Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
SuperSix Project
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Hi me again
Moraghan, look clearly you know your stuff but i don't follow your argument.
"Your comment about finishing the marathon being the most important part I will never agree with - if that was your goal don't take up a super six place"
I imagine most ordinary runners starting out have this as their first goal when even contemplating doing a marathon. Not many watch the London Marathon on telly, decide to give it a go and say "i'm going to do a 3h44 negative split". Thoughts of finish times for novices can surely only really be guesswork until a solid base of training has been completed. You've got to start somewhere, do you believe the super six should only be the domain of experienced proven runners? Personally i view that as elitist and to the detriment of the sport.
You have a point about "training to train". In hindsight I needed a more solid base before commencing "week 1". This lack of base and my inexperience was probably factored in when "sub4" was set as my goal. Given my lack of base fitness do you think it would have been responsible to follow the more intensive 'sub3.30' thread? As it was I picked up a series of niggles following the more comfortable 'sub4' thread pacing and mileage. I believe this year I was no where near ready to go for 3h35 as you suggest. This is likely to be my target next time. I happen to believe experience counts.
My understanding of the schedules were that they were drawn up by an expert and to be followed largely but not exactly to the letter. The reality is that injuries happen, snow falls and people have commitments (some unforeseen) meaning this can't happen. In my case adjustments were made mainly due to my injuries and rehab needed not down to lack of effort during weeks 1-16.
Finally I worked really well with my mentor and my race strategy was never going to be decided in January. It was decided in the last few weeks based on how the training had gone. As it turned out I ran what could be the race of my life when in reality most involved probably thought, given I was carrying a niggle, would do well to scrape in below 4 hours.
I've been an active participant on AndyV's sub 4 thread, although my target was around 4.15, revised to sub 4.30 after injury, (on the day I did 4:20:13). I thought I'd put in my twopenniworth, especially as AndyV's targets and performance have been much commented on here.
I wonder if people are getting too hung up on the precise targets of the supersixers... For me, AndyV's thread was fantastic. It was about many things, and while I'm really happy for Andy personally that he achieved his stretch goal of sub 3:45 despite all his setbacks - and it was absolutely well deserved
- even if he hadn't even gone sub 4 on the day, the thread itself would frankly have been of no less value. There was a strong feeling of cameraderie on the thread and I thought one of the particularly great things about it was that not only Andy could benefit from the advice of a very experienced coach, Steve Smythe, but every member of the thread could have their questions answered. I personally benefited from some prompt and excellent advice from Steve, especially after my injury, without which I might not have even been on the start line at VLM. Andy too has been extremely welcoming and supportive of everyone on the thread and bears a huge responsibility for providing 'the glue' that really made the thread work. However, many members made up that thread, and we have supported each other through marathons in Blackpool, Paris, Lochaber and London (and some of us did feel like 'members' of this thread). I totally agree with the sentiment expressed earlier that it's not as though someone aiming for 4:10 has nothing to communicate to someone aiming for 3:50 and vice versa. As Andy said, as a group we had varying targets, but plenty of shared experiences!
I could say much much more, but basically for me the supersix threads were about so much more than whether 6 people could run a marathon in less than x hours.
I find this interesting
did anyone look at rhe mental aspects?
Like I say, pix has been running as long as me, we were simislar pces, and she had mental issues on the day
Ive done enough maras now to know what the head can do to you
think thats what happened to Pix, she DID all the runs on the prog
Would like to see some element of attention to thre mental thing in a marasthon(this selfish, i have HUGE mental issues about it, and would like some help)
Nice post E
Byut thre are loads of threads on here that provide similar support,
Perhaps without the profesional coaches, but thre is a HELL of a lot of experience on here anyway
Plodding Hippo I think that's kind of a key point. There are tonnes of threads here that can provide support, be it detailed advice on speed sessions and carb loading techniques or just the reassurance that everyone goes a bit bonkers at certain points in marathon training.
But surely the point of the supersix is that it's giving six people access to the sort of tailored, high-quality advice that most of us regular runners can't access. It should be offering a truly tailored, responsive training plan and we should all be able to gain from watching how that's done.
yeah, I agree, totally but i think it DIDNT do that
i
the plan was NOT tailored and responsive
who dealt with the pysch issues
AndyV
That's not what I meant. Even someone who has never run a marathon before should be given a realistic target based on other race times. Sure, it can be feathered to account for inexperience, but nothing drastic. The part I don't agree with is people merely being satisfied with finishing it if it's their first one. Seems like a waste to me - anyone bloodyminded enough can finish a marathon.
Andyv - with the preparation you had there is no way you should ever have been selected. If a runner is averaging 17 miles a week they shouldn't contemplate a marathon in 4 months time - particularly following a schedule that peaks at 47 miles. That's not elitist that is realistic although no doubt many won't like it. To encourage as RW did is irresponsible.
What's the message? It's alright if you run 15 miles a week - you can be running a marathon in 4 months and in 13 weeks be on 47 miles a week. No wonder so many runners run one marathon, get injured and give up or don't even reach the start line.
I never suggested there was a lack of effort on your part. (Ignoring the fact that prior to winning your golden ticket you put next to no effort into your running - but that is your choice and therefore should not be criticised). But reading into what you wrote you are saying you were following the schedule unless it was adapted for illness / circumstances or injury. That is still following the schedule - I'm talking about a tailored program from day one that takes into account your strengths, weaknesses as a runner.
Sure, your race strategy is determined closer to the day. But we are also talking about your training strategy which needs to be relevant to your ability and circumstances from day one.
I agree that the SuperSix project (just like marathons in general) should be more than just about targets; but the attainment of the target should be given the highest chance of success, shouldn’t it? Otherwise, I think the participants are being short-changed.
KK,I agree that this project is ultimately about sales and marketing. But I believe that if it is done so that the chances of the participants achieving their goals is maximised, then the commercial benefits for RW and the sponsors will be even greater. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. ITFACIn terms of the other sub xyz threads that are not supersix threads, yeah I know there are lots and I'm sure they're useful. But for me they do often feel a bit unstructured and personally, I liked the structure of the supersix thread with dedicated support from a coach, a Lucozade nutrition specialist, whose reputations depend on sound advice, as well as the camaraderie of most people following a similarish schedule... I'm sure there are lots of experienced runners out there on other threads who have views about who to do things and can give advice, but I find it can be hard to judge on a forum whose advice is sound until you really get to know people.
However, on the subject of the RW schedule I definitely agree with quite a few of the points above... As a first-time marathoner (having done quite a few HMs and 10Ks etc) I stopped following the RW schedule rigidly about half way through, as I gradually got used to 'listening to my body'. Even so, testing out the schedule and finding its weak points en masse on the thread has been a useful learning experience. For example, quite a few of us questioned the scheduled taper, which seemed to include much longer runs in the last couple of weeks than either Steve Smythe or Liz Yelling recommended on the SuperSix threads. As a result, I did a 15 miler and an 8 miler in the last 2 weeks rather than the scheduled 18 miler and 12 miler.
Anyway, I've definitely learnt a lot as a result of joining in the thread over the last few months...
What hasn't really been mentioned yet is that all of the final Super Sixers kept humorous, interesting blogs going for the entire duration and beyond, and I imagine the RW team would have been looking for that sort of thing. I certainly wouldn't have been as entertaining as Matchstick Man.
I agree with Ehlne re the RW schedules - in fact I had really seen the sharing of a common training pattern as the big benefit of the project, because I'd certainly got a lot out of that in the past. The schedules certainly need updating in places (eg the 200m reps and over-long runs in the taper). I understand the argument about needing tailored schedules, but having something simple to follow that almost anyone can safely join in with is surely a good thing for a large proportion of us.
I know Richard has denied it, but the pressure to perform on the day has to have taken its toll on the Super Sixers. Several have mentioned the feeling of letting everyone down, and I can only imagine what that that was like. During training, the rest of us can revise our target 6 weeks out with a clear conscience, but that's hard to do if you feel you are heading a training group with the same target.
I think what I'm saying is a big Thank You to the Super Sixers for keeping the rest of us going, but you may have paid the price.
well said Joddly
no one can deny that the super sixers kept us informed and entertained
Picking up on a few points....
1. Hilly was the first guinea pig to have a dedicated thread back in 2004. She hit her sub 3:15 target and as Wardi said, under the same coach (Mike Gratton) went on to 2:56. That was because the training was down to those two individuals and those alone. Both of them held the respect of the forum - her for her dedication and Mike because of his expertise and helpfulness. Some of those elements have not been to the fore this year.
2. This really needs to be a longer term project. Once the `lucky six' were picked in early December, there should have been a `training to train' phase as Moraghan says - longer than early Dec in any case. Then you'd have fewer problems from people trying to ramp up the mileage and speed at the same time -in some cases evidently by nearly 300%!!!
3. The SSX threads provide some interesting advice, but in some cases it can be like watching a car crash in slow motion. As Tom pointed out - many feel too polite to post any criticisms. Those that do get made to feel it is not appropriate to question or even stalked and trolled (as I well recall).
Going back to point one - the original focussed training threads had none of the freebies and sponsorship - it was a pure runner / coach relationship exploring the possibility of online coaching (which was a relatively new concept at that time). It worked, as it was not driven by external pressures.
So winning the competition might gain the `lucky' person £5000 worth of goodies. What it does not seem to do in many cases is get them anywhere near their targets - it's great that an experienced campaigner like Wardi managed a pb - that is a real success, but being 15, 20 or even 60 (as we had in one case) minutes out really does make me question how you define luck. I'd rather hit my target time than some fancy shoes.
You can get good coaching online for a few pounds a month, if that's what you want. You don't need nights in hotels, photoshoots and a mentor adapting a training plan written by someone who had to water it down from his original plan to make it commercially acceptable.
How would someone go about finding the online coaching? I mean, I do believe you, but me, I wouldn't quite know where to start. Whereas more tangible things like, say, Garmins, clothes, shoes, you pretty much know what you're getting - there are many reviews available and modern manufacturing means they're all the same.
Plus there is the thing where the slower people (like me, and indeed half, say, of the super sixes) might well feel a bit daft asking for someone to coach them to a goal of, er, their coach's jogging pace....
of course one might say they shouldn't , and in principle the science of improvement is going to be more or less the same, but still.... whereas kit has no opinions.
Serious question here then - if you were advising a runner with - shall we say - not so much natural talent (but still keen to make the most of what little they had) and they asked about online coaching - what would the reply be?
Interesting discussion, some valid points and as Catherine said it will be reviewed.
If the project continues, possibly who is picked and why they are chosen for a particular pace may be one area that may be discussed further.
I think all the threads were entertaining and had lots of traffic. It gives runners opportunities they wouldn’t otherwise get with fantastic support from Lucozade, though agree there is some great advice and community spirit in the forums anyway.
Marathons aren’t easy and the fact is most people don’t reach their targets whether they are selected by RW or RF.
Look at the elite and how many of those dropped out or were outside their targets. They get the best training advice and back up, masses of time and money to prepare and still don’t always deliver and some didn’t reach the start line either. Marathon training doesn’t always go to plan.
There is pressure of sorts, but it’s not the Olympics is it? They are targets but adaptable ones that perhaps people shouldn’t get too overly concerned about whether the end result saw the time reached. I think both Lucozade and RW are satisfied with the threads, the response and the efforts of all 6 runners including Hashette who was injured.
I agree some had targets that maybe were just outside their current potential but Matchstick Man would have reached his target I’m sure but for illness. I agree Andy on paper was always a potential sub 3:45 man rather than a 4:00 but it was his first marathon and he was lightly trained prior to even starting the marathon schedules, but so would many others who may have join the threads.
With 6 runners, the key times sub-3, sub-4 and sub-5 are almost bound to be covered and Andy was the obvious one for the 4.
I always thought if he stayed fit he would achieve it, but that was a close run thing and he did brilliantly off so much missed training, but that wasn’t the only point of the thread. People still enjoyed following his journey and others following similar schedules and aims, got help too, and hopefully benefitted. I hope I have been helpful and offered some expertise.
I’m the coach who relatively wasn’t any good as a runner compared to Liz and Paul (and Mike) but I do know how to prepare for a marathon – my 35th year of marathoning and I have broken 3 hours (or 2:46:07 to be precise!) in 5 different decades and my last 6 London’s have been 2:46, 2:43, 2:46, 2:43, 2:47, 2:46 – mediocre by elite standards but ok for someone almost 30 years past their peak and probably better than anyone else who was running the first two Londons). Others on the forums know their stuff too but I feel I can offer good advice and am happy to help all runners of any ability.
The coaches don’t necessarily agree with the schedules but accept there should be a binding point that gets as many runners as possible doing similar training in principle to build up a community. The schedules are adapted though to the individuals runners needs at any one time and it’s not a case of just blindly following a schedule because it’s there.
Running Fitness do something similar in terms of covering runners in Mag and offering kit but offered no coaching advice whatsoever. Their sub-3 runner did it this time after many years of trying but I know sought advice from a non RF source.
Fido the best online coaching is effectively the forum regulars.
Steve your last point is a very true one, there has been a lot to be learnt from those who are on the forums a lot and who have run the distance, my training went well really, early on it is possible I could have gone for a time something close to 4 hours, your opinion was as it was my first one it may not happen this time.
I really took this on board and aimed for sub 4.30 which I achieved, I wouldn't have done sub 4 in a month of sundays
This is a very interesting thread which I am going to have a good look at as it will maybe give me more good advice for the future.
Steve MC - thanks for taking the time to reply.
It's not the `sub this' or `sub that' aspect which limits what this project could achieve IMHO. It's more seeing the years of expertise of people like yourself not being utilised to the full. Do you think that the project would be more worthwhile in terms of developing the winners' running ability if you had a longer time to prepare and coach them? Also, would you like a freer hand in developing your own schedule to fit the individual runner?
Then we could get away from the impression created that preparing for a marathon is a 16 week project and stands more chance of meeting a time goal if 6 months (say) are spent on it.
yes, it certainly is NOT a 16 week project, i for one found that out the hard way.
Whoever used the term "boil in the bag" hit the nail on the head there.
I think it is the "fit the individual runner" bit that I was surprised not to see (like BR). (Which was, presumably, the sort of coaching you were referring to - identification of strong and weak spots, suggestion of workouts accordingly, feedback on workouts leading into the rest of the schedule - like Buddy Edelen's coach used to do by mail back in the day!
).
Just looking at the forums you can see how much we all differ from each other.
Not just the "fast runners who need to work on endurance vs plodders who should be chivvied to do speed workouts" that Arcelli & Canova describe, but also other obvious stuff like age, sex, injury-prone-ness (please feel free to replace that with a proper word).
Obviously any coach with a free hand would be prescribing "5 pounds of core stability and a tempo run" to Runner A while handing out a cruelly bland diet of marathon pace workouts and progressive runs to Runner B (and I could name you suitable Runners A and B who for both diets off the top of my head off the forums).
But you don't see that with the Super Six.
Really in my experience it is usual that you don't get to run a good marathon for the first couple of attempts, no matter how decent the preparation.
The first is often a sobering experience, and serves to underline how darn hard a marathon actually is, and (hopefully) whets the appetite to do it justice "next time".
The second is usually better, but still falls some way short of satisfaction (in performance terms).
In greatly generalised terms, I believe that the 3rd marathon onwards is where experience starts to allow the runner's potential to be realised. Diet, nutrition, injury-free training, base mileage, sensible scheduling, long run discipline, cautious speedwork - all are elements of a successful campaign and take time to get right.
Unfortunately (with Hilly's exception) the Super 6 programme can't and shouldn't be expected to deliver a long-term support over 3 + marathon campaigns. It wouldn't make commercial sense, and wouldn't capture the imagination of the target audience for the duration.
That's where a club coach can really work wonders - developing fledgling marathoners over a few years. I do believe that Liz, Steve et al are amongst the best in the business, but a 16 week programme is only allowing a snapshot into developing the athlete. It's a bit like hiring a private tutor for a couple of months pre-GCSE and being expected to be completely responsible for the outcome!
Probably my final comment on this, unless I’m asked a direct question:
The process was not perfect. For example in hindsight I would have liked perhaps a few more get together days with the coaches. I would have happily driven wherever for say a few hours coaching without the trappings of the organisers having to pay my expenses etc. The kit and watch were nice added benefits but totally secondary to the coaching. The process should also have started earlier with greater assessment of the winners (or possibly all those shortlisted) to ascertain underlying fitness, strengths, weaknesses and/or underlying biomechanical issues. A medical team would have been a worthy addition to the process.
Having said this, despite constantly picking up niggles along the way, I had a blast. I went from a near zero knowledge base at week 1 to starting my first marathon composed with a clear strategy in terms of pacing and nutrition/hydration. This was all documented on the sub4 thread to help fellow runners of similar abilities.
During the race I was able to sustain my plan A pace and never had to resort to my plan B pace (slower). I never hit “the wall” and ran a negative split recording my fastest mile at mile 25. Hell if asked at week 1 I would have said a ‘negative split’ was a gymnastic related injury not something to aspire to in a running event.
For me my finish time at VLM is largely irrelevant. It’s the fact that I got to the start line with a clear tried and tested strategy. In 16 weeks I went from being a numpty to become a composed athlete (albeit a slower one) with a plan. The point I’m trying to make is that without the considerable input of my mentor (Steve MC) and Gareth (Lucozade Sport Scientist), provided by the supersix project, none of this would have been achieved. My debut was about learning the basics, race times were irrelevant. They can be the target in future marathons.
It’s not perfect but the Super Six approach can work….
joddly wrote (see)
In hindsight I have to agree that I was feeling huge amounts of pressure but didn't realise it at the time. I did a downward shift in expectation during the race when I realised 3h05 wasn't on to 3h10 but by the time halfway came (1h37m57) it was obvious that even the stated aim of my thread was quickly slipping out of my reach. For those who haven't my race report I admitted to crying going over Tower Bridge, at Docklands tube station and then at the post race reception and looking back at it now this is obviously down to the pressure I felt as a SSX runner. I've spoken to some previous SSX runners and the current ones and the pressure aspect is a very real one if things aren't going perfectly.
I agree it's not the Olympics but the fact is that as a SSX person you effectively win the lottery. Your ugly mush goes in RW magazines (sorry for inflicting mine on the general populus btw), you appear on this website, the Lucozade website, there's even video footage of us on Facebook on Lucozade's page! You get all the kit, the dedicated thread,etc and you're just so hyper and worked up about the whole affair. There is a huge burden of expectation which I think is self inflicted because you're so desparate to prove that the schedules work.
I found it ironic that one of the people who's been through this process (CC2 Speedy Goth at the GNR SSX) went past me on Sunday and then JBFAR and admitted to almost crying for us because she knew what we must have been going through.
Now you can tell me to STFU, HTFU and MTFU and because I've got a thick skin I'll take it but to force yourself to keep going when your goal has long gone is a hard thing to do, especially in such a magnified public fashion
OK, so it looks like a lot of folks agree that it needs to be a longer process. How about the shortlist is selected a couple of months earlier, giving the candidates a chance to get into a regular running routine and show they can post occasionally too? Medical testing would be good at some point in the process....
And maybe moving away from time targets. What do people think about ditching them as catagories? Instead we could have maybe 'young fit novice', 'busy mum/dad/lifestyle', 'slow, experienced plodder but still trying to improve', 'fast improver' (maybe a time target on that one) 'unfit novice', 'injury prone runner' (only if medical support is available). Of course that might need a rethink when it comes to the schedules, but maybe the schedules need a re-think anyway.
To each runner who wants to reach his or her ultimate peak it is effectively the olympics. 99.99% of people will never compete at elite level and therefore we have to set other goals such as continually pushing down the PBs and attempting to go below a time, for a given distance, that would have seemed impossible before we embarked on proper training and dedicated effort. In the very few races I've run, I've run them as fast as I thought I could, firstly, to get round and secondly, to get round as fast as is possible for me at the time, with the training I had done. I think most of the SSXers (if not all of them) will have this attitude. I believe MM was absolutely desperate to get sub3:15 and to him, that was effectively his olympics and the tearful running moment showed that, as well as the pressure he felt as a representative of his thread on the forum, the coach, nutritionist etc