One of the things I miss RW's forums for is the common sense approach to running. I miss the 'tough love' that was prevalent.
Around here we are happy to tell you when you're going to have a shitty race. Of course also around here the person racing is generally more acutely aware of that than anyone.
Dave
Former Bad Ass
I think with any race it comes down to your expectations. A reasonably healthy person can probably complete a full on a long run of 14 miles. There will likely be a lot of cursing and walking. The only time I would discourage someone is if their half time (or any race) projected out to slower than the cut off time. If they think they can run/walk/stagger to the finish on low mileage, have at it. Plus, I like having a lot of races to chose from--only way that is possible is to be fairly inclusive of a wide range of participants. I found the advice on RW rather 1 dimensional. If someone achieved good results on an unconventional plan (ie. 3 or 4 days per week), it was always met with "but you would do so much better if you ran more". Those folks (who were on there) tended not to offer training advice. According to the common advice on there, I have no business doing even a half because I don't run 40 hours per week. There were also very few posters on there who really understood the challenge of being a slower runner and balancing improving with not over training.
I think with any race it comes down to your expectations. A reasonably healthy person can probably complete a full on a long run of 14 miles. There will likely be a lot of cursing and walking. The only time I would discourage someone is if their half time (or any race) projected out to slower than the cut off time. If they think they can run/walk/stagger to the finish on low mileage, have at it. Plus, I like having a lot of races to chose from--only way that is possible is to be fairly inclusive of a wide range of participants.
I found the advice on RW rather 1 dimensional. If someone achieved good results on an unconventional plan (ie. 3 or 4 days per week), it was always met with "but you would do so much better if you ran more". Those folks (who were on there) tended not to offer training advice. According to the common advice on there, I have no business doing even a half because I don't run 40 hours per week. There were also very few posters on there who really understood the challenge of being a slower runner and balancing improving with not over training.
I remember those. Moth once told me I shouldn’t marathons until I would run a 1:45 HM which in my case is, I think impossible even if I only trained for those. So in his opinion, I never should have done marathons at all.
Damaris
I agree about some posters on RW not understanding what it is like to be slow, but I still learned a lot about doing what I could to make my race day experience something other than a death march.
This forum doesn't have any beginners, so we don't get the same kinds of questions. Most of us do what we can to train as well as we can, even if it's not 100 miles a week. Life happens and families, jobs, health etc. all have an influence in how much time and effort we are able/willing to put into our hobby. But I think everyone here at least understands that more miles, more quality, and more focus will usually make for better races.
But I think everyone here at least understands that more miles, more quality, and more focus will usually make for better races.
More miles does not always mean faster. I think there is a large percentage it works for, but I'm in the unlucky minority that it has not.