Although, we have no idea how they may alter the POT + Corral system given the COVID19 virus. But if they do further spread things out, you'd still be placed in the same "placement" regardless of whatever letter is associated with your corral.

492350

When you register you'll see a question like the one below (this example is a HM but is still applicable as an example).

492351

You can see you have two choices for the first question - either faster than 2:30 (or 5:00 for a marathon) or slower than 2:30. If you choose slower than 2:30, then you aren't given the option of inputting a POT. You then simply choose an anticipated finish time from a drop down menu (see example below).

492352

What you choose on the anticipated finish time correlates directly with the corral that you will be placed in for the non-POT corrals.

If you choose an anticipated finish time faster than 2:30 (or 5:00 for marathon), and then input a POT that is significantly slower than the cutoffs, then it's up in the air where you would be placed. By choosing an anticipated finish time from the drop down instead (no POT), then you're virtually guaranteeing which non-POT corral you will be placed in.

Hope that helps!
 


It is always fun to look at these charts, even when I have no runDisney races planned. Thanks for maintaining them!
I ran a half-marathon last weekend on my long run and confirmed that, without pushing my easy pace, I am in the C corral. I am contemplating putting my next goal to be the B corral cutoff time.
 
For fun, I went to the runDisney website to see if they still had the policies around Proof of Time up. Now that everything is virtual, all references to proof of time have been taken down on the site. So naturally, I'm now speculating all the ways in which Disney could change the PoT rules post-Covid. I'm hoping they make the cut off slower (maybe back to 2:45 for the half) and extend the window. That way they can accurately place more of the field across corrals.
 
For fun, I went to the runDisney website to see if they still had the policies around Proof of Time up. Now that everything is virtual, all references to proof of time have been taken down on the site. So naturally, I'm now speculating all the ways in which Disney could change the PoT rules post-Covid. I'm hoping they make the cut off slower (maybe back to 2:45 for the half) and extend the window. That way they can accurately place more of the field across corrals.

It'll certainly be interesting. Wine and Dine 2020 was to be the first race with the new 2:30 HM cutoff, but it never happened. So it'll be interesting to see what changes they make moving forward. There were three marathon weekends since they moved to 8 corrals (A through H) in 2018. Corral E (or 2:30-2:45) always represented a small outlier from the corrals that sandwiched it when evaluating the % of bibs allocated to each corral. So I have a feeling as to why they made that choice.

Screen Shot 2020-12-17 at 8.23.34 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-12-17 at 8.23.42 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-12-17 at 8.23.50 AM.png

It's also interesting how the 2018 corrals distribution changes in 2019 and is held in 2020 when it comes to F, G, and H (non-POT corrals). My suspicion is if Wine and Dine 2020 had moved forward is that corral E (now non-POT for 2:30-2:45) would have grown in size from 7-10% to 30-35%. So it begs the question, where is a good place to put the non-POT cutoff. Is it 2:30, or 2:45, or even 3:00? If we're to assume that they will use mini-waves moving forward, such that while you may have a corral of 8000 people they're being released over a long duration of time that is equal to the same rate as a 2000 person corral, then I could see a justification for an even slower POT cutoff. There would be seemingly less and less POTs submitted from 2:15-2:30, 2:30-2:45, and then 2:45-3:00 based on the above distributions. Such that the increase in work would certainly be there, but we're probably talking about fewer people than are seen in even the previously small Corral E. And since the rate of release is being held constant throughout the race, person #20,000 will be released at the same time whether they are assigned corral E or G (hence the letter designation is irrelevant). So I feel like they should reward those with a 2:45-3:00 POT designation with a very slight headstart over those without a POT.

Now COVID-19 definitely throws a wrench into things, since the appropriate window for POT is up for debate. If it were me, I'd keep the same window as I had for Wine and Dine 2020. So that means I would accept all POTs going back as far as November 2018 (so a 3 year window). I feel like you're better off having something longer, than nothing. And if we're to assume racing was minimal from March 2020 through (unknown month?) 2021, then at least we have a decent 1.5 year window from November 2018 through March 2020. In the past, the POT window was about 22 months, and this proposal would have an 18 month window.

Now you'd have one segment of the population to worry about. Those newer runners without a HM qualifying POT between November 2018 through March 2020. If the POT designation has now moved to 3:00, then we're just asking for the runner to find a single 10k to occur between now and September 2021 with a fairly wide qualifying time pace window. I've got no idea how feasible that will be as we move forward into 2021. But I feel like a good portion of people that want to find a 10k before September 2021 will be able to. But I've got nothing but gut instinct to back that up.

So if it were me, I'd move the window to be November 2018 through September 2021, and move the cutoff to 3:00 hours for the POT submittable HM time.
 


Now you'd have one segment of the population to worry about. Those newer runners without a HM qualifying POT between November 2018 through March 2020. If the POT designation has now moved to 3:00, then we're just asking for the runner to find a single 10k to occur between now and September 2021 with a fairly wide qualifying time pace window. I've got no idea how feasible that will be as we move forward into 2021. But I feel like a good portion of people that want to find a 10k before September 2021 will be able to. But I've got nothing but gut instinct to back that up.

I actually had a local 10k last month that meets POT requirements where I got my sub-1:08 10k. I'd been training with your POT charts in mind so thanks for your research. Just gotta convert that into a sub-2:30 half when one comes up. Hoping for February... I realize I live in a state where things aren't really restricted but I'm optimistic that real races will be more prevalent by Sept 2021.
 
I actually had a local 10k last month that meets POT requirements where I got my sub-1:08 10k. I'd been training with your POT charts in mind so thanks for your research. Just gotta convert that into a sub-2:30 half when one comes up. Hoping for February... I realize I live in a state where things aren't really restricted but I'm optimistic that real races will be more prevalent by Sept 2021.

Congrats on the sub-68 10k! If runDisney keeps the same POT system, then I feel pretty confident about the 1:08 cutoff since it came directly from TrackShack.

I wrote this a few years ago, but feel the analysis is still relevant.

Ian Williams: An Updated Race Equivalency Calculator Attempt

Essentially your goal of a sub-2:30 HM is just a matter of being a good "converter". You have the necessary speed as evidenced by the sub-68 10k. So the above link goes through a data set determining what are the key factors for converting a HM time into a M performance. This is a 10k to HM, but I feel many of the principles learned from that dataset are still relevant.

-Do enough training (ideally between 5-7 hrs at a minimum) per week.
-Have the long runs not constitute an overwhelming majority of the weekly mileage or the training plan mileage. The 5 longest runs are around 10% of the plans total mileage. The weekly long run is usually in the 30% or less area for the total of the week.
-Your average weekly pace should be much much slower than your goal HM pace. So for instance a person training for a 2:30 HM, would have a weekly/monthly training pace around a 13:20 min/mile. Nearly 120 seconds/mile slower than goal HM pace. In order to accomplish this you'll meet the other principle of doing most of your training at slow paces as a proportion of the week.
-Lastly, follow a structured progressional training plan.

These things will amplify your chances of converting your 10k performance into your desired HM performance.
 
Congrats on the sub-68 10k! If runDisney keeps the same POT system, then I feel pretty confident about the 1:08 cutoff since it came directly from TrackShack.

I wrote this a few years ago, but feel the analysis is still relevant.

Ian Williams: An Updated Race Equivalency Calculator Attempt

Essentially your goal of a sub-2:30 HM is just a matter of being a good "converter". You have the necessary speed as evidenced by the sub-68 10k. So the above link goes through a data set determining what are the key factors for converting a HM time into a M performance. This is a 10k to HM, but I feel many of the principles learned from that dataset are still relevant.

-Do enough training (ideally between 5-7 hrs at a minimum) per week.
-Have the long runs not constitute an overwhelming majority of the weekly mileage or the training plan mileage. The 5 longest runs are around 10% of the plans total mileage. The weekly long run is usually in the 30% or less area for the total of the week.
-Your average weekly pace should be much much slower than your goal HM pace. So for instance a person training for a 2:30 HM, would have a weekly/monthly training pace around a 13:20 min/mile. Nearly 120 seconds/mile slower than goal HM pace. In order to accomplish this you'll meet the other principle of doing most of your training at slow paces as a proportion of the week.
-Lastly, follow a structured progressional training plan.

These things will amplify your chances of converting your 10k performance into your desired HM performance.

I have a question, why should your average weekly pace should be much much slower than your goal HM pace?

Thanks so much!
 
I have a question, why should your average weekly pace should be much much slower than your goal HM pace?

Thanks so much!

It's a fantastic question, and a really important one. It seems so counterintuitive, no? I'm suppose to train dramatically slower than my goal HM pace (or better yet my current fitness HM pace), and yet on race day, I'm going to be able to go significantly faster. In 2015, you would have also counted me as a skeptic before I took up this methodology of training.

Short answer - Easy runs build the physiological adaptations necessary for endurance running, allow you to do more training more often, keep you injury free more often, and thus more consistent with your training.

I've made a few posts on similar topics before that cover the general ideas:

Eureka! The Quintessential Running Post
Train slow to race fast: Why running more slowly and capping the long run at 2.5 hours may dramatically improve your performance
The Marathon is 99% Aerobic (and 95% for HM and so on): So how to train for it!

And my favorite resource (runners connect blog):

How Fast Should Your Easy Runs Be?
Why Running Harder Won’t Help You Get Faster
Are You Sabotaging Your Long Run by Running the Wrong Pace?
How to Know if You are Running Easy Enough on Your Recovery Days
How Running 80% Easy Could Make You 23% Faster
Jeff Galloway- Go Slow To Go Fast (podcast)
3 Simple Ways to Determine if You are Running Easy Enough: Matt Fitzgerald (podcast)
Hansons Easy Days

In its most basic form, a running training plan is meant to provide a "stimulus" to the body and mind. The "stimulus" depends on the type of training you do. You do speed training and you elicit the potential for changing your muscle fibers (can take years to make this transition). You do lactate threshold pace training and your ability to run a certain pace for about an hour becomes faster. You do a run in super hot conditions over many days and you're body thins out your blood so the blood can travel throughout the body easier and the heart doesn't have to work as hard. Running multiple days in a row causes your body to be in a state of mild fatigue which over time puts you at a different "starting position" for different runs (i.e. instead of starting at mile 1 for your long run, you're actually starting at mile 8, OR said another way if the fatigue build-up in your body is zero going into your long run you might never teach your body what it's like to run beyond your long run mileage **However, with that being said I still place a max of 2.5/4.5 hrs on training runs dependent on style**. It's why the Hansons plan can go to 16 miles max (for some people) and still enable you to be capable of completing a 26.2 mile race. I've personally had runners successfully run as little as 10 miles (150-180 min) and complete a marathon as expected when appropriately balanced with the rest of the week. These long runs allow you to stave off fatigue for longer.

All of these stimuli lead to an adaptation in the body in response to that stimulus (not everything is listed here as adaptations, but a short example)

Speed -> Fiber change
Lactate Threshold -> Fatigue Clearance and tolerance of fatigue
Hot/Humid Conditions -> Thinned out blood
Easy runs -> Increased capillaries
Long Runs -> Mitochondrial density and volume
Glycogen Depletion Training -> Use fat more readily as a fuel source

These stimuli are important. Because the adaptations to these stimuli mostly occur during the recovery portion of the training plan. So if you're constantly training too fast, you'll get stuck in a feedback loop of:

Stimulus -> Some recovery -> Stimulus -> Some recovery

Whereas the runner that does more slow running more often will see a feedback loop of:

Stimulus -> Recovery -> Adaptation -> Stimulus -> Recovery -> Adaptation

So, now think of everyone's pace spectrum. The universal truth is everyone has a VO2max. Everyone also has % VO2max that can be attributed to different race distances. When you train at different paces along the %VO2max spectrum it elicits different responses (like stated above) based on how you accomplish a workout. So to be a well-rounded runner you want to touch bases on a lot of different paces across the spectrum. This will allow you to elicit lots of different benefits on different days. As the race gets closer, you specialize towards your goal. All the while keeping the large majority (an often quoted value is 80%) easy.

So let's circle all the way back to the original question, why should your average pace be so much slower than your goal pace? Because a HM is about 95% aerobic and 5% anaerobic. So it's not a speed race, it's an endurance race. So how do you build endurance or the aerobic system? By providing a low level stimulus, lots of times. This low level stimulus will encourage the body to become more efficient at transporting oxygen, recruiting bone development, increase capillary density, and efficiency in glycogen storage/fat usage just to name a few. Beyond the benefits of the easy runs directly, they also indirectly boost the rest of your training. You're generally a lot less fatigued going into each run, such that you can run more often. And the research will back me up that in general the combination of your balanced running volume with the effort at which you do it will be a determining factor in performance. So if you try to run faster all the time, but then train less often, you won't reap as much benefits as running slower and more often. The primary driver for this discrepancy will be the occurrence of injuries. The slow/higher volume runner is probably (not definitely) going to see less injuries than the faster/lower volume runner (with fast and slow being relative to one's own fitness). This lack of injuries is going to enable the runner not only to reap more adaptations along the way in the training, but also be more consistent with the training over the long term. So over the course of months/years, the slow/high runner will likely (not definitely) end up at a better fitness level.

If you do some digging into the widely available training plans, you'll see that most modern day coaches follow this methodology. That includes Galloway, Fitzgerald, Hansons, Hal Higdon, McMillan, etc. Some do a better job of explaining it than others. But with a keen eye, you can see it's there for all of them. About the only one that comes to mind that is different is FIRST. But that's because FIRST also asks you to do cycling at an aerobic pace multiple times per week (cross-training). If you do FIRST without the cycling, then you won't be sufficiently prepared for your race. From my own personal experience of blending running with cycling, I've found that I need 2x cycling time to equal the same running time. So if I want to move from 10 hrs per week of running down to 5 hrs per week of running, I need ~10 hrs of additional cycling work to supplement my 5 hrs running. So that means run+cycle will take more time than just running alone to equal a certain running fitness level.

So how slow is slow enough? There are a lot of pace calculators out there:

https://lukehumphreyrunning.com/hmmcalculator/https://runsmartproject.com/calculator/https://www.mcmillanrunning.com/http://www.jeffgalloway.com/training/magic-mile/
In general they're going to give you a similar range for an individual fitness level. When I write training plans for others, I generally find the average weekly/monthly pace ends up being about 12% slower than estimated marathon tempo.

So a different question would be, can I train too slow? According to Tom Schwartz from TinMan training he has a dataset (not shared) that shows easy days can be as slow as 5 min/mile slower than 5k pace and still be beneficial as an easy day. Being 5 min/mile from 5k pace is pretty darn slow relatively speaking. So it leaves a fairly large window.

So does it work? Can you really train slow and race fast? I've been writing plans for just over 5 years now (just crossed 500) and over a wide spectrum of paces from sub-3 marathoners to sub-7 marathoners, the idea of train slow to race fast works. It's a fairly universal use idea for endurance running. From my own experience back in 2015:

I used a "PR the day" type mindset from when I started in 2012 through mid-2015. I went out and ran hard every day. If I wanted to be faster, I had to train at faster paces endlessly. So, in the 3 years prior to switching my mindset, this was my improvement progress. I did about 2700 miles in those 3 years, was never seriously injured and trained rather consistently.

5k – *35:00 to 23:36 (33% improvement)
10k – 51:45 to 49:49 (4% improvement)
HM – 2:01:00 to 1:49:24 (10% improvement)
M – 4:50:26 to 4:20:34 (10% improvement)

After 18 weeks of Hansons training with going slow, reducing the long run, increasing the training load and physiologically relevant pacing:

10k – 49:49 to 49:22 (1% improvement) *Occurred during the 2nd half of the marathon
HM – 1:49:24 to 1:46:00 (3% improvement) *Occurred during the 2nd half of the marathon
M – 4:20:34 to 3:38:53 (16% improvement)

After 27 weeks of Hansons training:

5k – 23:36 to 22:03 (7% improvement) **Occurred during the 2nd half of the half marathon
10k – 49:49 to 44:36 (10% improvement) **Occurred during the 2nd half of the half marathon
HM – 1:49:24 to 1:38:47 (10% improvement)
M – 4:20:34 to 3:38:53 (16% improvement)

So in the 3 years before the change in methodology, I cut off 11.5 min from my HM. After just 27 weeks, I cut another 10.75 min from my HM time.

After 3 years (7750 miles, but roughly the same timeframe) of going slow, reducing the long run, increasing the training load and physiologically relevant pacing:

5k - 23:36 to 19:27 (18% improvement)
10k - 49:49 to 39:54 (20% improvement)
HM - 1:49:24 to 1:30:35 (17% improvement)
M - 4:20:34 to 3:14:05 (26% improvement)

Hope that helps! And let me know if something needs a better explanation.
 
It's a fantastic question, and a really important one. It seems so counterintuitive, no? I'm suppose to train dramatically slower than my goal HM pace (or better yet my current fitness HM pace), and yet on race day, I'm going to be able to go significantly faster. In 2015, you would have also counted me as a skeptic before I took up this methodology of training.

Short answer - Easy runs build the physiological adaptations necessary for endurance running, allow you to do more training more often, keep you injury free more often, and thus more consistent with your training.

I've made a few posts on similar topics before that cover the general ideas:

Eureka! The Quintessential Running Post
Train slow to race fast: Why running more slowly and capping the long run at 2.5 hours may dramatically improve your performance
The Marathon is 99% Aerobic (and 95% for HM and so on): So how to train for it!

And my favorite resource (runners connect blog):

How Fast Should Your Easy Runs Be?
Why Running Harder Won’t Help You Get Faster
Are You Sabotaging Your Long Run by Running the Wrong Pace?
How to Know if You are Running Easy Enough on Your Recovery Days
How Running 80% Easy Could Make You 23% Faster
Jeff Galloway- Go Slow To Go Fast (podcast)
3 Simple Ways to Determine if You are Running Easy Enough: Matt Fitzgerald (podcast)
Hansons Easy Days

In its most basic form, a running training plan is meant to provide a "stimulus" to the body and mind. The "stimulus" depends on the type of training you do. You do speed training and you elicit the potential for changing your muscle fibers (can take years to make this transition). You do lactate threshold pace training and your ability to run a certain pace for about an hour becomes faster. You do a run in super hot conditions over many days and you're body thins out your blood so the blood can travel throughout the body easier and the heart doesn't have to work as hard. Running multiple days in a row causes your body to be in a state of mild fatigue which over time puts you at a different "starting position" for different runs (i.e. instead of starting at mile 1 for your long run, you're actually starting at mile 8, OR said another way if the fatigue build-up in your body is zero going into your long run you might never teach your body what it's like to run beyond your long run mileage **However, with that being said I still place a max of 2.5/4.5 hrs on training runs dependent on style**. It's why the Hansons plan can go to 16 miles max (for some people) and still enable you to be capable of completing a 26.2 mile race. I've personally had runners successfully run as little as 10 miles (150-180 min) and complete a marathon as expected when appropriately balanced with the rest of the week. These long runs allow you to stave off fatigue for longer.

All of these stimuli lead to an adaptation in the body in response to that stimulus (not everything is listed here as adaptations, but a short example)

Speed -> Fiber change
Lactate Threshold -> Fatigue Clearance and tolerance of fatigue
Hot/Humid Conditions -> Thinned out blood
Easy runs -> Increased capillaries
Long Runs -> Mitochondrial density and volume
Glycogen Depletion Training -> Use fat more readily as a fuel source

These stimuli are important. Because the adaptations to these stimuli mostly occur during the recovery portion of the training plan. So if you're constantly training too fast, you'll get stuck in a feedback loop of:

Stimulus -> Some recovery -> Stimulus -> Some recovery

Whereas the runner that does more slow running more often will see a feedback loop of:

Stimulus -> Recovery -> Adaptation -> Stimulus -> Recovery -> Adaptation

So, now think of everyone's pace spectrum. The universal truth is everyone has a VO2max. Everyone also has % VO2max that can be attributed to different race distances. When you train at different paces along the %VO2max spectrum it elicits different responses (like stated above) based on how you accomplish a workout. So to be a well-rounded runner you want to touch bases on a lot of different paces across the spectrum. This will allow you to elicit lots of different benefits on different days. As the race gets closer, you specialize towards your goal. All the while keeping the large majority (an often quoted value is 80%) easy.

So let's circle all the way back to the original question, why should your average pace be so much slower than your goal pace? Because a HM is about 95% aerobic and 5% anaerobic. So it's not a speed race, it's an endurance race. So how do you build endurance or the aerobic system? By providing a low level stimulus, lots of times. This low level stimulus will encourage the body to become more efficient at transporting oxygen, recruiting bone development, increase capillary density, and efficiency in glycogen storage/fat usage just to name a few. Beyond the benefits of the easy runs directly, they also indirectly boost the rest of your training. You're generally a lot less fatigued going into each run, such that you can run more often. And the research will back me up that in general the combination of your balanced running volume with the effort at which you do it will be a determining factor in performance. So if you try to run faster all the time, but then train less often, you won't reap as much benefits as running slower and more often. The primary driver for this discrepancy will be the occurrence of injuries. The slow/higher volume runner is probably (not definitely) going to see less injuries than the faster/lower volume runner (with fast and slow being relative to one's own fitness). This lack of injuries is going to enable the runner not only to reap more adaptations along the way in the training, but also be more consistent with the training over the long term. So over the course of months/years, the slow/high runner will likely (not definitely) end up at a better fitness level.

If you do some digging into the widely available training plans, you'll see that most modern day coaches follow this methodology. That includes Galloway, Fitzgerald, Hansons, Hal Higdon, McMillan, etc. Some do a better job of explaining it than others. But with a keen eye, you can see it's there for all of them. About the only one that comes to mind that is different is FIRST. But that's because FIRST also asks you to do cycling at an aerobic pace multiple times per week (cross-training). If you do FIRST without the cycling, then you won't be sufficiently prepared for your race. From my own personal experience of blending running with cycling, I've found that I need 2x cycling time to equal the same running time. So if I want to move from 10 hrs per week of running down to 5 hrs per week of running, I need ~10 hrs of additional cycling work to supplement my 5 hrs running. So that means run+cycle will take more time than just running alone to equal a certain running fitness level.

So how slow is slow enough? There are a lot of pace calculators out there:

https://lukehumphreyrunning.com/hmmcalculator/https://runsmartproject.com/calculator/https://www.mcmillanrunning.com/http://www.jeffgalloway.com/training/magic-mile/
In general they're going to give you a similar range for an individual fitness level. When I write training plans for others, I generally find the average weekly/monthly pace ends up being about 12% slower than estimated marathon tempo.

So a different question would be, can I train too slow? According to Tom Schwartz from TinMan training he has a dataset (not shared) that shows easy days can be as slow as 5 min/mile slower than 5k pace and still be beneficial as an easy day. Being 5 min/mile from 5k pace is pretty darn slow relatively speaking. So it leaves a fairly large window.

So does it work? Can you really train slow and race fast? I've been writing plans for just over 5 years now (just crossed 500) and over a wide spectrum of paces from sub-3 marathoners to sub-7 marathoners, the idea of train slow to race fast works. It's a fairly universal use idea for endurance running. From my own experience back in 2015:

I used a "PR the day" type mindset from when I started in 2012 through mid-2015. I went out and ran hard every day. If I wanted to be faster, I had to train at faster paces endlessly. So, in the 3 years prior to switching my mindset, this was my improvement progress. I did about 2700 miles in those 3 years, was never seriously injured and trained rather consistently.

5k – *35:00 to 23:36 (33% improvement)
10k – 51:45 to 49:49 (4% improvement)
HM – 2:01:00 to 1:49:24 (10% improvement)
M – 4:50:26 to 4:20:34 (10% improvement)

After 18 weeks of Hansons training with going slow, reducing the long run, increasing the training load and physiologically relevant pacing:

10k – 49:49 to 49:22 (1% improvement) *Occurred during the 2nd half of the marathon
HM – 1:49:24 to 1:46:00 (3% improvement) *Occurred during the 2nd half of the marathon
M – 4:20:34 to 3:38:53 (16% improvement)

After 27 weeks of Hansons training:

5k – 23:36 to 22:03 (7% improvement) **Occurred during the 2nd half of the half marathon
10k – 49:49 to 44:36 (10% improvement) **Occurred during the 2nd half of the half marathon
HM – 1:49:24 to 1:38:47 (10% improvement)
M – 4:20:34 to 3:38:53 (16% improvement)

So in the 3 years before the change in methodology, I cut off 11.5 min from my HM. After just 27 weeks, I cut another 10.75 min from my HM time.

After 3 years (7750 miles, but roughly the same timeframe) of going slow, reducing the long run, increasing the training load and physiologically relevant pacing:

5k - 23:36 to 19:27 (18% improvement)
10k - 49:49 to 39:54 (20% improvement)
HM - 1:49:24 to 1:30:35 (17% improvement)
M - 4:20:34 to 3:14:05 (26% improvement)

Hope that helps! And let me know if something needs a better explanation.

HOLY COW! This is sooooo helpful and thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I cant wait to try this starting tomorrow on my run.

Thanks again
 
Local races are opening back up, so many of us are thinking PoT for future runDisney races. I know we don't even know when -- or, gulp, if -- runDisney will start up in-person races again, but I'm wondering what everyone thinks the odds are that, when they do,
1)they will have the same number of corrals as before
2)they will have the same corral time cutoffs as before
3)we will have any info beforehand what those corral time cutoffs will be

I'm gunning for a PoT in a 10-miler in about 10 days but I'm not stressing over a specific time, because I personally am not confident at all that these corrals will be the same in size, number, or cutoff time. I'm just gonna do my best in the race on that day.
 
1)they will have the same number of corrals as before
2)they will have the same corral time cutoffs as before
3)we will have any info beforehand what those corral time cutoffs will be

In my view, and based on how I see runDisney approaching this from the same logistical approach using recent decisions around POT.

1) I think the chances are very high that they have the same number of corrals. From a logistical standpoint it's easier. There's an argument to be made that from a COVID standpoint maybe having a higher number of corrals is better. To me it comes down to density. If they use the same road space outside of EPCOT as the corral staging area. It doesn't matter whether that same space is divided into 16 corrals or 8 corrals. You'd still have the same number of people occupying that space. Now if they change the staging area, like two sets of 8 corrals with half the corrals at the original space and the other half in a pre-pre staging area, then it's a reasonable consideration. Or possibly saying the first 8 corrals arrive at time X and the second 8 corrals arrive at time Y (buses on roads used for racing makes that difficult without course changes). But my guess is that we'll see runDisney return when there's as little extra above their previous normal logistics.

But a good question is whether 16 or 8 corrals matters. At the end of the day, the POT serves as a ranking system for the runners. The same number of runners have to cross the starting line in the same amount of time. The POT corrals just shifts where those runners start from. With the inclusion of mini-waves, it's almost a wash. There's some marginal arguments around those at the cutoffs and how much better off they'd be. There's also the consideration that with larger corrals the earlier you get to the corral that the 8 corral system could be advantageous from a starting standpoint for a single individual. Since the large bulk of runners are in the non-POT corrals (usually around 55-60% of the field), then it's just about distribution for them. Although the multi-cutoff non-POT corrals from the old 2014 system came with a lot of headaches for runDisney. Because Joe and Jane both submitted a 2:45 but were put in K and L. Just easier for them to leave it at four non-POT buckets and four matched corrals. Let the mini-waves sort it out from there.

2) Given the way all races seem to have moved to the same cutoff times once we moved to 8 corrals, again I think logistically it's just easier for runDisney. So yes, I think we'll see the same cutoff times. They like the 8 corral and mini-wave system. The data shows they release the runners at a fairly constant rate. Making the 10,000th runner across the starting line a fairly predictable measure.

3) No. I don't think we'll know the number of corrals or the cutoff times in advance of the first bib release. I think we can assume that they will continue with their plan of using 2:30 as the new HM cutoff and 5:00 as the new M cutoff based on what they had planned with Wine and Dine 2020 and MW 2021. This previous post discusses my ideas around the new 2:30 cutoff (link).

A question not asked, but I think is relevant centers around the POT acceptable window. If it were me, I would extend the window from the typical 22 months to something like >36 months. Try to cover some time in 2019 when the occurrence of races was normal. Yes, there will be come marginal issues with "people can't run that pace anymore", but to be honest those same questions can come up with a POT window of 6 months instead of 22 months. So if it were me, I'd extend the POT window back to match what were the 2020 race windows into 2019.

Screen Shot 2021-04-29 at 8.21.14 AM.png

I'm gunning for a PoT in a 10-miler in about 10 days but I'm not stressing over a specific time, because I personally am not confident at all that these corrals will be the same in size, number, or cutoff time. I'm just gonna do my best in the race on that day.

At the end of the day, that's all you can do really. Run your best race on that day under those conditions. And let whatever happens outside of that just happen. If you need extra motivation in the moment, then just think every second off your time is potentially one second closer or over the previous cutoff.
 
I'm gunning for a PoT in a 10-miler in about 10 days but I'm not stressing over a specific time, because I personally am not confident at all that these corrals will be the same in size, number, or cutoff time. I'm just gonna do my best in the race on that day.

Good luck in your race! You got this!
 
@SheHulk found an error in the POT chart I was referencing. I accidentally merged an old version of HM cutoffs with the new M cutoffs. So this is the POT chart based on what was happening with the moves to new POT cutoffs in 2020. More specifically the error effected the 10 miler HM cutoffs. These should be more representative. The HM corrals other than for 10 miler and M use an R value close to 1.055. Whereas, the 10 miler/M cutoffs use a value near 1.01-1.02. This still means that it is extremely advantageous to submit a 10 miler or M as a POT distance for a HM corral placement. You can always confirm with Trackshack on individual cases once we return to runDisney races.

Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 8.55.29 AM.png
 
This is my THEORETICAL POT cutoffs at this moment in time. The marathon one is definitely not set in stone because we haven't seen anything for marathon weekend yet. But a 4:15 HM fits snuggly on the same 2:00 HM cutoff line. So I'm going with that for the time being.

Screen Shot 2021-06-30 at 11.40.51 AM.png

I also added in a submission of a Marathon for a HM POT.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!






Top