quote:<HR>
You have Higdon as well as Galloway saying walk breaks can help runners run sub-3:00. From what I've seen on other threads, you aren't that fast yourself. How about opening your mind and giving the walk-run method a real try? You might just be surprised. [/B]<HR>

Right on. Do the math. If you could run 5 minutes at 6:00 pace, then walk 1 minute at a leisurely 20-minute pace, and keep doing it for 26.2 miles, you would break 3 hours. This is easily doable by anyone capable of running 2:37 straight through (not uncommon).

Gallowalking, according to Gallow himself, is for (a) beginners who want to finish a first marathon, (b) experienced marathoners who want to run just 1-2 goal races a year and enter others recreationally, as training and for the fun of it, and (c) people who haven't got the time/inspiration to train high mileage, but nevertheless want to run marathons.

Putting a value judgment on these people is - let me suggest - spectacularly stupid. It's saying, "Unless you've mastered the marathon - don't enter."

In my article, "Jeff Galloway's Run-Walkers: No Class?" I suggest the marathon can mean more than one thing. Mastering the marathon takes high mileage, plus years of experience; that much is beyond debate. A person who is capable of running 2:15, or 2:45, or 2:59, or 3:15 -without walking breaks! - without killing himself is a very different runner than someone who's run-walking 3:30-5:00. The marathon has different value for each.

For one, it's a test, a demonstration, a joyful proof. For the other, aha, same thing. Now we're getting somewhere. What counts in each case is expansion - stretching our edges - discovering that we can do a bit more. When we do that within healthy limits, truly stretch ourselves, but not drive ourselves with will power past the point of health, we experience joy.

Jeff Galloway seems to claim that a really fast runner, say a 2:30 marathoner, can improve by taking a few walking steps per mile. So far, there is no proof. There's only speculation. Hmm, could a guy who hasn't really mastered 2:30 (can run it straight through without crashing, which is obviously faster) achieve 2:30 by slowing briefly once per mile? Or not?

I don't know. Jeff Galloway doesn't know. Nobody knows. If we did, we'd see the proof. It's not there. My point: what does it matter?

A lot of people seem to feel it's a corruption of the marathon (and their own accomplishments) to suggest that the marathon can be finished faster by run-walking. My feeling? It's all about ego. The marathon is something different today than it was in 1968, when I started running. For my money, it's better now, because more people can use it to stretch their edges. The marathon exists for people. People have no obligation to some strictly astral abstraction, "the marathon."



------------------
George Beinhorn
www.fitnessintuition.com[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by runbei:
Do the math. If you could run 5 minutes at 6:00 pace, then walk 1 minute at a leisurely 20-minute pace, and keep doing it for 26.2 miles, you would break 3 hours. This is easily doable by anyone capable of running 2:37 straight through (not uncommon).<HR>

Wow. So, a 2:37 marathoner could use walk breaks to complete the distance in 3 hours. What an endorsement. That changes everything.

I am not going to say the walk run method is not for everyone, but I have to laugh at some of the suggestions on how "faster" marathoners would do better if they used them. I know they are not for me. Last year in both of the Marathons I ran I did not slow down near the end despite not taking walk breaks. The Marathon that I won I went from fifth place to second because the pack of three runners all decided to take a break at the water stop. At the next water stop I skipped taking anything in a gamble to catch the first place guy which paid off. Mile 25 to 26 was the fastest mile I ever ran in any race longer than a 5k. I did this without taking walk breaks.
The other thing is the people I have observed taking breaks were only doing so at aid stations to get water. They weren't walking for any more than a couple of seconds until they got the fluid down. That was it. I wouldn't really think that they were employing some kind of walk/run strategy they were just trying to get the drink down. I've never seen anyone running sub 2:50 walking anymore than what was needed to get a drink.

I recently met Jeff Galloway at one of his running school promotions and he seemed like an honest guy....I also got to ask questions and research his run-walk methodology... I decided to test his theory as I like to tinker and experiment. I suspect that most readers are also seekers of the holy grail (i.e. shoes, apparel, gadgets, training, nutrition, etc.) and it would not hurt to give it a try...Hey, its not like us middle aged 4 to 5 hour marathon runners will be missing out on any masters medals by trying a new training method!...We mostly run for fun, health, self improvement and the occasional competition with our peers

So far the results are as expected, I feel less tired after long runs and the overall time is approximately the same as a continuous run. I now have to take it to the next level and actually improve the long run training time....However, applying the technique in an actual race is a big mental hurdle as walking may be considered for wimps or for the under trained....Bottom line, its worth a try for us mortals.

On the other hand I understand the debate whether walk-run is practical for the fast runners and elites...Most sub 3 hour runners would not even think of it as breaking the running momentum an seeing others wizz by is too much to bear....

Happy running to all !

quote:<HR>Originally posted by superburtm:
it takes more energy to stop and go.. stop and go ..then it does to hold steady pace.

Why do you think cars get better gas mileage on the highways? It conserves fuel consumption to keep a steady pace.<HR>

A lot of people seem to have that idea - that is, a lot of people who have not given the method a try. Humans are not cars so the comparison isn't accurate when you consider human physiology. You use a LOT fewer calories walking than you do running - it takes only 60% of the calories to walk the same distance that it does to run, so that in itself saves a lot of energy during the 1 minute walk periods. Also, it's not stop and go. There's really very little breaking motion going from run to a walk or acceleration going back to a run when you do it gradually over 3-4 paces. Again we're not talking about a car going from 60 to zero and back up to 60, or even 20 to zero and back - we're talking about a person going from maybe 7.5 miles per hour to 3.5 miles per hour. Why do you think there are so many posters like RACERPR who post they feel less tired after long runs when the overall time is approximately the same as a continuous run? If it really took more energy wouldn't you expect people would feel more tired, not less?

http://This message has been edited by maryt (edited Jun-28-2007).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by phthenry:
...He merely shows that if you take 9 minutes of walk breaks than your time will be 9 minutes slower......<HR>

Huh? In it's purest form, the time will be the difference in speed per minute, between walking and running, times 9 (minutes). It will only be 9 minutes slower if you stop for 9 minutes.

Of course that ignores Galloway's whole assertion that by walking for those nine minutes you actually gain the minutes back, plus some, due to the advantages of recovery during the walk breaks.