quote:<HR>Originally posted by tigger:
As you know, he is a distinguished (and faster than JG) marathoner, he holds an MSc in Exercise physiology, AND he is a well known and respected running coach.

I think I'm done here.<HR>

And I haven't said otherwise. I whole heartedly endorse runners using whichever program works for them. If you prefer Douglas' methods use them. Should I decide to post in his forums I will keep his accomplishments and how they help the running community in mind.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyHass:

No, JG's dishonesty just sickens me. Rather than be truthful and say that his program is a method to help newbies reach the finish line, he has to try and be everything to everybody. Not only is that a fundamental marketing mistake, but it is also dishonest. I'm a high mileage fan yet I don't tell newbies it's that 100mpw is the best way to run their first marathon.<HR>

If it sickens you, why do you keep hanging on here???

Some of the advice I've seen in other programs would likely increase the likelihood of injury and the chances of a DNF for newbies, or oldbies for that matter. Is that dishonesty? Does that sicken you?

I notice the Galloway distractors used to rant that Galloway's methods will be much slower for everyone. Then it was Galloway only works for runners who finish over 4 hours. Then it was Galloway won't work for anybody under 3 hours. Now you're reaching down to Galloway won't work for elites or anyone under 2:30. Who cares???? Let them try another method.

The majority of marathoners these days including those who don't use the walk run method, finish in 4 hours or more, and that's certainly the range where turning to the Galloway method would most likely be faster as well as much less stress on one's body and less likely to cause injury.

Perhaps the real reason many runners can't stand Galloway is because his methods do work for the vast majority of runners? Perhaps the very fact that Galloway has helped so many people to complete marathons, (and yes, sub 3 even if not sub 2:30) without the difficulty, risk of injury, etc. that traditional programs have is the real reason many don't like him? Now that even someone's grandmother could be successful, poor whiny elite wannabes who run the whole way with a whole lot more effort and risk of injury and longer recovery times, don't get any more praise and honor and glory than somebody's grandmother who finishes in 5 hours or so, and their poor little fragile egos don't like it. Isn't that the real reason for all the hostility? The old boys club is gone and you don't like it now that anyone can belong to the marathon club?

Seriously, how many have ever heard of Scott Douglas compared to the thousands who have heard of Galloway? Don't you think there's a whole lot of sour grapes and just plain jealousy involved, in many of these rantings, including Douglas's?

Now that kind of attitude is what sickens me, not someone who has made completing a marathon a whole lot easier and less likely to cause injury for the masses.

Instead of whining about Galloway , how about getting your aunts and uncles and your parents and yes, Grandma too, if she's still around, to give his method a shot? Do something positive for a change.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Doctor Wu:
All you Gallowalking proponents on this forum are so deluded and defensive that you defend "the program" despite the absolute lack of any proof that anyone has run sub three hours using the walk run method.<HR>

This forum is not intended to prove anything to you that you don't wish to believe. You choose to come to this forum. If you don't believe run/walk works for you, not a problem. There are many other very good forums that do not utilize run/walks where you will be more comfortable.

As for us, there are thousands who can testify that Galloway's run/walk has directly helped us achieve our marathon and other distance goals all the way down to the 5k distance. I just spent two years running marathons the entire distance and watched my times suffer as well as feeling physically much worse than when I used run/walk. So I'm back. It works for me.

And there are probably thousands who started out using Galloway who over the course of time have chosen other methods. Just as some of those of us who have become older have found run/walk lets us still run longer distances with less pain and participate in races that otherwise we could only be volunteers in.

The bottom line is real simple: if you don't like this forum, go somewhere else. But neither we nor Galloway have to prove anything to you. We prove it to ourselves.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Doctor Wu:
Maryt:

You have issues.

Or you're on the payroll perhaps.

Such hostility in pinning labels on people is totally uncalled for. I know I know, you've been around like forever and can say whatever you want, etc.

You want labels? All you Gallowalking proponents on this forum are so deluded and defensive that you defend "the program" despite the absolute lack of any proof that anyone has run sub three hours using the walk run method. And I'm not talking about an elite walking at 25 miles when he/she got a cramp. Three days ago I challenged Jeff (politely) to bring someone to this forum who has run sub three using his methods and tell their story. That's what this is all about. Ever since this forum started all many of us wanted was documented stories of people who have IMPROVED their times to under three hours by walk / running. I doubt Jeff will come up anyone. Instead we get your rantings. How sad.

You can have the forum to yourselves. Enjoy the Kool Aid.<HR>

Yes, I have issues. I would like to learn more about the experiences that others have had using the run-walk method. That 's what this forum is for. Instead you get people coming into these threads, people like you and Andy Hass who have no interest in helping people learn abut the method, but just want to discourage poeple and bash the aproach. Yes, I've been around forever, and I've read many posts from Andy and the amount of hostility is totally unreasonable. I've also seen posts from him bemoaning the fact that fast runners don't get any more recognition or praise than the slow folks - you make the connection.

I did know someone who had run sub-3 using this approach, I know someone who tried for years to qualify for Boston unsuccessfully who finally got their BQ only by addng walking and willl never go back. I know others who used to have injury problems running the whole way that taking walk breaks prevent. But they either aren't interested in online forums or don't want to get involved in all the bashing and ridicule that goes on here, so they won't post. So, people like you and Andy have been successful in turning poeple off from the forum if not the approach. Congratulations, if that has been your aim.

Galloway has helped thousands - how do you and Andy help? Do you have anything positive to add for people like me, for example, who can't run more than 30 minutes any longer because of injuries and who have found that adding in walk breaks is a tremendous positive and allows me to complete and compete in distances that I thought were gone forever? No! You just turn off people off who would bnenfit from the walk-run approach and your hostile posts discourage others from posting, and thus deprive me and others from getting more feedback from those who did use it successully and yes, that makes me angry.

770 said it very well:

quote:<HR>
The bottom line is real simple: if you don't like this forum, go somewhere else. But neither we nor Galloway have to prove anything to you. We prove it to ourselves <HR>

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
[b] Yes, I have issues. I would like to learn more about the experiences that others have had using the run-walk method. That 's what this forum is for. Instead you get people coming into these threads, people like you and Andy Hass who have no interest in helping people learn abut the method, but just want to discourage poeple and bash the aproach. Yes, I've been around forever, and I've read many posts from Andy and the amount of hostility is totally unreasonable. I've also seen posts from him bemoaning the fact that fast runners don't get any more recognition or praise than the slow folks - you make the connection.

I did know someone who had run sub-3 using this approach, I know someone who tried for years to qualify for Boston unsuccessfully who finally got their BQ only by addng walking and willl never go back. I know others who used to have injury problems running the whole way that taking walk breaks prevent. But they either aren't interested in online forums or don't want to get involved in all the bashing and ridicule that goes on here, so they won't post. So, people like you and Andy have been successful in turning poeple off from the forum if not the approach. Congratulations, if that has been your aim.

Galloway has helped thousands - how do you and Andy help? Do you have anything positive to add for people like me, for example, who can't run more than 30 minutes any longer because of injuries and who have found that adding in walk breaks is a tremendous positive and allows me to complete and compete in distances that I thought were gone forever? No! You just turn off people off who would bnenfit from the walk-run approach and your hostile posts discourage others from posting, and thus deprive me and others from getting more feedback from those who did use it successully and yes, that makes me angry.

770 said it very well:

The bottom line is real simple: if you don't like this forum, go somewhere else. But neither we nor Galloway have to prove anything to you. We prove it to ourselves <HR>

[/B]

If you are trying to say that run/walking is a good method for new runners, don't wannabees, hasbeens and thought they were beens then I don't think Andy or the good Dr. Would disagree.

However runners who wish to explore their potential need to make important decisions. In part they base them on advice from those who are more experienced, and particularly those who have had some kind of success at the sport. We look to those people for guidance on what to do and what not to do. And when they make claims that appear, at least initially to be incredulous, and when some of their claims are thoroughly debunked then it only seems natural to ask for some verification on other seemingly fanciful claims. That's all maryt. Don't you think that's reasonable?

Wow maryt, a whole extended post dedicated to bashing little ole me. I challenge you to find any example of me going after you with such hostility...you do a great job of disproving your own point.

JG can claim he helps newbies, injury prone runners, etc all he wants. If you get injured over 30mpw it's probably better for you, but it'd be even better not to run marathons if you're that injury prone. It's the claim that his plan is THE performance tool and it helps that top 1.6% under 3hrs more than conventional running programs that draws criticism and calls for proof (which still haven't been produced, which says something).

If I convinced someone not to frequent this forum because they are performance-oriented and want to test their capabilities, I have no regrets, they don't really belong here. I don't see many of those types frequenting here anyways, and there's likely a reason for that that doesn't involve little ole me.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:
[b]

Originally posted by AndyHass:
Wow maryt, a whole extended post dedicated to bashing little ole me. I challenge you to find any example of me going after you with such hostility...you do a great job of disproving your own point.

JG can claim he helps newbies, injury prone runners, etc all he wants. If you get injured over 30mpw it's probably better for you, but it'd be even better not to run marathons if you're that injury prone. It's the claim that his plan is THE performance tool and it helps that top 1.6% under 3hrs more than conventional running programs that draws criticism and calls for proof (which still haven't been produced, which says something).

If I convinced someone not to frequent this forum because they are performance-oriented and want to test their capabilities, I have no regrets, they don't really belong here. I don't see many of those types frequenting here anyways, and there's likely a reason for that that doesn't involve little ole me.<HR>

Fortunately I can't provide with the most extreme examples of your hostlity, they have since been deleted. However, I remember all too well your many posts about not only how anyone who uses the walk run method is just looking for the easy way out, making numerous insulting comments about the people themselves, and drawing far-reaching ridiculous and disparaging conclusions about their likely attitude towards life in general. Just because these posts were deleted, doesn't mean I don't remember them very well.

You keep harping about 3 hours, and wanting proof, but what kind of proof do you want? Do you (or Wu, for that matter) really think anyone is going to come in here and give you a signed affadavit? You wouldn't believe it even if anyone did. You've already gotten an answer from Jeff; it's your own problem if you don't want to believe it:
1. The fastest marathoner who has used the Galloway Program has improved from 2:33 to 2:28.
2. I've heard from hundreds who could not break 3 hours by training with other programs. When using my program, they broke the 3 hour mark without breaking down.[/B]

It's funny your memory is so selective that you can remember every supposed slight from a runner you've never met, but you can't provide a single example, and you can remember that SOMEONE in SOME race you were at ran/walked sub 3 hrs, but you don't remember who or where it was, in spite of this being an obviously (based on Sherri's statistical demonstration) rare event. Lighten up maryt. This is a discussion board, not a JG worship center.

If JG hadn't made those earlier comments about world class runners supposedly run/walking, I would be inclined to believe the 2:28 claim, but now I'm not so sure. You know the old saying..fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice........