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
Cycling+ mag has a similarish project, but theirs lasts for a year, and all the people have a different objective - last year they varied from a previously very good runner wanting to get into TTs who ended up riding low-20's for 10m to a guy who was overweight, unfit and wanted to ride some decent length sportives. They started with medical tests and they got back together a few times during the year.
I must say, though, that I think it's a bit idealistic to suggest this is about proving or disproving the efficacy of a training programme - it's about selling shoes and pop (hence the online survey that popped up to see if the programme had changed my attitude to Lucozade). Also, whilst the purists on here my think it's ridiculous that someone should go from <20m a week into a 16 week mara programme that's probably what 90% of VLM runners do.
Sorry MM I wasn't trivialising the pressure or expectations - it clearly makes it very hard to deal with when things aren't going right. Olympic athletes get plenty of practice of pressure at World, European champs, Olympic trials while the super 6 are six ordinary runners. I can recall pressure myself to run sub 3 as a RW pacer and looking round and seeing hundreds behind, seemingly all expecting me to deliver the time on tap.
I think the pressure did get to some this time but ultimately the reason you didn't succeed was you weren't 100% healthy. For others it just may be that at that stage of their development as a runner, the target wasn't appropiate but they all gave it a good go. EP and JBFAR were in good enough shape to run PBs but went for the much harder target paces.
Without goal times, I'm not sure it would work though and I think if the preparation was longer than 16 weeks, people would lose interest.
I know you're not Steve, this is just debate and points of view. I'm just trying to get across the point that there is a mental burden which perhaps is overlooked by the participants as much as the organisers. As it is, I'm in a lot of agreement with Moraghan regarding the rigidity of the schedules and he's put his money where his mouth is on the Training section with his own version of the SSX so can't fault him or his line of reasoning.
There has been a LOT of e-mails between the six of us this year since we were notified of the prize, probably in the hundreds truth be told and we've used these offline exchanges to bond as a group over the past 5 months or so. Even now, we're providing post-race support to each other and having an online de-briefing today and several of the same things are coming out about Sunday and the mental aspects of things. This is really helping tbh and is helping us come to terms with what happened on Sunday. Because we were spread over such a wide time range we didn't get together as a group post race and perhaps it may have helped if we had done?
Yes, and I wonder from where they get the idea that this is a reasonable approach? Nothing to do with being a purist - it must surely just be common sense.
No-one is asking for a year long project - but at the very least the first criteria should be that the candidates' training is sufficient to support them in what is planned.
The schedule, as it is, has a runner going from 19m of easy running in the first week to 47 miles of running with a fartlek in week 11! Ludicrous enough and small consolation that it says "right now you should be running at least 20 miles a week" - and then they go and select a guy who has been running less than 17m a week.
It's great that Steve Marathon Coach has taken the time to participate in the discussion but I find some of his words utterly baffling. The message seems to be 'don't worry about the individual, think about the exposure it generated'.
"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"
"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 "
"For others it just may be that at that stage of their development as a runner, the target wasn't appropiate but they all gave it a good go".
A good idea, I think - because you would get the extra variety from unexpected combinations (not that long ago that Marigold was an 'unfit novice', albeit a startlingly fast one... where are the pictures of him overtaking club runners half his size, I would love to see them!).
MM pressure (to be fair, mostly self-imposed) is definitely a double-edged sword.
From my own experience it can encourage over-training and over-optimistic goals - but nonetheless I suspect what we learn from the process helps us towards eventually making those goals.
You make a valid point Steve about the appropriateness (is that a word?) of the target. You gave an excellent level of commitment to this years project (as it seems you have to previous competitions such as this on RW) and guided both your runners well. When it became clear that Andy could run a faster marathon then you changed the target, in other words re-evaluated the goal based on the training being completed.
Certainly I got a level of commitment and support from Liz beyond my expectations (much offline) but definately within the constraints of the RW schedule.
I am not sure this was the case for JBFAR and I feel the competition let her down somewhat in this regard if I am being honest. Would you have advised her to stick to the original goal given the injury?
I noticed in one of her comments that Paul wasn't available in the week prior to the marathon, please correct me if I am wrong) I was saddened by this as this is the time when you feel vunerable and need some assurance from your coach but I may be judging somewhat here and I do not know the full facts. This wasn't (and isn't) my experience with Liz. I wasn't sure exactly what plan she was following. I think others might have made similar comments but respected too much Christinas commitment and hard work.
I did find Mike Grattons comments/posts extremely informative though and welcomed his contributions to this particular thread.
We shouldn't overlook that both RW (now, with the "diary review") and Running & Poor Punctuation World Including It Wasn't Like That In My Day Monthly (when they did the "Liz Yelling tries to talk sense into someone" monthly feature) have both offered (what seem like) entirely sensible mini-coaching sessions. Though I spotted one of LY's coachees spectating in an airboot at a local race last year, so whether the essential problem with all of this is just human frailty and human nature ....!
[Goes back to well-thumbed Charlie Spedding book which actually aligns fairly closely with Arcelli & Canova when you're talking about "training, wot to do" but obv. not so much of an insomnia cure]
By which I mean that you can get advice which is entirely sensible, but it may not be the way your heart leads you, and even if you follow it you can find that Nature has a Nelson Muntz moment up her sleeve for you. Or "the best laid plans of mice & men..." etc.
[Belatedly clarifying in case I'd given the wrong impression.]
Point is, there is some actual coaching going on between mentors and runners so it is effectively run over 5 months not 4.
Timeframe, a good idea would be to hold the competition earlier so that the winners are announced at the same time as people are notified of their place in London via the ballot. This could then allow the SSX to do some gentle base building from whatever fitness point they are at to the minimum required for each RW schedule. No threads, just a weekly report in to their mentors to make sure they're coping with the running. This would allow niggles,biomechanical issues etc to surface earlier and to be treated so that they don't disrupt the 16 week programmes. It would show newbies who want to run the marathon that they shouldn't be wasting the time between ballot notification and 1st week of January
I suspect people get the idea from the fact it's what real life allows them to do - I started thinking properly about marathon training over Christmas, because I have a busy job, 2 kids, a bicycle and lots of other stuff that takes up my time - I therefore had a slightly less than 16 week build-up (my race was 11/4 so a fortnight less). That was why I found Rich's story so compelling, as he's a real bloke with similar pressures to me, looking to run a similar time.
Didn't make me buy any pop though - sorry, Luco-Boffins...
Both running mags have or had regular items where an experienced coach looks at a runner's current training & goals and advises them.
Running & Fitness world includes? was merged with? some sort of vet running mag. And - shall we say - concentrates on content rather than proofreading. Or should I say, concentrate's
I'm assuming you are talking about the marathon schedules and advice that was in
Running and Today's Runner devised by the likes of Artthur Lydiard, Bruce Tollah,
Mel Batty. This was before running websites appeared.
Is anyone got a suitable replacement to the super six project.
Cor - that was a hell of a thread to digest in one go!
In my opinion, many of you seem to be missing what, to me, seemed to be the real point of the Super Six. I have always, both before and since my involvement, have felt that being part of the Super Six was about demonstrating the real lives of people training for a marathon. Yes, we miss targets. Yes, we get ill. Yes, we get injured. Yes, our families and work lives are often more important than running. That is life.
I was under the impression that the LSS were chosen according to the original Gratton training plans. That meant aiming for 4:30 for me, otherwise it was a 'just get round' plan, which I'd already done. I think that was probably the same for lots of other runners in my position. We've got round, we want to be quicker and that plan was the only option (I know it isn't now). 4:30 was my absolute aim and I was beyond gutted not to have made it, despite knocking 22 mins off my previous time. I also knocked 9 mins off my HM time and 7 mins off my 10k time in the build up. Being coached sure as hell worked for me.
When you are an established runner, you forget a bit about how you started out. We started buying RW mag when Wickett ran his first FLM - he followed the programme inside. I imagine a whole heap of people running this years' marathon did much the same. Not everyone has access to the internet or knows about the wealth of information here. You see a schedule, you follow. I loved articles about people starting out running - I like to be able to see someone else doing it and think 'hey, maybe I could do that too?'
Those in my sub 4:30 group last year had a very mixed bag of experiences. Almost none of us hit sub 4:30, despite buckets of us being well of target to do so all the way through training. You just need a hot day, a congested street or two and its pretty hard to make back the kind of time you lose. But the cameraderie on the thread was fabulous and I'm still in touch with lots of people that I met through my thread and it is still ongoing, a whole year on. We all followed our own variation of the sub-4:30 plan, mine tweaked by Nick, everyone else's tweaked by all the other things you have to do in your life. We went through it together.
Yes, maybe the targets are too high. Maybe the selection process isn't rigorous enough. Maybe the training process isn't long enough. Maybe the coaches can't have enough of their own input. And maybe the London Marathon isn't the right race to EVER use as a coached exemplar, because there are too many uncontrollable variables involved. But the sheer number of people involved, watching, reading, talking to eachother, because of the LSS project means that you can't see it as anything other than a success.
You are kidding, aren't you? It is the most fantastic thing I've ever been involved with. Yes, the minor celeb status was lovely, but the support and the knowledge and the training we got was phenomenal. From a sports physio who solved my long standing shin splints to the sports psychologist whose advice helped me blast my 10k time to the sports scientist who introduced me to the joys of caffeine's reduction in percieved effort level to my coach who told me when to rest and when to push myself. You cannot begin to imagine how many influences made a difference.
I don't think the LSS should be all about marathon times, or about long established runners who can definately do it. It should be about chancers, real people, like the rest of the 'fun runners' out there training for their own marathon. Sometimes you crack your PB, sometimes you get stuck behind a womble. That's marathon life.Didn't mean to baffle Moraghan and my view isn't the official one – I’m just one of the coaches and things can get twisted and I won’t respond any further after this.
To clarify I had no choice on the basic schedules but could adapt it depending on the needs of the athlete at any given stage but there had to be a basic schedule that others could follow.It’s a commercial venture – it cost Lucozade money and RW gave it a lot of coverage however I think Lucozade aren’t expecting to sell more because of it and RW don’t expect to sell more mags but hope to get goodwill and be seen in a positive light. I think both see it as a genuine service (like RW’s pacing service) and most people other than a few appreciate it and see it as a great opportunity. I think everyone at Lucozade and RW had the interests of the runners at heart.
My point re the targets was that just because they failed to meet their targets that RW and Lucozade were probably pleased with the runners efforts and blogs and wouldn’t want any of the runners to feel guilty or undue pressure to achieve those targets.
It was the runners who chose their target times initially, trained very hard, and wanted to do it. Some were just about capable of it, had everything been in their favour and maybe they should have been given easier targets but say Christina had been told to go for 3:05 – some would have criticised this saying it was showing a lack of confidence in her ability and had she ultimately ran 3:04, others would have said she should have gone for it.
Both RW and Lucozade would have loved them to reach the targets because it meant so much to the athlete not because it sells more or proves a training schedule works.
Personally I would like to see longer training build ups, perhaps a group of half a dozen selected initially in October and the best of eachgroup picked in December after some training and tests.
Like Andy, I would like more training days and time with the runners, maybe less emphasis on target times but making the targets realistic but I don’t make the decisions.Wosit - this really stuck out at me - maybe this is marathon life for you - for me marathon life is about training fecking hard year round to whittle away minutes and seconds...
I think this is actually where my problems with the program arise because I dont agree that marathons are about wombles or real life getting in the way - they are a lifestyle choice and one not to be taken lightly, you dont make excuses for not training, you sacrifice stuff to make time. For me the LSS just encourages a sort of binge running attitude which I hate.
Longer programme, more flexibility and base trained runners would remove all of this - and it would more than likely bring more sucess (i.e. more pbs even if they dont hit target times)... I think it would sell mags because people are hungry for information, details about how tailor their plans, what speedwork to do, how to work in periodisation, they dont want to follow schedules but they do because they feel they dont have the knowledge to write their own. Empower your readers RW dont demean them!
(sorry about that just got into the flow, but wont edit out the over dramatic election speak because its actually true
)
The two most respected `off the peg' marathon schedules seem to be the Pfitzinger and Douglas one and the Mike Gratton Hard Training one. Neither is target based - both are based on the effort a runner can or will put in - eg P+D have an up to 55mpw, 55-70 and up to 93mpw schedules. People following them will run anything from 2:20 to 3:20 or beyond based on age, talent etc.
They are more honest with the runner as they say `put this in and be the best you can be' rather than the sub xx approach of `run these sessions and hit a time'.
I would like to see what was suggested before of having categories based on people, not times - e.g. a `hectic lifestyle', `running is the top priority', `newbie' etc. Steve's idea of having half a dozen to choose from who have actually done some training is a good one. I got the impression one or two only decided to do the marathon because they won the competition, rather than it being an important goal in their life that they would have done without the freebies and publicity.
Wotsit - no I'm not kidding. That's why I made the point. I agree you had access to information and advice you had never had before. But that advice is out there and available to everyone else who wants it too. `Incredible' means unbelievable. None of the journeys I have read about fit that category.
I'd be interested to read your definition of a `real' person too...
I love the assumption that seems to keep being portrayed that anyone above a certain standard, lets say sub 3:00 for arguments sake, dont have 'real lives' or hectic schedules.
How is it assumed that these people survive? There are no full time 'professional' marathon runners in the UK, ie whereby running directly generates enough income to live on, except Paula.
If some sort of anlysis was done of those training 80 mpw and those training 20 mpw I would hazard a guess that the 80 mpw cohort, as a group, have just as a legitimate claim to having 'hectic real lives' as those doing 20 mpw.
That is not to say that there is anything wrong with doing 20 mpw but there is plenty wrong with running 20 mpw and then claiming that anyone who puts in more effort on a consistent basis somehow 'has it easy' due to not having 'a real life'.
Some of the points raised on here are getting silly? Surely we all have to fit training around real life commitments? Just because we have kids/work full time/whatever doesn't mean we are any less committed to training and achieving goals? The 4h30 threads are littered with parents trying to juggle their diaries to hit their marathon targets - it's not exactly a lifestyle choice - we can't just give the kids up for a few months you know?
I just want to say that as a slower (4h40) runner , the 4h30 threads over the past few years (Sezz, Wotsit and Hash) have been inspirational and entertaining. The sense of camaraderie is amazing, and there are some great training tips from the coaches, other runners and the Lucozade nutrition people as well as the super sixers themselves.
The fact that the super sixers may miss the specific time target doesn't matter - hopefully they enjoy the journey and we all learn something as a result? This may not be the view of the faster runners, but the super six project is pretty broad in scope, and for those of us lower down the field, I think it's pretty spot on.
I think the point about lifestyle was in response to the idea that the slower runners were `real' people. PRF and Curly are suggesting that most runners in the VLM are real people who juggle busy lives to fit in a certain level of training.
Maybe most threads are inspirational for many. I think the faster the target, the greater the flaws in the `start proper training 16 weeks out with an off the peg schedule' becomes apparent.
May I just point out that me doing 20 mpw would probably take as long as some folks doing 80 mpw. These folks who only ever do training runs up to 2 hours don't know what a long run is. One of mine this time took me 13 hours.
Seriously... 18 miles worked into my working day between various apointments. The 13 hours was elapsed time including the appointments! But it's still true that those of us doing low training milage may actually be doing longer hours. In my case I also have a physically active job, 7 days a week, so running as well is sometimes genuinly too much of a strain on my bod. (And unfortunately my joints object if I try and do to much running between apointments on concrete pavements).
Really, we should all be respecting each others efforts and not judging on some arbitary yardstick like miles covered.