It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
You're making it complicated now. How much by volume or by alcohol level:
A pint of beer vs a pint of wine vs a pint of whisky?
seren nos wrote (see)
My only worry with this way of voting is that we could have 4 of the 5 aiming for between a 4 and 4:30 marathon and that would exclude lots of other groups
There was me thinking that the majority on the shortlist had a PB, or were aiming for, less than 4 hours and that the selected 5 could all be aiming for :30.
Problem is, it's all very well grouping them by goals or whatever, but at the end of the day the training programme for a 'busy lifestyle' runner aiming for 4:30 is going to be hugely different to someone else with the same lifestyle aiming for 3 hours. Once the winners are selected and are posting on their threads, anyone interested in following them will tend to group by finish time anyway.
It's not rocket science, that's why all the long-running threads in the marathon section are based on finish time.
Is that not because Shades' plans are the only ones I've ever seen that are based purely on distance, regardless of what MP is going to be? You do each run at a pace based on MP, but for the speedy and the slow the distance is the same.
There's little point me following a time thread when they're on about running 16 miles in 2:52, when I'm not even going to race at that speed. Especially when they then make stupid comments about such speed.
I think that RW have made it difficult for themselves if they want to cover all the bases (lifestyle, pace, ambition, etc) and have a vote. I agree with mitiog that it is difficult to relate to the runners at an extreme of the pace range that is different to yours, but, as EmmaC says, most people are in the mid-range. I followed Alison, Alex and Bridget last year and learned a lot from each of the threads. Steve was great at answering everybody's questions, whichever thread they were posted on.
If it helps, I'm aiming for somewhere between 3:29 and 3:59 and I aim to provide every detail about the training runs that I do, including heart rate, to allow comparisons to be made and conclusions to be drawn.
On paper I think I should be able to run a much faster marathon off my 51-53 average ten k but in reality I know that 4:30 is more sensible target.
Hopefully I iwll be able to provide some ideas, inspiration etc and benefit from advice I am given (if I get through!). However even if not training advice I aim to provide some humour and I can give adetailled list of toilet facilities in the sussex area for anyone doing long runs in that part of the world. Winter training runs always have pit stoppability!
EmmaC wrote (see)
Derogatory comments Holly Liz?
I didn't read Hollys' comments as derogatory, I understand what she's saying. If I'm right, it's that anyone and everyone can follow Shades plans as they are based on the distance you are running - you set your own speeds based on your ability so there is more room for discussion, whereas the other threads, particularly the faster ones, tend to exclude the back end of the pack from the pointy end. True, there are lots of folks from the pointy end who offer advice to those at the back, but I think that many from the back end of the pack are rather reluctant to post / ask questions as they don't feel qualified to do so on the "faster" threads.
I see what you mean - I certainly don't feel like I can offer advice for faster runners although I am good at tummy issues!
I suppose at track I never shout out encouragement to the really fast runners as I feel like I have no righ to do so!
However - it would seem I am the best in my club at one thing - I am the bendiest runner when we do the stretches!
I don't think that Helen was suggesting that she'd offer advice, more feel uncomfortable about asking questions on the say sub 3.30 thread because she wouldn't be guaranteed of a civil and sensible answer.
Really - that's not fab is it?
Hey ho! The fastest I've ventured to is sub 4:30 - a very happy home!
That's more it, Jeepers. Someone who runs at 3 hr level is going to have very little idea of what it's like to be aiming at 5 hours. It's just so completely removed that it has almost no cross over or point of reference.
I'm sure they'd be civil on a fast thread, but one suspects that they'd have such different experiences and expectations that any responses would be irrelevant. And it's very easy for the slower runners to quickly feel alienated by the combination of words like "slow" and "10 min/miles".
Thus far some of those shortlisted seem to be showing signs of doing just that, which would put me off voting for them and viewing those threads.
Not me! I aim at 8 mm for 10k, 9 for 1/2 mara and absolutely anything goes when it gets to marathon!
I would just like to run a marathon quicker than I manage to give birth!
If I am lucky enough to make it through I hope I'll be able to share the advice that I've been lucky enough to recieve and hopefully motivate others through the cold, dark training months (as well as getting some motivation back).
seren nos wrote (see)
mitiog.............don't despair....once these votes are finished there will be a Runnerworld forum selection........everyone goes on one thread and makes a pitch for a mentor........then one of the guys chose the lucky 6 and they got assigned mentors from the forums....... sounds like you would be an ideal candidate....... In fact this year the unofficial six were much more successful that the official 6........you just don't get the freebies
I'll second that. No freebies but if its honest advice and encouragement you're after then its by far the better competition.
I can't help but wonder if RW checked with the shortlisted if they actually wanted the place afetr the bootcamp........maybe a few were put off......... as 2 have not posted on the forums at all yet and 1 has only posted once...... not exactly showing that they understand the deal is two ways......