This month, , with fascinating insights about where running might be headed. Running was the most-uploaded sport in 2023. (Hear that? Thatā€™s the sound of job security!) Most runners log their miles solo, 9 percent are in groups of three or more people, and an additional 9 percent are logged running in a pair.

Trail running, specifically, continues its trend upwards, with the share of athletes running off-road up 6 percent year over year. Almost half (47 percent!) of runners took at least one trail run. Friends, welcome to the club. We have jackets! (Haha, no we donā€™t.)

Racing On The Rise

Many runners use competition as motivation and inspiration. Plus, athletes who race are 5.3 times more likely to set a distance PR. While men are currently more likely to compete than women, the rate at which men and women are participating is increasing at the same speed.

When life after the COVID lockdowns stabilized for many folks, the Strava Year in Sport review shows that they laced up their running shoes to compete. Twenty-one percent of runners on Strava ran at least one race in 2023, a 24 percent increase over 2022.

Racing was equally split across genders, with 21 percent of men and women competing at least once. Runners from Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980) were the most likely to race, with 26 percent logging at least one competition on Strava. Twenty-two percent of millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) raced, and 24 percent of boomers (born before 1965) pinned on a bib in 2023.

Going the Distance

Ultramarathons, while still less popular than shorter distances, are steadily becoming more popular, too, according to statistics. While just 2 percent of runners on Strava completed an ultra in 2023, thatā€™s still up 11 percent from 2022.

Out of all ultrarunners on the app, two-thirds completed at least one 50K, meaning plenty of runners double-dipped on super long-distance runs in 2023. Women were 43 percent less likely to have run an ultra of any distance (so, yeah, we might have a problem). Participation in ultras may be growing at the same rate among men and women, but there is still plenty of work to be doneā€”for instance, ā€”in order to reach equity. The longer the distance, the greater the gender gap tends to be, with half marathons having the smallest disparityā€”7 percent of women completing a half and 8 percent of men.

Longer races are less popular this year, sure, but participation is growing by about 10 to 15 percent. Less than 1 percent of runners on Strava completed an ultra over 50K, though this distance remains the most popular to run. Participation in 50 miles is roughly half that of 50Ks, and 100K participation is roughly half that. So, if you ran a 100K this year, pat yourself on the back, as youā€™re part of the 1 percent (.0025 percent, to be exact).

RELATED: Your Successful Race Season Starts Now

Marathons remain a popular distance for runners. Five percent of runners on Strava ran a 26.2-mile race in 2023, up 20 percent from last year. Again, women were 32 percent less likely to have run a marathon than men (4 percent of women on Strava ran a marathon versus. 5 percent of men), but both groups saw participation jump 20 percent compared to last year.

OK, Zoomer

Gen Zers are not running as much as previous generations did at their age. Running, while less cost-prohibitive than, say, surfing, skiing, or mountain biking, still requires some financial investment. pinned the ā€œaverageā€ run budget to between $937 and $1,132 annually. I guess those gels really do add up!

And when you consider that 60 percent of young adults don’t feel their basic needs are met, a decline in participation makes sense. , an independent group that produces industry surveys, the number of runners in the 35-44 and 45-54 age groups has dropped significantly since 2015, while participation in the 25-34 age group only increased slightly. According to the report, Gen Z runners prefer to run for experiential benefits like socializing, fun, and mental health.

Interestingly, data about Gen Z runners on the Strava Year in Sport says the opposite, reporting that this generation is 31 percent less likely to exercise primarily for their health compared to millennial and Gen X counterparts. The difference could be that runners committed enough to sign up for an activity tracking app are already a self-select group. Zoomers on Strava report that their primary motivation for exercise is athletic performance. This is echoed by the speed of their training runs, which average out to be a pace of 8:59 a mile. Zoinks!

Gen Z runners are also more run-dominant than other generations. Seventy percent of the generation’s Strava users uploaded runs onto the app versus 52 percent of Gen X, a 35 percent higher likelihood (this might as well be the likelihood to Google ā€œWhat is a Zendaya?ā€) Gen Z runners saw the greatest percentage of growth in race participation this year, with a 60 percent jump in attendance at the marathon distance and a 68 percent increase at 13.1. (My mind would fully melt if I lined up against someone born in 2004, but also, welcome! Please be gentle.) According to Running USA, Gen Z runners gravitate towards races with a compelling theme or cause that resonates with their values.

RELATED: Finding Love on Strava

Trends are different across training habits, too. Gen Z runners are twice as likely as boomers to have weekday activity after 4 P.M. and are 31 percent less likely to exercise before 10 A.M.. Fascinatingly, 39 percent of Gen Z Strava athletes started a new job, and a third of the cohort reported relocating in 2023, which could speak to flexibility or economic instability for younger runners.

Over the year, Gen Z runners logged 17 percent less mileage than Gen X athletes, explained primarily with a shorter average run length. Plus, Gen Z athletes have slightly fewer running weeks in a year. (Maybe if they werenā€™t so busy eating all that avocado toast, they could run more!) JK, as the kids on TikTok say. In truth, Gen Z runners might train less because they are shooting for shorter distances, or the other way aroundā€”itā€™s impossible to disentangle causation here.

Looking Ahead

Itā€™s not only a fun pastime to browse the year-in-review data, poking fun at the generations before or after us like theyā€™re siblings (ā€œNo, I run more!ā€ ā€œWell, I run faster!ā€), but itā€™s also a way to see where the industry is lacking.

The Strava Year in Sport data shows that the running industry will have to work to bring in more Gen Z athletes. This might mean that race directors and event organizers will have to continue tailoring their offerings to speak to a younger, more experience-driven demographic. Numbers also prove that, while the female section of the running pie has grown overall, more changes need to be made to reach gender equity. The statistics tell us a lot, but one of the biggest, if not the biggest, takeaways is that people are running more now than ever. And that? Well, thatā€™s pretty rad.

The post Runners Are Racing More than Ever appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

In our monthly column in partnership with Strava, we take a deep dive into compelling data points that reveal the more human side of sport.Ā 

While summer race goals might feel far off, athletes know winter is an important time to commit to consistency. With new yearā€™s resolutions right around the corner (see our recent column on how to meet your yearly mileage goals), we looked at how the most consistent runners use their winter season to get stronger and faster.

Cross-Training Can Help Athletes Stay Consistent Through the Winter

Consistency is key for progressing training and minimizing injury risk. Staying consistent can help you avoid injury, and avoiding injury helps you stay consistent.

Muscle fiber growth and recruitment is improved with consistent stress and recovery cycles, and you donā€™t need huge efforts to reap the benefits. Short bouts of running (even just 10-20 minutes a day) can produce adaptations down to a cellular level. Consistency is also critical for aerobic and metabolic adaptations, helping your body more efficiently transport oxygen-rich red blood cells to your muscles via capillaries through increased capillarization, a process known as angiogenesis.

When it comes to winter training, donā€™t let perfect be the enemy of good. Twenty to thirty minutes on a treadmill or running in the snow is always better than zero (in the context of good health and recovery).

Suppose your goals are primarily to stay healthy and active through the winter. (While we didnā€™t assess how cross-training affects fitness or speed, it can be assumed that increased consistency and activity frequency usually correlate with improved speed, fitness, and health.)

In that case, cross-training can be an important part of your winter training regimen. Most runners on Strava donā€™t just run. Seventy-five percent of runners cross-train in the summer, too, using activities like outdoor cycling, walking and hiking to increase their activity frequency.

Runners who cross-trained in the summer had a 20 percent higher chance of staying active through the winter. Eighty-nine percent of athletes who cross-trained in the summer continued to be active throughout the winter, compared to 74 percent of athletes who didn’t cross-train through the summer and continued to be active in the winter.

Consistent athletes stay consistent through the winter. Twenty-four percent of athletes who run three times a week continue to hit that cadence in the winter, while 58 percent further reduce frequency. Fifty-two percent of athletes who run seven times a week in the summer continue to do so in the winter, with only 48 percent reducing run frequency. Still, half of all committed runners scale back to an extent in the winter, but more on that later when discussing offseasons.

Donā€™t Fear the Treadmill

While many runners may not be thrilled to take their runs indoors and onto the dreadmill, consistent athletes gravitate towards the treadmill when conditions are tough.

The share of indoor runs doubles from December to February on Strava, with 16 percent of all runs occurring indoors. The treadmill can be a great training tool for athletes, with elites like Elsey Davis logging before her Golden Ticket win at UTMBā€™s Val Dā€™Aran.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

According to Strava, winter cross-training also moves indoors, with activities like indoor cycling, strength training, and walking as the most popular cross-training options.

RELATED: Iā€™m an Ultrarunner. Taylor Swiftā€™s Treadmill Workout Wrecked Me.

Many Runners Take an ā€˜Off-Seasonā€™

While thereā€™s been much discussion about what constitutes an off-season and the benefits for athletes, Strava data shows that many highly committed and consistent runners take a down-season from higher volume.

Data suggests a modest off-season wonā€™t set reasonably consistent runners back too much, but that athletes who are already running at a moderate to low volume (less than five times a week) should focus on maintaining a base of consistency through the winter rather than rushing to take time off of already low volume.

Weā€™re not saying donā€™t take time off. Winter can be a great time to emphasize cross-training and strength training and enjoy a new mix of winter sports. But the higher your healthy volume is coming into the winter, the more flexibility athletes have to add additional winter activities into their training without sacrificing fitness. The athletes who have the most success (defined as returning to consistent running come summertime) put themselves in a position to jump back into spring training with a bit of a base.

Ideally, runners shouldnā€™t need more than a few weeks to get back to their main-season training volume. Swings in training volume increase the risk of injury, and weeks spent ā€œgetting back in shapeā€ are less effective at progressing your training forward.

Runners who reduced running volume (defined in average weekly distance) in the winter by 1-10 percent averaged within ten percent of their summer average mileage in spring (March-May). Runners running three times a week in summer who reduced volume in winter by 1-10 percent were still able to put in spring training weeks just seven percent shy on average of their summer mileage.

Usually, this difference is a few miles a week, which is fairly easily re-established. On average, runners who ran five times a week remained within ten percent of their summer average mileage. Runners who reduced volume by 11 to 25 percent were still able to build back effectively in the spring, with three-time-a-week runners only 14 percent behind summer volume and five-time-a-week runners 19 percent behind their summer average.

Runners who reduced volume by 50 percent or more struggled to make up the volume come spring. Three-time-a-week and five-time-a-week runners couldnā€™t effectively bridge the gap in spring between their winter off-season and summer volume.

In winter, of runners who run three times weekly during the summer, only six percent stop being active altogether, suggesting that many fall back on indoor cross-training activities. Even among athletes from this group who paused running in the winter, 64 percent still logged at least one non-running activity per week. Of runners who average seven runs a week during the summer, there are still low inactivity rates (only eight percent halt activity completely), but only 23 percent of the group average at least one non-run activity a week.

In sum, folks who donā€™t cross-train donā€™t have much to fall back on in case of injury or crappy weather, and having a cross-training option that helps you stay active in those scenarios can help you stay more consistent and support your running in the long-term.

Tips For Reaching Your 2024 Mileage Goals

Staying on track for a goal is a tough line to walk. In 2022, 22.8 percent of Strava users who set yearly mileage goals finished within 80 to 90 percent of their goal. So close! Thirteen percent were within 10 percent of their goal. For folks within a stoneā€™s throw of their yearly mileage but didnā€™t quite make it, here are some data-driven tips to make 2024 your most consistent year of running yet.

• Focus on the hard months. The toughest months to stay on track were November, December, and February (except January, when many people panic-commit to a goal and stay consistent for exactly one month). Focusing on consistency in the tough parts of the year will set you up for year-round success.
• Every bit counts! The median distance for goal completersā€™ individual runs was 24 percent higher than those who didnā€™t make it. Yearly goals arenā€™t achieved with heroic efforts and super-high volume days but through weeks and weeks of easily attainable consistent volume.
• Find a friend. Athletes who ran with other folks in 2022 had a 17 percent higher goal completion rate. We are similar to the folks we surround ourselves with, so surround yourself with stoked goal-getters this year.
• Consistency is key. Folks who met their goal had 15 percent more active days than goal-setters who missed their goals.Ā  To quote author Brad Stulberg, ā€œDonā€™t aim to be consistently great; aim to be great at being consistent.ā€

The post Your Successful Race Season Starts Now appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

While marathons like Chicago and Berlin are known for their fast and flat courses, marathon majors like the New York City and Boston Marathons are known for their demanding climbs, descends, and deafening cheer sections. We looked at thousands of data points provided by Strava to understand better how runners fare in the Boston and NYC marathons.

A Note On Courses, Weather, and Methods

Each course is unique and has different participant density, while the logistics of the race themselves vary, too. Those variables should be taken into account when looking at why runners perform differently at each event. Boston also has a qualifying standard, too, which means that most of the field has run a marathon previously and is self-selected for faster finishes.

Weā€™ve removed the data from NYC 2022 because the historically hot temps were a bigger factor in finishing times than the course itself. That said, both marathons are susceptible to swingy weather. For the three years we analyzed, Boston had starting temperatures at 60, 46, and 48 degrees Fahrenheit, with 88 to 99 percent humidity, while NYC had temperatures ranging from 44 to 71 degrees Fahrenheit (excluded year) and 50 degrees Fahrenheit with 71 percent and 64 percent humidity.

Most of our analysis compares runners in a certain pace group (for example, runners targeting a sub-four-hour finish). Simply comparing results across both races would skew the analysis because of their varied pace distributions (in no small part because of Bostonā€™s stringent qualifying requirements for most participants). Both races are fairly similar in gender composition. This year, 55 percent of NYC competitors identified as male, as well as 57 percent of Boston runners.

Performance Indicators Across Marathons

A major indicator of marathon performance is a negative split, or running the second half faster than the first. Itā€™s a prudent racing strategy but tough to implement on race day, especially on hilly courses like NYC or Boston.

In the faster pacing groups, more runners at Boston managed to successfully negative split (again, likely due to previous race experience, as evidenced in this previous analysis of Boston Strava data). Runners aiming for a 2:30 to 3:00 finish were 38 percent more likely to negative split Boston (11 percent versus just 8 percent of the same pace cohort at NYC). Runners shooting for a 3:00 to 3:30 finish were 19 percent more likely to negative split at Boston than NYC, but for runners targeting just under four hours, there was a similar likelihood of a negative split. Interestingly, for runners aiming for a finish over four hours, Boston runners were less likely to negative split. While Boston is a net downhill course, those Newton hills can really chew up quads!

RELATED: Looking to Qualify for the Boston Marathon? Hereā€™s What Strava Data Says About That Elusive BQ.

Now, letā€™s look at how many runners at each race met their goals. To do this, we compared runnersā€™ average pace in the first eight miles and their projected finish times. We instituted a strict threshold and didnā€™t count times even a second over their goal finish time. Using this analysis, runners are significantly more likely to hit their goals at Boston. Again, this is likely because qualified runners have more marathons under their belt, and experience is invaluable in pacing and race-day execution.

But executing an ideal marathon is easier said than done, regardless of the course. Less than 10 percent of runners nailed their exact goal in either field, regardless of race or pace group. The biggest difference between races was in the 3:00 to 3:30 pace group, with a 67 percent difference between Boston and NYC runners in that particular pace group hitting their goal. In pace groups for four hours or longer, there was a fairly negligible difference between pace groups.

What About The Bonk?

While it’s fascinating to determine what makes for a successful marathon experience, weā€™d be remiss if we didnā€™t use our fine-tooth data comb to parse the fascinating data around what makes a bad day at a marathon.

ā€œBonkingā€ or ā€œhitting the wallā€ happens when the body has depleted its glycogen stores and starts to fatigue and burn fat, causing the legs to slow and energy to plummet. Legs feel heavy, exhaustion can feel overwhelming, and taking a quick asphalt nap can be tempting. This tends to happen around miles 16 to 20 and is many marathonersā€™ worst nightmare.

RELATED: Why Do I Bonk When It Gets Hot?

We looked at the difference in runnersā€™ average pace for the last 10K versus the first 20 miles to see how many people bonk. A 10 percent slowdown is an off-day, not totally outside of the realm of possibility for many runners. It isnā€™t out of line with fairly normal marathon fatigue (or a quad-explosion in the Newton Hills). But a 20 percent slowdown is a true bonk, a pretty bad day. For athletes targeting a sub-4:00 finish, a ten percent slowdown would look like going from 9:09 miles to 10:04. A 20 percent slowdown would go from 9:09 to 10:59.

Hereā€™s where things get fun. Thereā€™s significantly more variation between years for Boston, with 2023 being a more consistent year with fewer bonks in the field. The footprint of the 2022 NYC Marathon is also clear here, with the majority (71 percent) of the field (speedsters included!) slowing down significantly in the heat and humidity. The groups with the biggest bonks were the folks shooting for four hours or longer at Boston (more time on feet can increase the potential for a bonk, especially if thereā€™s significant time between aid stations).

Bonking is still significantly more likely at the NYC marathon across all pace groups and years. For instance, for athletes targeting a 2.5- to 3-hour finish, runners are 33 percent more likely to experience a moderate bonk (slowing down 10 percent or more) at NYC, and 55 percent more likely to experience a severe bonk (or 20 percent or more slowdown), at NYC (accounting for 20 percent of this group at NYC, versus 13 percent at Boston).

Hills Versus Bridges

Boston is known for its hills, both Newton and Heartbreak. New York has bridges and boroughs. But which causes runners to slow down the most?

To do this, we looked at the first eight miles to establish a ā€œgoal paceā€ for athletes targeting a sub-four-hour finish and saw that both races are pretty evenly split across the halfway mark.

About a third of athletes start to slow down at the halfway mark, but not by too much. At NYC, things get tricky in miles 15 to 16, with almost all athletes slowing by 5 percent as they tackle the Queensboro Bridge. (79 percent of runners slowed down here, and to the 21 percent that didnā€™t, please DM us your strength routine.)

Thereā€™s another crux at mile 24 of the NYC marathon, with a mile-long climb into Central Park. We see 85 percent of runners miss their goal pace here, with runners averaging a 20 percent slowdown (for four-hour marathoners, going from 9:09 to 10:59 pace).

Boston has its infamous Heartbreak Hill, which causes the biggest slowdown of that race. Eighty-one percent of runners slow as they hit the 20th mile, and 90 percent slowing in the 21st mile. So, while the hills of Boston are undoubtedly hard and have earned their reputation, maybe itā€™s time we pay the bridges the respect and attention they deserve, too!

Regardless of the course, running a marathon is a major accomplishment, and to all the competitors who toed the line, we say hats off to you and your majorly impressive data!

The post Boston Versus New York City: Which Marathon Is Harder? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

In our monthly column in partnership with Strava, we take a deep dive into compelling data points that reveal the more human side of sport.Ā 

In 2023, a record-breaking 33,058 athletes applied for the 128th Boston Marathon. Of those, just 22,019 were accepted (pending final verification). Qualifying times are established for different age and gender categories. Still, with so many applicants, the unofficial cutoff times for acceptance were five minutes and 29 seconds faster than the official qualifying time many athletes push for.

Looking at data from several 2022 marathons, interesting trends emerge. We analyzed Strava data from the Berlin, Chicago, Marine Corps, New York City, CIM, and Valencia marathons. Hereā€™s what the data tells us about qualifying for the Boston Marathon.

A Quick Note on Courses

Before we get too deep into the data, itā€™s worth discussing the fact that the above courses have different course dynamics and demographics, which influence median finishing times. Berlin, CIM, and Valencia are all fast courses that attract folks gunning for a BQ. (Hola Valencia! Peep that four feet of total gain, with a net descent of 106 feet.) CIM has a particularly high percentage of BQs since it combines a fast course with a smaller fieldā€”many run CIM specifically to qualify for Boston.

Last year was a record-breaking heat year at the NYC Marathon, which resulted in an anomalously low negative-split rate. More than 2,000 runners didnā€™t cross the finish line in 2022, with temperatures soaring to 75 degrees withĀ  75 percent humidity, which radically affected finishing times. Weā€™ll still look at data from NYC, but 2022 was exceptional. Only 30 percent of runners at NYC who were aiming for a sub-three finish met that goal, and only half of runners looking to go sub-four did so.

Training for A BQ Versus Training For a Marathon

Across all the marathons we analyzed, athletes had similar training. Most started at a base of around 20 miles a week and a 10-mile long run. On average, they worked up to a 30-mile week and a 20-mile long run. While thereā€™s a slight variation in average miles per week (mpw), the training time in the peak week is similar (and each race has a different mix of target paces for participants).

CIM had the highest average mileage baseline and peak week, suggesting that it attracts more experienced runners with a specific goal in mind. CIM runners started with a 30 mpw base and progressed to a 50-mile peak week and 21-mile long run. BQ runners at CIM started with a 43-mile peak week (the highest of any marathon analyzed). When we just look at athletes who hit the BQ standard to equalize the field, CIM runners have a higher baseline and peak week.

While many newer distance runners tend to focus on flashy long runs, the distance of the longest run was not strongly correlated with a BQ. Comparing BQ runners and all other athletes, the distance of the longest run was 20 to 22 miles across each marathon. But, the base mileage was higher for BQ runners, bearing in mind that base volume matters more than the distance of any long run. BQ runners at CIM averaged 65 miles during their peak week, while the rest of the field averaged 50 mpw. Similarly, Chicago BQers averaged 57 miles during peak week, compared to the rest of the fieldā€™s 41 mpw peak week.

RELATED: Didnā€™t Qualify for the Boston Marathon? Fundraise for One of These Charities.

Interestingly, there was not a strong correlation between success on hillier courses and runners averaging more elevation gain in their training. Across all races, BQ runners did have more elevation in their training. For example, CIM and Berlin BQers had 15 percent more elevation gain in their training than runners who didnā€™t BQ (even when you control for average mileage). CIM runners hit the most vertical gain, averaging 100 feet of elevation gain per mile over the training cycle.

Speed and Experience

Thereā€™s no teacher like experience, and marathons are no different. Runners who finished one of the above races between 2:30 and 2:59 on average have completed six previous marathons. Runners who finished between 4:00 and 4:30 had completed, on average, four previous marathons. Experience helps with pacing, fueling, and other elements of the marathon that are sometimes only learned through trial and error.

Chilling Out

Keep easy days easy. Thereā€™s a strong positive correlation between keeping training runs intentionally slower than race pace and runners hitting their goal pace (defined as the pace runners averaged over the first eight miles of the marathon). Running slower than marathon effort helps build dense capillary beds, strengthen the heart, increase stroke volume (the amount of blood your heart can pump per beat), and increase the endurance capabilities of your muscle fibers by increasing the number of mitochondria in muscle cells. Running too fast causes the breakdown of bone and muscle tissue at a rate that canā€™t be outpaced in recovery; plus it makes the body less efficient at processing oxygen.

Runners that kept easy runs about 30 percent slower than goal pace had a 27 percent success rate, finishing at or close to their goal time. For runners who did easy runs only 10 percent slower than their goal pace (the approach of about a third of the runners analyzed), only 19 percent met their goal time, equating to a 31 percent reduction in success rate. Of runners who did ā€œeasyā€ days around marathon pace, only 14 percent hit their goal time.

Faster runners, who are more experienced, keep easy runs easier. Runners who finish in 2:30, on average, run their easy days 29 percent slower than goal pace. Compare this with runners who finish an hour later in 3:30, whereas the average runner ran their easy days just 11 percent slower than race pace, and only 20 percent hit their goal finish time.

Runners aiming for a 3:00 marathon (6:52 mile-pace) should shoot for easy days between 7:48 and 8:36. Runners looking to hit a 3:30 time (8:01 mile-pace) should strive for easy days between 9:02 and 9:56, and 4-hour marathoners (9:09 mile-pace) should shoot to keep easy days between 10:11- and 11:11-minute miles. As demonstrated by the data, to go fast, you have to learn to run slow.

Course Choice and Negative Split

Of all the courses, CIM and Valencia had the highest percentage qualifying for Boston, with 32 percent of the field BQing. Only six percent of NYC runners hit the Boston standard (heat!), and the Marine Corps Marathon, popular amongst beginner runners, had a similar qualifying rate. At Chicago and Berline, 18 percent of the runners qualified.

NYC and Marine Corps had the slowest median finish time, just over 4:30, averaged across all runners (NYC usually runs faster in cooler years). NYC is also the largest race, with over 47,000 competitors (compared to CIMā€™s 10,000). Valencia had the quickest average finish time (3:28), with a relatively small field of 30,000 runners.

Even more than gain and loss, the strongest predictor of BQ success was a negative split, running the second half of the race faster than the first. Take, for instance, Kelvin Kiptumā€™s recent world record win in Chicago, in which Kiptum ran a 59:47 negative split to run just 35 seconds over the two-hour barrier.

Just three percent of NYC runners (the heat! The humidity!) negative split in the rising temps, again pointing to an outlier year in NYC. Eleven percent of runners negative split both Chicago and Marine Corps, but experience won out in the Chicago crowd, with its 18 percent BQ rate, eclipsing Marine Corpsā€™ six percent (a race that traditionally has more beginner runners).

RELATED:

Berlin and CIM both boosted a 16 percent negative split rate, though a higher percentage (32 percent) of CIM runners hit the BQ compared to Berlinā€™s 18 percent. Valencia had the highest percentage of negative splits. Still, a significant portion of that can be attributed to the extremely flat course, with just enough downhill to boost speed but not enough to bash the quads too badly.

So, if youā€™re searching for an elusive BQ, hereā€™s what the data show: slow your runs down, choose your course wisely, shoot for a negative split, and remember that practice makes perfect. It may take a couple of marathons to get it absolutely right, but that experience will be invaluable.

The post Looking to Qualify for the Boston Marathon? Hereā€™s What Strava Data Says About That Elusive BQ. appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

UTMB, or the Ultra-Trail du Mont-Blanc, is a 106-mile loop around the Mont Blanc massif with over 32,940 feet of elevation gain. This mountain ultra attracts some of the top competition in the world, drawing in names like Kilian Jornet and Courtney Dauwalter, while hosting thousands of runners from all over the world.

Runners must accumulate qualifying points via ā€œstonesā€ in UTMB-branded events of comparable distances in the UTMB World Series. For example, runners who want to run the 106-mile race in Chamonix must finish a UTMB event like Canyons by UTMB or Wildstrubel by UTMB. So, by the time many runners toe the line in Chamonix, they have some experience in the distance.

In 2022, . How do these runners train for such a beastly race? We parsed through the Strava data for some surprising finds.

How UTMB Runners Train

After analyzing Strava data from UTMB runners, there was not a statistically significant difference in training between finishers and non-finishers, who were nearly identical across all measures including training volume, vertical feet accumulated, and median longest run. A 68 percent finishing rate for UTMB is fairly respectable among mountain ultras. For comparison, the Western States Endurance Runā€™s (WSER) finishing rate in 2023 was 81 percent, versus the 2023 Leadville 100ā€™s 43 percent finishing rate, likely due to the absence of a qualification process and coupled with extreme altitude and this yearā€™s hot conditions.

Over six months of training, UTMB runners average 931 cumulative miles, 140 hours of running time, and more than 130,000 feet of elevation gain. That averages out to 38 miles per week, or just under six hours a week of running over a 24-week training cycle. The average UTMB runner starts at a 30-mile-a-week average, which they build towards nearly 80 miles a week in their peak week.

RELATED: 10 Things to Know About Jim Walmsleyā€™s Obsession to Win UTMB

The peak week for most runners is three weeks before race day, and the data shows a wide range in UTMB runnersā€™ peak weeks. The average sits at just 79 miles in that peak week, but the majority of athletes fall somewhere between 66 to 97 miles in that high volume week.

On average, UTMB runners rack up 16,000 of elevation gain in their peak week. Diving into 2022ā€™s UTMB menā€™s winner Kilian Jonetā€™s training data from last year, we can see that even while recovering from a win at the Hardrock 100, , logging runs that average between 396-750 feet per mile.

Long runs are also essential to prepare for an event like UTMB, and many athletes used a race to facilitate the build towards race day. Strava revealed that 57 percent of runners did a race in their training, while 39 percent of UTMB runners’ longest run was 100K or longer. Also, 62 percent of athletes logged a long run of over 50 miles.

Long runs like these were infrequent in UTMB runnersā€™ training. Twenty-four percent of UTMB runners did more than one run of 50 miles or longer. In fact, when you control for these very long runs and races in UTMB runnersā€™ training, the median long run in the two months leading up to the race is just 14 miles. Additionally, the median number of weeks an athlete logs a run of 20 miles or longer is six.

Thatā€™s generally in alignment with recommendations for 100-mile training, which are trending towards not overemphasizing the long run which risks injury, and has diminishing returns for adaptation. For example, while the exact data isnā€™t public, were typically between three or four hours, seeing that the cost of going over five hours outweighed the potential benefits.

UTMB Versus Western States

When comparing how athletes trained for the Western States Endurance Run with UTMB, interesting trends emerge. First, letā€™s acknowledge the obvious: these are very different events on almost every front, but this can still offer important comparisons.

WSER is a significantly less technical race, traversing from Olympic Valley to Auburn, California, on terrain that is much less steep than the European Alps. Itā€™s also significantly hotter, though 2023 was a particularly cool year (a factor in this yearā€™s somewhat anomalously high finishing rate of 81 percent). The field is also smaller, with just under 400 runners, versus UTMBā€™s 2,400 runners. They both have that mandate runners have experience at a similar distanceā€”a minimum of 100K for WSER runners.

RELATED: Hereā€™s What Strava Data Says About Your New Yearā€™s Resolution

Finishing times and cutoffs are also different. Dauwalter, who currently holds the womenā€™s record on both courses, demonstrates the difference in difficulty. Her course record for WSER is a blistering 15:29:33, while her equally impressive UTMB course record is 22:30:54.

Most UTMB runners take between 32 and 46 hours to finish, with the average finishing time being about 40 hours. The cutoff times for the courses are also very different, with WSERā€™s 30-hour cutoff being in step with the relatively tame terrain, but also significant enough to confer an honor to all belt buckle recipients.

UTMB, on the other hand, has a cutoff time of 46.5 hours, which reflects the difficulty of the terrain and the difference between European and U.S.-based trail racing. When runners receive their bibs for UTMB, they also get a paper card that says ā€œSleeping, Do Not Disturbā€ due to anticipating the prevalence of napping on the course.

UTMB runners logged less volume than WSER runners, averaging just 38 miles a week compared to WSERā€™s 50 average weekly miles. UTMB runners, however, packed a lot of vert into those miles, averaging 140 feet per mile over the training cycle, versus WSERā€™s 115 feet. This means that UTMB runnersā€™ training was 22 percent steeper than that of WSER runners. This makes sense as UTMB is significantly steeper, racking up almost double WSERā€™s 15,540 total feet of elevation gain.

UTMB runners logged significantly less distance than their WSER counterparts, averaging just 931 miles over the six-month training cycle, versus 1,193 miles for WSER. Western States runnersā€™ peak weeks were bigger, too, averaging 87 miles in their highest volume week, versus UTMBā€™s 79 miles.

The clear trend that emerged from UTMB runnersā€™ data is that you might not need to run as much as one might think to be successful at this event. Starting at 30 miles a week, and peaking at below 80 is achievable for many runners, which is perhaps what makes this extreme, but attainable, event so alluring for runners all over the world.

The post What Strava Data Tells Us About How Runners Train for UTMB appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

Less than nine percent of Americans are able to stick to their New Yearā€™s resolutions for a full year, . In 2023, the most common resolution for Americans was to exercise more. But, when it comes to setting SMART goals, we runners are smarter, right?

Many runners set ambitious goals for their yearly mileage. According to Strava, 53 percent of runners who set yearly mileage goals for 2023 are on track to achieve those goalsā€“ with plenty of year to spare. Staying on track towards a yearly mileage goal is a balancing act that requires athletes to manage their training load over the course of a year. In 2022, 22.8 percent of athletes finished less than 20 percent shy of their goalā€“ and 12.5 percent completed 90 percent of their yearly goal volume ā€“so close, and yet, so far!

The most popular year-end goal for Strava users was 1,000 kilometers, followed by 1,000 miles (so much to love about an affinity for big, round numbers that transcends the Imperial/Metric system binary!). There was also a spike in interest in 2023k and 2023M goals, becauseā€¦2023. To meet that goal, runners would need to log just under three miles or three kilometers a day, or 18 miles a week. Doable? Definitely.

Letā€™s take a deep dive into the data to examine what strategies help, and what strategies hinder runners en route to achieving their yearly mileage.

Make Hay While the Sun Shines

Runners tend to hit more mileage in the warmer months (surprising no one who, resigned to logging winter miles on the treadmill, ran out of Great British Bake Off reruns). According to Stravaā€™s data, the athletes who met their yearly mileage goals tended to log more runs in August, September, and October. These months, in that tender spot between the heat of the summer and the chill of winter, gave athletes an opportunity to bank some miles before daylight savings and December.

Runners who met their goals tended to run up to 10 percent more than was needed for their goal in these months (also coinciding with the pinnacle of summer trail race season and preparation for fall marathons). September tended to be the goal-meeterā€™s peak month, with average monthly volume 33 percent higher than December 2022. For the best shot at meeting your year-end goal, the time to recommit to consistency is now.

Donā€™t Procrastinate

Stravaā€™s data shows that waiting for a last-minute push isnā€™t a productive method for runners looking to meet their year-end goals. Athletes tended to trend under the consistency needed for their goals in February, November and December. Colder weather and shorter days provide enough friction to prevent many athletes from reaching the goals they were excited about in January. Even among folks who met their year-end goals, November and December, with all their holiday travel and schedule interruptions, were the lowest-volume months of the year, with December being the lowest month of all.

Get Right Back on the Bandwagon

The best advice for staying consistent enough to meet your goals is to not let one missed day become three, then become a week, then become a month off. Itā€™s okay to have a down week, or even a down month as long as youā€™re able to maintain a base of consistency.

Among the runners who met their yearly goals in 2022, 52 percent ran less in June than was required for their goal. Almost half of runners who ultimately met their yearly goal went into June behind pace and used August, September, and October as an opportunity to make up for some lost volume. 20 percent of runners who were 20 percent behind their goals going into July of 2022 ended up making it up by the end of the year. So, right now is the perfect time to take stock of where youā€™re at, and recommit to those year-end goals.

Tips for Staying Consistent, According to Strava Data

Analyzing thousands of Strava uploads, there were clear patterns among runners who were able to meet their year-end goals vs. those who fell short. Hereā€™s what we learned from the data:

• Every bit counts. The median distance for runners who completed their goal vs. those who didnā€™t was 24 percent higher. Rather than trying to meet your goal through heroic efforts and super-long runs, consider adding volume in more manageable increments. Adding an extra mile or 10 minutes a couple of times a week could end up making the difference between meeting your goal and falling short.

• Run with a buddy.Ā  Athletes who ran with others in 2022 had a 17 percent higher goal completion rate. Runs with friends or a group tend to be longer, and runners who go the distance together are 78 percent more active than athletes who run solo. So, if you feel your motivation waning, grab a friend or join a group!

Consistency is key. Big, year-long goals arenā€™t achieved through one-off heroic efforts, but by doing the best you can to get out as often as is healthy and productive for your training. Athletes who met their goals had about 15 percent more active days than folks who didnā€™t. So, if youā€™re struggling to meet your goal, consider adding an additional, lower-volume day to your run week.

The post Hereā€™s What Strava Data Says About Your New Yearā€™s Resolution appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

In our new monthly column in partnership with Strava, we take a deep dive into compelling data points that reveal the more human side of sport.Ā 

While no runner who finishes the (WSER) is ā€œaverage,ā€ we can learn something about effective training from finishers. Data scientists at Strava compiled data from Western States finishers, from 2018-2022, to help us investigate the numbers behind successful finish times.

Hereā€™s how successful runners train for the Western States 100.

The Peak Week

The median peak week for a WSER finisher was 81 miles and 16 hours, with an accumulated elevation of 13.5K feet of vertical gain (we use medians rather than averages to eliminate outlier data). The median longest run was 50 miles, and 43 percent of athletes did at least a 100K run in the lead-up to States. Sixty-five percent of runners did at least one race in the build-up to fine-tune their race day strategies and log more time on feet.

Thatā€™s some significant volume! But not everyone started with huge training weeks. The median base going into the six-month lead-up to WSER was a modest 37 miles with 2,700 feet of climbing, and a median 12-mile long run. Howā€™d they build volume and experience going into the race?

RELATED: Western States 100 for Amateurs

According to Strava data, about a quarter (22 percent) of athletes do their peak week four weeks out from race day (and many participate in the Memorial Weekend Western States Training Runs, which strings together a 50K, 19-, and 20-mile days). Eleven percent of finishers log their biggest week five weeks before race day, and 19 percent peak three weeks out. While thereā€™s not a huge difference between peaking three and four weeks out, those weeks are overrepresented among finishers versus peaking five weeks out.

As we saw earlier, most athletes peak with around an 80-mile week, during which the median long run is 32 miles (many people log a self-supported or race stimulus 50K), and almost a third (32 percent) do a 50-mile race during their peak week.

The Long Run

The long run is an essential part of 100-mile training, where athletes are able to build endurance, test gear and fueling strategies, and dial in their effort level for race day. All finishers logged at least a 20-mile long run in training, and, on average, finishers logged 10 runs of 20 miles or more in the build-up to the Western States 100. Fifty-seven percent logged a long run of 50 miles or longer.

Ninety-seven percent of runners logged at least a 50K in the build-up, and across all finishers, runners logged on average three 50Ks in the six months before the race, suggesting a sort of peak-long-run sweet spot for many finishers. Comparing data from Western States training with other 100-milers in the U.S., we donā€™t see a statistically significant variation in peak week timing, or long run length.

What About . . . Not Running?

We canā€™t point to a causal relationship between finishing times and cross-training because of confounding factors, but those who logged their cross-training on Strava averaged 26 percent more training time across their cycle than their non-cross-training peers. WSER runners seem to prefer biking, with 57 percent of finishers logging at least one bike ride in their build-up, versus the 15 percent who backcountry skied (though that time on snow might come in handy this year!). In addition, 55 percent of finishers logged a hike, 33 percent logged a walk, and almost half logged at least one strength workout on Strava.

RELATED:

While most WSER finishers cross-trained, the relationship between cross-training and finishing times canā€™t be linked in the data, and this is just to demonstrate that cross-training is an effective way of boosting overall training volume for many athletes.

Get Highā€¦Sometimes

According to the data, athletes who live above 5,000 feet tend to have faster finishing times, though this could be due to selection bias, where many elite athletes choose to live in running meccas like Tahoe, Boulder, and Flagstaff, all of which are above 5,000 feet. Runners who mostly train at or above 5,000 feet had a median finishing time of 25:39:37 (this represents less than 20 percent of finishers). Of athletes who trained at altitude, 43 percent went even higher, logging runs at altitudes more than 20 percent higher than their typical training altitude.

The remaining 83 percent of finishers did most of their training below 5,000 feet and had a median finishing time of 26:28:07, suggesting that living at altitude grants an edge, albeit a small one of less than an hour. Also, 56 percent of these runners did at least two runs above 5,000 feet, picking up some crucial simulation for the first 50K of States in the alpine.

100 Miles, One Day. The 24-Hour Effect.

Anyone who finishes Western States in 24 hours or less receives one of the sportā€™s most coveted accouterments: a silver, cougar-adorned belt buckle. So much so that the data shows a cluster of finishes just under the 24-hour mark, as many athletes hustle to achieve the goal of running 100 miles in one day. In 2018, 15 percent of WSER runners finished in the 23rd hour, while 13 percent finished in hour 23 in 2022. Compare that to the 2 percent who finish just after the 24-hour mark in 2018, and 2.6 percent in 2022, and you see a significant clustering of finishes right before the 24-hour mark.

While Western States 100 demands a certain level of accomplishment to compete (runners must qualify via lottery, and run at least 100K or a qualifying 100-mile event to enter or race their way in via Golden Ticket), weā€™d expect to see naturally faster finishing times, even on the demanding course, with 15,540 feet of climbing and 22,970 feet of descent.

Western States. It’s a tough race. One of the toughest. And yet, as we sift through all this data of finishers, we find patterns. From peak weeks to altitude, long runs and training races, a pattern emerges of what effective training looks like.

We find strategically positioned races three to four weeks out. We find that many of the faster finishers spent time in the high country. In a race full of outlier athletes, the data still tells a fascinating story.

ZoĆ« Rom is Editor In Chief of Trail RunnerĀ and Managing Editor of Womenā€™s Running. When sheā€™s not running, sheā€™s writing, and when sheā€™s not climbing sheā€™s cooking or eating. Southern story-teller turned mountain-dweller, she starts every day with a cup of strong coffee and a good story. Her work has appeared in REI Co-op Journal, Discover, Rock & Ice, Trail Runner, Backpacker, and Threshold Podcast. She currently hosts and produces the DNF Podcast. She is co-author of the forthcoming book, .

The post What Strava Data Can Tell Us About How to Run a Fast 100-Miler appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

In our new monthly column, in partnership with Strava, weā€™ll take a deep dive into interesting data points that reveal the more human side of sport.Ā 

The Boston Marathon is fast. How fast? A new look at more than 100,000 Strava uploads reveals that the field at the Boston Marathon is significantly faster than the New York City Marathon, and that runners train differently once they secure that Boston qualifier (BQ).

This year, 53 percent of the runners in the Boston field uploaded their data to Strava, for around 16,000 uploads. (Strava or it didnā€™t happen, right?)

With the help of analysts from Strava, we dugĀ into the data from the and New York City marathons to see how the two compared. To compete at the Boston Marathon, the majority of runners (with the exception of 5,000-7,000 runners who qualify via fundraising) must hit a qualifying standard, a benchmark that just over 10 percent of all marathoners reach. That means many of the athletes lining up in Hopkinton have run at least one marathon previously (with the exception of the charity bibs) to qualify, and have finessed their pacing over time.

Roughly 55 percent of runners at Boston finished in 3:30 or faster, compared to just 20 percent of the field at NYC. Almost three-quarters of Boston runners (73 percent) paced for a sub-four-hour finish, compared with just 42 percent of runners at NYC. Also, 47 percent of runners at Boston BQā€™d, re-earning their spot on the start line in 2024, compared with just 7 percent of runners in NYC.

Boston Runners Are More Experienced

But why are runners at Boston so much faster? The course is notoriously hilly and not exactly PR friendly. When you look at the percentage of the field that achieves a negative split time, meaning they run the second half of the race faster than the first, the importance of experience emerges in the data.

At this yearā€™s Boston Marathon, Strava data showed that 13 percent of finishers ended up negative splitting the course, up from less than 10 percent in 2022. Negative splitting Boston, with its punishing downhills on the front half and grindy gradients on the back half is no small feat, and a negative split is often the gold standard for a well-executed marathon.

The Berlin Marathon, a notoriously fast course (and home to Eliud Kipchogeā€™s 2022 world record run of 2:01:09) with a net downhill, saw just 16 percent of the field negative split in 2022. In addition, 11 percent of the fields at London and Chicagoā€”still relatively fast, PR-friendly coursesā€”negative split, and just 10 percent of Tokyo negative split as well. The heat and humidity at NYC tore the field apart, with only 3 percent of the NYC field negative splitting.

This tells us that Boston runners, relative to the difficulty of the course, are superior pacers, likely because of the experience required to qualify for the race.

Boston Runners Train More

For most runners, Boston is not their first rodeo. Not only do they tend to race smarter, but their training looks different, too. The median peak week for Boston runners was a 53-mile week and 7:31 of total training time. Compare that with a 37-mile median peak week and 5:49 for London Runners, 39 miles and 6:19 hours for NYC runners (note: we use medians to control for outliers and erroneous data).

This isnā€™t revelatoryā€”due to stringent qualifying standards, Boston skews fast, and we generally see that faster runners tend to train moreā€”being a more experienced runner tends to mean you have built capacity for higher training volume, and that higher volume and longer experience tends to make you faster. But, we can control for this in the data by comparing runners of different pace groups across marathon majors. When we do this, Boston runners still train more.

When you compare the relative finish times across all marathon majors, Boston runners trained for more hours per week (8:10) and ran more frequently for a median of five times a week for all finishers under 3:30, dropping to four runs a week for 3:30-4:00 finishers, and three times a week for 4-plus hour finishers. One standout data point is that runners who ran a sub-three hour marathon at any marathon major had a median five times a week run frequency. Regardless of pace, runners toeing the line at Boston have a higher run frequency across their entire training cycle than other marathon majors. Basically, the faster the athlete was, the higher their run frequency tended to be.

For another comparison, we looked at the training runners did for the Manchester Marathon (which takes place the day before Patriotsā€™ Day and is the second-largest marathon in the UK after London). Looking at the 16-week build-up for Boston, compared with Manchester runners, Boston athletes logged more volume, completing an average of five and a half hours each week running, compared to four hours for Manchester competitors (this excludes an assumed two-week taper before race day). Over half (56 percent) of runners at Boston hit at least 50 miles in a week in their training build-up, compared to just 20 percent of Manchester runners. Almost 80 percent of Boston runners hit a 40-plus-mile week, compared to 42 percent of Manchester runners.

One reason Boston runners racked up more volume is due to logging longer long runs. About 74 percent of Boston participants had completed at least one 20-mile run in training, compared to 62 percent of Manchester runners. Also, 93 percent of Boston runners notched at least a 16-mile run in their marathon build, compared with 87 percent of Manchester runners.

Boston Runners Donā€™t Necessarily Run Longer, But They Hit the Hills

Lastly, the median long run didnā€™t vary much across marathon majors, even while weekly volume varied across races. Most runners logged a median longest run of between 17 to 20 miles. That makes sense with the standardized distance, but one major difference between the training approaches of Boston runners and other majors was this: hills.

To get ready for the notorious Newton Hills, Boston runners who ran between 3:00-3:30 logged a median of 1,047 feet of gain per week, compared with just 725Ā  median feet per week logged by athletes training for flatter courses like Berlin, 732 for Tokyo, or 739 for Chicago. 2:30-sub 3:00 finishers notched a median of over 1,300 per week in training. Now those are some hill repeats!

The post The Boston Marathon Is Fast. Training Data Shows Why.Ā  appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.