|
Apr 2014
1:17pm, 24 Apr 2014
2,041 posts
|
RevBarbaraG
I understand what you mean about it being faith-based, Paul, but I would suggest that it would be possible to make it more empirical.
One way would be for someone who *is* well-trained and who races regularly, to do a season in which they do some races continuous and others RWR, and compare the results. Plodding Hippo runs a marathon most weeks, I wonder if she'd be up for it?
The other way would be for someone with a large database of training and racing data to do a comparison.... putting runners in buckets based on their training mileage before the race, asking them whether they used an intentional RWR strategy (which is NOT the same thing as having to walk because you're tired/injured), and comparing the outcome. I wonder if we could interest fetch in that?
Re the 'most' runners thing, I have asked my mole who's being e-coached by JG if she can dig any details from him about whether some get slower, what proportion improve etc.
Meanwhile - since I finished in position 349xx in London with a gammy knee - I have no hesitation in continuing to RWR 
|
|
Apr 2014
1:24pm, 24 Apr 2014
6,695 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Rev...I absolutely agree RWR is an appropriate strategy for some people in some circumstances.
My slowest marathon included c 10 walk breaks and it was the only way I could get to the end due to injury. My second slowest and first ever included 3 toilet stops, but otherwise was continuously run.....If I had applied an RWR strategy that day I am pretty sure I would have been faster. I dont believe any of the other 12 would have had a better outcome if I had included walking
|
|
Apr 2014
1:26pm, 24 Apr 2014
1,275 posts
|
FenlandRunner
It depends on what limits you. My PB was run walk and I've not got close by only running.
|
|
Apr 2014
1:47pm, 24 Apr 2014
5,561 posts
|
leaguefreak
I'm not sure I feel overly qualified to add anything, having only done a half (pre Fetch days) BUT Rev, you won't get any data on people who got slower adopting JGs RWR strategy from the man himself. Not because he's dishonest, but because his people will presumably only stick with him if they are seeing an improvement. So he will only ever see the evidence when it works consistently, and can only give a biased account. If you really want to look systematically at what happens when you follow the methods you also need to look at who abandoned the methods and why.
|
|
Apr 2014
1:51pm, 24 Apr 2014
648 posts
|
Da Big Guy
RBG - good suggestion though it needs a slight mod.
Pick a runner (can we have a volunteer or 50 for statistical significance) who RWR recently eg London.
(Here's the mod) Work out their average pace.
Ask them to run between THAT pace and say 10s/mile qiuicker the whole way (if they can - that's the test).
Then see what happens (assumin gof course they are all equally trined and rested as they were for the original mara).
|
|
Apr 2014
2:12pm, 24 Apr 2014
2,042 posts
|
RevBarbaraG
Good point, LF - hence the need to do independent research. DBG - good suggestion. I can't volunteer, though, as I am planning on waiting a couple of years before "Next time", with the express intention of getting fitter, dropping a load of weight, and hence being better placed "Next time".... but would probably still want to RWR.
Here's a variation of your suggestion. Pick a runner (or 50 for statistical significance) and get them to nominate a long run route of their choosing. It would need to be at least 10 miles, I think, preferably longer. Get them to RWR it, work out their average pace, then see if they can run it continuously at that pace or up to 10s/mile faster. And for a crossover trial..... get them to try to RWR it at or faster than the pace they can run it continuously. And to get the best results..... get them to try different RWR ratios over a period of time. Make sure it is all recorded, of course - whether continuous or RWR, what the RWR ratio was, and the pace achieved.
By repeating the run over the same course over an extended period, alternating between continuous and RWR, you would, over time, cancel out the effects of training, weather, having a bad day - and come out with the answer that - for *this particular runner* - RWR results in them going x amount faster/slower over y miles. Add together the results of your 50 runners, and you will build up a picture of what proportion of runners benefit.
There, experiment design complete. All we need now are the volunteers
|
|
Apr 2014
2:14pm, 24 Apr 2014
22,089 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Coach at our tri club advocates 20 min run, 1 min walk break, even for fast marathon racers. He's had some folk doing 3:30 and 3:20 with that approach and also some over 60s doing sub 4 hour marathon.
All ultra runners take walk breaks - usually on the hills and/or slowing down to eat, because you have to. Even the fastest ones.
Embrace the Run-Walk-Run. G
|
|
Apr 2014
2:18pm, 24 Apr 2014
1,276 posts
|
FenlandRunner
I believe that some people have gone sub-2:40 on run-walk!!!
|
|
Apr 2014
2:23pm, 24 Apr 2014
6,696 posts
|
Bazoaxe
Evidence FR
|
|
Apr 2014
2:24pm, 24 Apr 2014
2,043 posts
|
RevBarbaraG
D'you know, in a way, it's just another variable in the equation of pacing. Received wisdom is that the fastest way to run a race is evenly paced most of the way, with an acceleration for the last little bit. So you do your sums, work out how many mins/mile you need to run at, and start out trying not to go too much faster than that.
But if you don't succeed in reining yourself in, or if you have miscalculated and set off at a pace that you can't actually sustain (perhaps because it's hot/you've got a gippy tummy, or because your training hasn't worked as well as you'd hoped) - you will either blow up or gradually slow down. With the result that you could end up 20 minutes outside your target time... whereas if you had added just another 10 seconds/mile to your target pace, you might then have been able to sustain the slightly slower pace, and would have been only 4 minutes outside....
Just another variable..... and a lots of could have beens....
|
