quote:<HR>Originally posted by Doctor Wu:
Okay, let's try to be reasonable. I commented on someone saying that Higdon ran/walked a 2:29. There's no denying that because you guys said it was in one of Higdon's articles. But others have mentioned that Higdon's PR is sub 2:20. Forgive me if I don't research his actual PR. What I said was a guy who can run sub 2:20 and then run/walks 2:29 doesn't prove your argument and certainly doesn't answer my simple question of someone providing an example of a sub 3:00 runner actually speeding up by run/walking. You all have said there are many sub 3:00 people who have run faster than their PR when switching to run walking but we still don't have a name. Then Maryt says they are afraid to come here because we will insult and ridicule them. To the contrary, if someone produces a sub 2:45, or even sub 3:00 runner who PR'd while Gallowalking then I will be the first one to eat crow and congratulate said runner, if he/she actually exists.
Look back at page 2 of this thread. Immediately after Jeff Galloway commented on having trained over 200,000 runners and having hundreds run sub 3:00 you asked him to please produce names so he would get some credibility. Now you are backing down from that request and taking his comments on face value without proof.
In the spirit of civil debate, I did not call anyone cult members. I said some of you exhibit characteristics of cult members. There's a difference, subtle yes, but that is the difference between hurling insults and civil debate.
http://This message has been edited by Doctor Wu (edited Dec-17-2006).<HR>
I still think it would help Galloway's program if he produced names of runners who ran under 3 hours. Critics will understandably want more proof than vague assertions.
I think it is pretty significant that Higdon ran a 2:29 while taking walk breaks. I suppose if he took 9 minutes of walk breaks, then one could argue that he didn't prove walk breaks work. He merely shows that if you take 9 minutes of walk breaks than your time will be 9 minutes slower. However, one could likewise say that on that given day Hidgon did not have a 2:20 marathon in him. On that given day Higdon may only have been capable of running a 2:29 or even slower. Marathoners' times vary greatly from race to race considering the course, race conditions, and even whether they have a good or bad day.
If Hidgon regularly ran 2:20 marathons, or if he regulary ran under 2:29, than a 2:29 would be nothing special. However, let's say that his best marathons were something like 2:20, 2:25, 2:29, 2:31, 2:33, etc. If his third fastest time was the one with the walk breaks, then I wold say that that effort proves that you can use walk breaks and run at a competitive level. I know I am totally speculating here.
However, according to Higdon, his son ran a 2:18 taking planned walk breaks. I wonder what his son't pr is?
I have no problem with the critics questioning whether walk breaks help competive runners. Virtually none of the competitive runners use walk breaks. The burden of proof is on us to show that Galloway works for compeitive runners. I just think that some of the critics have over reached their argument. They want to use the lack of evidence as proof that Galloway does not work for competive runners. I am not willing to accept that just because Pfitzinger says you shouldn't take walk breaks or because competitive runners don't use walk breaks that this means walk breaks don't work. If you don't try something you can't say it doesn't work. When I ran track in high school every runner (even distance runners like me) knew that you never rose straight up out of the starting blocks; you gradually rose. That was the accepted wisdom. My understanding is that now that is no longer believed. Our understanding changes and what seems like absolute accepted methods can change.
In the other thread that I started that led to this thread, I asked how much my age has slowed me down. Someone asked me my training methods and I posted my Galloway training. I was told to ditch Galloway. When I politiely said I would consider other training methods, but still questioned whether Galloway was as bad as the critics said he was, the attacks began. It was just assumed that if I didn't imediately renounce Galloway and accept the wisdom of Pfitzinger, I was being unreasonable, stubborn, and outright stupid.
Some of the same thinking is present on this thread. Some of the Galloway critics mention Pfitzinger and we are expected to raise a white flag, and when we don't, these critics have become a bit mean spirited for a running blog.
Thanks for your post and your encouragement.
Search Cool Running Community
