quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyHass:
Someone walking a few sporadic times toward the end of the race and then putting together a decent last 2 miles, and purposely planning multiple regular walking breaks, are two VERY different things. <HR>

A walk is a walk, whether it is planned or not. But I do finish my marathons faster using planned walk breaks from the early part of the race than sporadic walk breaks after my legs are already tired.

If you care less about performance and just want to finish a marathon, don't waste your money on Galloway or any of the other **** programs out there. Sign up, pay your race fee, show up on race day and stay on two feet, or hands and knees if that's what it takes, until you get to the finish line. Nice and simple.

Grand master Sensei - I have to ask - what rank are you and in what discipline?

I also wanted to add that Galloway is not only hitting the newer runners (or at least new marathoners) but he is also hitting the charity scene. The first National Breast Cancer Marathon[/URL" target="_blank"> is debuting in Jacksonville, FL in Feb 08 and I believe he was offering coaching and a full training program for $18. That is amazing IMO. He doesn't need to do it. he fits the right role for that kind of race and is jumping in with both feet. I truly applaud that.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by 770:
A walk is a walk, whether it is planned or not. But I do finish my marathons faster using planned walk breaks from the early part of the race than sporadic walk breaks after my legs are already tired.<HR>

The difference is usually the time spent walking. These people who walk a few times toward the end generally ran all the way until then (and sometimes a little too fast). So it is diingenuous to compare someone who spent a total of 5min walking toward the end of the race to someone who spent 20-30min walking starting early in the race. Two different things.

Nor does Galloway water down his training. He does adjust it as needed for those runners who benefit from his plan. Pfitzinger does not work for all runners no more than Galloway does.

If you don't want to use Galloway, don't. Same as I don't want to use Pfitzinger so I don't.

And I'll still tell you a walk is a walk. Nothing is disgenuous if a runner has properly trained for the distance whether they may have to take a few walks at the end or use walk breaks as a part of their running strategy for the event.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by 770:
[And I'll still tell you a walk is a walk. Nothing is disgenuous if a runner has properly trained for the distance whether they may have to take a few walks at the end or use walk breaks as a part of their running strategy for the event.[/B]<HR>

If they have REALLY trained properly then walking shouldn't even enter into the equation. Walk breaks as a stategy? Not for anyone looking to run a fast time.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jim Sullivan:
[b]

Originally posted by Jim24315:
I only find it irritating when people actually believe that you can race as fast on 3 days training as you can on 6 or 7.<HR>

You know, I really believe, despite what we see on this site, that it's a very small percentage of runners who actually buy that.

I know some crackpots here like to push the idea, and it seems that there's some support for it, but I never hear people talk about this at races or in my running club.

As is the case with many other interests, the internet running community seems to have a higher proportion of people passionately devoted to peculiar theories that contradict reality than the overall running community.

http://This message has been edited by Jim Sullivan (edited Aug-24-2007).[/B]

Jim, you just don't hang out enough with us older racers and running club members!

I don't think most believe you can run as fast, but for some of us who have been around way too many years and have some chronic injuries, running 3 days vs 6-7 may be the only way we can run at all. Using those extra days to crosstrain and try to strengthen the core and supporting muscles and allowing the running muscles and joints more recovery time, can result in faster speed compared to trying to run every day and making injuries worse. So, personally, I'm glad Galloway and FIRST and some of those other programs are around to help give a little advise to those of us who no longer can run every day like we did 30-40 years ago to get the most of the running we can do. And those walk-breaks early and often as an ultrarunner friend of ours advised many years ago (still running 100 milers over the age of 70 as well as marathons, but a youngster of 50-something when he first gave us the advice) have made it possible for me to continue completing half marathons when I thought I could never do that distance again, although I resisted the whole idea until convinced to give it a try by one of our over 50 running club members who used the method to qualify for Boston who couldn't otherwise.

For the young and uninjured, running more is probably going to be more beneficial, and certainly I don't think it's going to be a great idea to train with 1 minute walk breaks if you want to make the trials, although Galloway really doesn't recommend that - he lengthens the run times and shortens the walk times considerably for the fastest runners until it comes pretty close to just slowing down a little at water stops. But on the other hand, I've known quite a few runners who could probably run better if they took more days off from running and paid more attention to the need for recovery. You do see that advice a lot more now than way back. There are 2 articles in this Month's Running Times that stress the dangers of overtraining. I heard the FIRST program recommended this spring as the way an Olympian weight lifter improvd her marathon times to finish in the upper 10 percent in New York. Maybe new runners or those trained in other sports are more open to newer ideas about running and oldbies shouldn't dismiss them out of hand?