Time to review the process?
I've followed these threads over the last few months and noted that this year, as in previous years, only a small proportion (1 out of 6 this year) hit their target. A few possible reasons why...
1. Of any given group, you expect injury / illness on the day / disrupted training / not a good day at the office, so a ratio of 1 in 6 is to be expected.
2. Runners are shoe horned into being a `sub 3' runner or `sub 5' runner with no account taken of how the training is progressing and whether goals need re-evaluatng along the way.
3. The schedules themselves are too light on miles at the faster end and therefore the super six project either becomes (a) altered as people do different sessions set by their club coach (as on JBFAR's sub 3 thread this year) or (b) not suited to the individual.
In principle the idea is a good one, and I've read some very informative and enlightening posts. I question whether the parameters set are the best ones for the individuals concerned. I wonder what other peoples' view are and whether RW might look at tweaking the concept for future events.
I agree on this BR - point 2 is the most salient one as far as I can see - I was really excited by JBFARs thread but fell away from it a little towards the end when it seemed to be less about doing the right thing for her and more about following the plan...
I'd also add I dont think they are given enough time - if they want to continue with the short term plans they should really be selecting runners who are already in decent shape rather than trying to get someone to conquer the marathon in x many weeks (when we know its a project measured in years). Otherwise you are just encouraging binge running (not so much at the pointy end but still).
I think the Super Six should end. Its time for RW to follow the marathon challenge wherethere are sub 3, 3.30, 4, 5 hour groups with dedicated forum, gurus and support.Similar to the VLM groups on the forum but with dedicated support for your goal.
I agree with all of the above but......and call me cynical but ....one of the objectives in the project is to get a load of people to sign up to the magazine subs and join the forum ie more click for the advertising side of things.
As we see each year a huge thread is created with loads of new people
Hope Moraghan doesn't mind me posting this but I think it is relevant and raises some interesting points.
I will also post my own thoughts too!
Moraghan wrote (see)
Wouldn't it be great if RW wouldn't perpetuate the folly of picking a marathon time and training specifically for it using an off the shelf plan.All the ingredients are in place for the runner to train hard with a tailored regime designed / adapted by a personal coach and then to arrive at a realistic marathon goal during the training process so on the day the runner has a realistic target. Everyone would learn more and the runner would be put in the best position to have a successful day - time wise and enjoyment wise.Does it not strike anyone else as utterly perverse that the program forced jbfar into a sub-3hr marathon schedule off a 3:13 previous whereas the 4hr guy was asked to duck under 4 hours with a 1h 42 hm best. So you have two runners - one with an extremely tough target and another with an extremely soft target, both shoe horned into inappropriate schedules.This ludicrous slapping on of target numbers 16 weeks before the day with no thought to the realism of the target is such amazingly bad practice - worsened by the fact that there is no control or guidance in the weeks approaching the 16 week countdown. Whatever happened to training to train?The way the super six is run is a curse more than anything. RW - next year please extend your potentially fantastic offer but do the thing sensibly this time.The sad thing is the forum is full of runners going for completely inappropriate times because they read these RW sponsored threads and think the right way to go about it is to pick any old time and base their training paces on that aspirational (or otherwise) goal. You have 1:30 HMers aiming to break 5 hours and 2:00 HMers going for 3:30. Set a good example RW, for God's sake.
Wouldn't it be great if RW wouldn't perpetuate the folly of picking a marathon time and training specifically for it using an off the shelf plan.
All the ingredients are in place for the runner to train hard with a tailored regime designed / adapted by a personal coach and then to arrive at a realistic marathon goal during the training process so on the day the runner has a realistic target. Everyone would learn more and the runner would be put in the best position to have a successful day - time wise and enjoyment wise.
Does it not strike anyone else as utterly perverse that the program forced jbfar into a sub-3hr marathon schedule off a 3:13 previous whereas the 4hr guy was asked to duck under 4 hours with a 1h 42 hm best. So you have two runners - one with an extremely tough target and another with an extremely soft target, both shoe horned into inappropriate schedules.
This ludicrous slapping on of target numbers 16 weeks before the day with no thought to the realism of the target is such amazingly bad practice - worsened by the fact that there is no control or guidance in the weeks approaching the 16 week countdown. Whatever happened to training to train?
The way the super six is run is a curse more than anything. RW - next year please extend your potentially fantastic offer but do the thing sensibly this time.
The sad thing is the forum is full of runners going for completely inappropriate times because they read these RW sponsored threads and think the right way to go about it is to pick any old time and base their training paces on that aspirational (or otherwise) goal. You have 1:30 HMers aiming to break 5 hours and 2:00 HMers going for 3:30. Set a good example RW, for God's sake.
This is an interesting discussion.....
I was lucky enough to be a SuperSixer last year although I didn't reach my marathon target (fell way short on the day) I had superb support from my Mentor (Liz) and Lucozade and so I have no complaints there at all and am very grateful for the opportunity I was given.
My schedule actually reduced in volume significantly from the mileage I would usually do for a marathon but increased the intensity. I signed up to 'the deal' so to speak so I stuck to the schedule. Indeed, I managed to reduce my half and 10 mile distance by a considerable margin but lacked the volume (for me) to perform on the day. So, in this regard, a generic schedule did not provide me with the specific training effect that I required to improve.
I can see the schedules working well for the less experienced runners (Andy this year had a great run) or those who lack structure to their training but for those with a challenging target or who have a bit more experience a more personalised approach may be required?
I noticed 'the other' magazine got their competition winners into the labs and performed various tests to ascertain whether their original time goal was realistic. I thought that article was extremely interesting.
The voting system this year seems to perpetuate the time target issue as there were specific categories.
Plus, poor JBFAR suffered I think the most as it really wasn't clear whose advice or schedule she actually was following. I definately think Christina would have benefited from a re-evaluation of her target or specific coaching.She clearlyhad the talent and the dedication to achieve her goal.
As someone from the inside of the project I'll happily add my two cents It's an amazing experience let me tell you. The value of the prize per Super Sixer can easily be put at over £5000 when you factor in the amount of people who go towards making this project happen. The management company who look after Lucozade and all their competition winners and runners work a LOT of hours to get things done and when you start costing in the mentors (as consultants in effect), photographers, camera crew,etc it becomes obvious how massive this project is.I think it can be likened to the Big Brother programme with the six in the middle as goldfish being looked at by the outside world. It's only when those in the "house" (for want of an analogy) step outside at the end that they realise what's been going on. I never honestly felt any pressure whilst I was training or keeping the thread up but because I failed to perform on the day due to a low level virus I have struggled with quite a severe body blow that's going to take some time to recover from mentally. Having the vest on during the race does make you a moving target tbh and a couple of guys asked me how I'd done not long after crossing the line. Having to tell them I didn't make it and put a brave face on it made me realise how enormous the project is.
The 6 threads this year have generated 36,000 unique visitors and had a record number of hits compared to last year so I'm sure from those numbers the project will continue. The project exists to increase traffic to the website which carries advertising the same as magazines exist to sell advertising space, not necessarily to sell great journalisitic articles. Yes there is/are personal relationships formed by those involved but it's a commercially driven project first and foremost. Lucozade, Garmin and Adidas are all on board as sponsors so the Super Sixers can promote their use and help sell products.
Would I recommend it to anyone thinking of doing it next year? hell yes! but be careful what you wish for as there's a high cost to be paid if things don't go right.
I did wonder how they chose the times for people. With all due respect to the super sixers, JBFAR's seemed a massive task to knock half a minute off every mile in comparison to her PB, which is a fantastic time anyway. I'm positive MM's target of sub3:15 ended up being short of what he can achieve and, had things panned out better for him, he would have made mincemeat out of the 3:15.
I must confess, being fairly new to the forum (and to running seriously), I thought the sub4 chap's target time didn't really fit him when I saw he had whacked 15 minutes off it. I'm guessing it would have been more of a challenge to him if the target time had been altered when it must have become obvious, through his training, that he was going to to beat it easily. However, I didn't follow his thread so maybe I'm speaking out of turn. Please understand though, I'm certainly not trying to detract from his excellent achievement.
This thread is quite pertinent to me as I started to follow the RW marathon sub3:45 plan to see where I should be when I began training properly for a marathon. I really didn't know what sort of time I should aspire to so went out for a few runs following that plan. It became obvious, fairly quickly, that the sub 3:45 was not challenge enough and therefore am still expecting to tweek my targets for the big one and probably still will be when I hit my taper.
Do people think that a too tough a time for the Supersixers is asking for failure from the start? I'm assuming JBFAR would have known from fairly early in her training that sub3 was too much to ask in such a relatively short period of time. That's not going to help confidence and will surely add pressure to every run she did. Stress rarely helps anyone in anything.
All in my humble, inexperienced, opinion of course.
Interesting to note that I was up against 3 others when it came to the public vote. I was surprised to be in there as the category said "sub 3h30" and yet my PB was 3h19 (still is!) and every marathon I had done to that point was 3h30 or below
Of the others:Joddly had a PB about 2mins (?) outside 3h30 and she did London (correct me if I'm wrong Joddly) and did a PB. I believe she kept Right Said Aouita's Super Six thread going when he stopped posting and I was genuinely sad for her that she wasn't chosen as she had already shown the commitment necessary to keeping a Super Six thread going even when it wasn't hers.Wokky was another and he did London and went under 3h30The other lad was Chris Ford4 and his PB was 3h50 but I haven't seen or heard of him for a bit on the forums but I do notice that his time from the Coventry HM last october was 1h50min so the 3h30 target was going to be a massive stretch for him imo.
I wonder what has happened to the other people shortlisted over the past couple of years? Did they have greater success than the chosen ones or not?
Blisters and beer wrote (see)
II thought the sub4 chap's target time didn't really fit him when I saw he had whacked 15 minutes off it. I'm guessing it would have been more of a challenge to him if the target time had been altered when it must have become obvious, through his training, that he was going to to beat it easily. However, I didn't follow his thread so maybe I'm speaking out of turn. Please understand though, I'm certainly not trying to detract from his excellent achievement.
Having looked at the programmes, they have 'givens' in terms of 'you should be running x times a week or 'have a pb of'. I wonder if there could be a longer term pre-programme (6 months out?) which potential super sixers could follow (a sort of elimination pool- or indeed something a bit like the long running sub x:xx groups) the 'winners' then being selected to go onto the final 16 week programmes?
Or is this suggestion only 'shuffling deckchairs on the titanic' in that the final 16 week programme doesn't produce the results?
FerrousFerret wrote (see)
Matchstick Man wrote (see)
I, quite frankly, am amazed he even toed the line with the injury upon injury he was getting in the 16 weeks of the project. He had HUGE swathes of time where he wasn't running (I think he told me he'd run twice in the last 3 weeks) and he only managed 1 x 20mile run as his longest run. I'm impressed he started and he then did a negative split in his first ever marathon! There really aren't that many people from Sunday who achieved this so soft target or not, AndyV did something quite amazing off the minimal training he did manage to bag. He ran with a knee support on one leg and strapping on another...
Some good responses so far. No one is agreeing that the project works at present then, except in terms of being a successful commercial plug for the sponsors in terms of forum visits, if not in terms of getting the runners over the line using their products.
And the one who did hit the target could have gone considerably quicker from what MM said - you could have had the sub 4 guy doing a 3:30!
Yes some longer term thought and preparation would be needed to have a higher success rate. I wonder if anyone at RW towers will read this and take the points on board?
Matchstick Man wrote (see
FF - I think you're spot on and you've raised the same point XPS did: that the past 2 years have seen the sub 3h15 Super Sixer was one of the sub 3h15 thread regulars. RW can guarantee a certain level of commitment from them in terms of fitness and posting on a dedicated thread regularly.
Then you are getting into the dubious arguement about who gets chosen in the first place (regulars or new people) but I hadn't thought about the fitness aspect, which is interesting.
I wonder how many of the shortlisted or even those who entered post regularly now? I wonder if RW have stats on this? Although all six chosen this year seemed to take their thread responsibilities very seriously and did a good job of maintaining momentum.
And I do know that we now have some great new regulars on our thread because of the comp, which is clearly one of the aims of the game in the first case for RW.
Ex-pat Scot wrote (see)
I would prefer a system whereby the formal target time is only finalised 3 or 4 weeks before M day. Prior to this, the Lucozade peeps could badge the "gladiators" in bands rather than pure target times (so JFBAR would be "3:00 to 3:15", MM would be "3:15 to 3:30" and so on. Would take away some of the obsessing about pure targets.)
Quite right. Call me naive but when I started following the SuperSix competition I just assumed that the different categories of runners was separated by time target bands rather than specific targets (i.e. sub-3, 3:15, etc) and that once any particular individual was chosen to represent that band the focus on their particular goals would start from there.
Apart from anything else, when it became apparent to me that qualification for a place was effectively part-determined by whether RW thought people were suitable for (or ripe for shoe-horning into) a particular pre-determined target, it struck me as slightly unfair to a number of people who had interesting reasons for taking part, whose goals didn't quite fit. (Where's that Andy bloke? Was it Andy? )
I think I'd like to see a similar set-up with regard to categories separating the range of runners and abilities (to appeal to the wide range of RW readers / forumites that obviously exists) but to worry about goal setting once the competition winners have been chosen. The journeys those people have will still be relevant to people following the various threads even if time goals (for example) aren't identical.
Very interesting thread indeed
We are all very different in training needs, and maybe therein lies the problem
(I was asked to do this a few years ago, to get a sub five, but didnt want to give up doing multiple marathons, so declined. Ive now got my sub five but you couldnt say that IIfollow a standardf training programme)
Maybe the schedules do need to be more flexible to take account of each individual runners' issues
And yes, the target times might then need to change along the way
Agree with all that (as I have posted above) but perhaps the romance of "Sub something" brings more excitement and therefore people onto the forums and the site as a whole. Whichever thread you read, the majority of people are aiming for sub this or sub that. Afterall, the Supersix programme is supposed to be a big challenge to each participant.
As BR said, it would be very interesting to have feedback from RW, if not the sponsors.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2014 |