Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage


Cool Running homepage
Community
discussion forumsviewpoint
| > rules | > faq | > e-mail to a friend | moderator: gallowayproductions, Fleet Feet Mahwah, Sherri1062, luv2runTampa

Does the Galloway program work?


Topic is 6 pages:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Post a new topic    
> next newest topic | > next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Does the Galloway program work?
Doctor Wu
Cool Runner
posted Nov-13-2006 07:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Doctor Wu   Click Here to Email Doctor Wu     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What bothers me (and many others) is Galloway's claim that a runner can improve to sub three hours (and even sub 2:30) in a marathon using his run walk method when said runner couldn't run sub three by not using walk breaks. No documentation.

All the other average paced Gallorunners can go their merry way and enjoy their run/walking. There's nothing wrong with Gallowalking as far as I'm concerned. Now go back and read my first paragraph again.

What part of that don't you understand?

IP: Logged

maryt
Cool Runner
posted Nov-14-2006 06:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for maryt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
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.


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:

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

IP: Logged

Pinnochio
Cool Runner
posted Nov-15-2006 07:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Pinnochio     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
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][b]
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


[/B][/QUOTE]

So now you are going to set rules on who can come here and who can't? Maybe we should all line up and start goose stepping? Where did the conceepts of debate and discussion disappear to in this shathole of a forum?

And you should look at your last two posts and compare them to Andy's or Dr Wu's to see who's being hostile here.

The bottom line really is simple. You keep missing it and going off on accusatory tangents that have nothing to do with the real question.

Anyone can make a claim about anything on the internet. To maintain credibility you need to back it up with a few facts. So where's the facts? I'm interested in the underlying principles of running. If it's true that run/walking is better for everyone down to 2:30 then there must be some evidence enabling people to make these claims. I would be more impressed (and more inclined to use this method) by hearing a few success stories from people faster than me. Otherwise, how can I make an informed decision without facts?

IP: Logged

tigger
Cool Runner
posted Nov-15-2006 07:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for tigger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
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][b]
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


[/B][/QUOTE]

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?

IP: Logged

Sherri1062
Moderator of JeffGalloway
posted Nov-15-2006 10:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sherri1062   Click Here to Email Sherri1062     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Okay, I'm guilty of reading this thread and turning my head. I don't like debating with people that I think don't want to listen or may have already made up their mind.

I'm the Program Director for the Nashville Training Program and have been for 2, almost 3 years. Prior to that I ran with the group for about 3 more years. No, I'm not a fast runner. Yes, I fully believe in the run/walk method of training. Why? Because, I've personally seen it work for 100's of people. Out of the 100's, I'd say less than 10, run less than a 3:00 to 3:30 marathon. They all started out much slower, trained with Galloway, and improved. Some of them used to be on the run/run/run/run program and since coming over to the dark side, have learned to run faster, reduce their injuries, recover faster, still have a life and fun! We've had 2 people qualify for Boston and a few more that have that goal within their reach. I can't put a number on the people that now swear by the run/walk method and will NEVER go back to just a run program.

If you like numbers go to Marathon Guide and look at the statistics on the marathon times. In 2005, only 1.6% of marathon finishers completed the race in 2:59:59 or less. The 3:00:00 to 4:59:59 finish times are the majority of the finishers, at 48.1%. Most of us are just ordinary people, with families, careers, and other interest that use running to stay healthy and reduce stress (I also like traveling for the races) and we don't have time to invest in training to run a sub 3 hour marathon.

Sherri1062

IP: Logged

phthenry
Cool Runner
posted Nov-16-2006 07:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for phthenry   Click Here to Email phthenry     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sherri1062:
Okay,

I'm the Program Director for the Nashville Training Program and have been for 2, almost 3 years. Prior to that I ran with the group for about 3 more years. No, I'm not a fast runner. Yes, I fully believe in the run/walk method of training. Why? Because, I've personally seen it work for 100's of people. Out of the 100's, I'd say less than 10, run less than a 3:00 to 3:30 marathon. They all started out much slower, trained with Galloway, and improved. Some of them used to be on the run/run/run/run program and since coming over to the dark side, have learned to run faster, reduce their injuries, recover faster, still have a life and fun! We've had 2 people qualify for Boston and a few more that have that goal within their reach. I can't put a number on the people that now swear by the run/walk method and will NEVER go back to just a run program.


Thanks for your post, Sherri. It's good to hear with someone who has actually worked with hundreds of runners who have used the program. If you've had "less than 10" who have run better than the 3:00 to 3:30 range, that means you have personally seen about 10 runners break 3 hours in a marathon using Galloway's program. Though that's a small number, only a small number of runners are capable of breaking 3 hours anyway.


IP: Logged

JimR
Cool Runner
posted Nov-16-2006 09:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JimR   Click Here to Email JimR     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I carry a strong level of pride in knowing I execute my runs and races running the whole distance. Oh, I've encountered problems at times, but I never execute any run with the intent of actually walking or stopping during it. That's what I train to do. I'm running, not doing some 'run a bit, take a break, run a bit more' type of thing.

It doesn't matter if run/walk works...LOTS of things work. Doing nothing at all and then spending an entire day walking (or crawling) a marathon route will let you finish a marathon...no training required. Grey zone statements like 'it works' are nonsense. If all you want to do is finish, you've got a million ways to train and it doesn't have to cost you a cent.

I'm not interested in that.

I'm a runner.

IP: Logged

AndyHass
Cool Runner
posted Nov-16-2006 10:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AndyHass   Click Here to Email AndyHass     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

IP: Logged

maryt
Cool Runner
posted Nov-17-2006 06:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for maryt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
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.



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.

IP: Logged

Pinnochio
Cool Runner
posted Nov-17-2006 12:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Pinnochio     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AndyHass:
[b]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.



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][/QUOTE]


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........


IP: Logged

770
Cool Runner
posted Nov-17-2006 01:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 770     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Pinnochio:
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........

You're entitled to believe anything you want or don't want to. The bottom line is his program works for thousands including some who are faster than 3 hours in marathons. We don't have a problem with it. Use Scott Douglas for your training if you think his method works best.

[This message has been edited by 770 (edited Nov-17-2006).]

IP: Logged

Pinnochio
Cool Runner
posted Nov-17-2006 07:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Pinnochio     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 770:

The bottom line is his program works for thousands including some who are faster than 3 hours in marathons.


[This message has been edited by 770 (edited Nov-17-2006).]



Who said JG's program doesn't work? Not me! But before I try to "improve" to sub 3 hr run/walk I'd like some testimonials from people who have used JG's method to actually finish in less than 3 hrs. There's much more to learn from talking to someone who's actually done it than to someone who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Oh dear! I can't believe I actually wrote that! I guess I should apologize to all those who walk!

quote:
Originally posted by 770:


Use Scott Douglas for your training if you think his method works best.

[This message has been edited by 770 (edited Nov-17-2006).]



Not sure where you're coming from here. Douglas is a former 2:30 marathoner who tried to run/walk but I don't think he put his heart into it. He's also a pretty successful author and running mag editor. He's collaborated on a number of books with another well known marathoner. But before I would follow any plan he provided I'd want a testimonial from someone who's used it to train and run in a time similar to my goals. I think that's the sensible thing to do, don't you?

IP: Logged

zoomharp
Cool Runner
posted Nov-18-2006 04:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for zoomharp     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
[QUOTE]Originally posted by maryt:

Galloway has helped thousands - how do you and Andy help?

[QUOTE]
Well, actually, Andy has helped me. I will read any thread I see that Andy Hass writes. I will never be in his league as a runner, but I do learn quite a lot from him, and he inspires me.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, I like and admire Jeff Galloway. I am so sorry to see the contention here.

zh

IP: Logged

tigger
Cool Runner
posted Nov-19-2006 02:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for tigger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here is some information that MIGHT help explain why run/walking works. I did a little experiment today to get some data. This isn't science by any means, but interesting nevertheless. It all hinges on the ability of the TM manufacturer (in this case it's a Lifefitness) to accurately estimate energy use while walking and running.

My plan was to run/walk 4/1 for an hour on a treadmill to measure the average speed and average energy (calories) consumed. I used the TM because it displays calories as well as all the other info. Here are the input parameters...

Walking speed - 4.0 mph (15:00 per mile)
Running speed - 5.6 mph (10:42 per mile)
Calories burned at 5.6 mph - 1002 per hr. (I am 216 lbs)

Here are the output parameters after 1 hr of running...

Total distance - 5.28 miles, or 94.3% of max possible at 5.6 mph
Total calories consumed - 891, or 88.9% of max possible at 5.6 mph

If I had set the TM for 5.28 mph and run the entire distance I would have used 945 calories, which is more than I used by run/walking. So I wondered...why is that? When I went looking for the answer I discovered that walking requires fewer calories than running for the same distance. On this particular TM the transition point is set at 4.5 mph. At 4.4 mph the TM assumes calories for walking, but at 4.5 mph it takes a huge jump, which I assume is because the calculator assumes running at that speed.

This suggests that run/walking requires about 95% of the energy required to run the same distance! Over an hour that isn't a whole lot, but over 4 hours it amounts to enough energy saved to run an extra 1.2 miles.

I intend to continue this little experiment to see what happens to energy consumption as the run/walk ratio is varied. This should result in an optimal run/walk ratio at a particular run/walk speed, which can then be charted as a series of optimal curves for different speeds.

Another interesting twist is that there might be a maximum pace where run/walking does not provide any energy conservation. If so, then this would define the dividing line between running and run/walking for marathons.

IP: Logged

TCO
Cool Runner
posted Nov-20-2006 01:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TCO     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Here is some information that MIGHT help explain why run/walking works. I did a little experiment today to get some data. This isn't science by any means, but interesting nevertheless. It all hinges on the ability of the TM manufacturer (in this case it's a Lifefitness) to accurately estimate energy use while walking and running.

My plan was to run/walk 4/1 for an hour on a treadmill to measure the average speed and average energy (calories) consumed. I used the TM because it displays calories as well as all the other info. Here are the input parameters...

Walking speed - 4.0 mph (15:00 per mile)
Running speed - 5.6 mph (10:42 per mile)
Calories burned at 5.6 mph - 1002 per hr. (I am 216 lbs)

Here are the output parameters after 1 hr of running...

Total distance - 5.28 miles, or 94.3% of max possible at 5.6 mph
Total calories consumed - 891, or 88.9% of max possible at 5.6 mph

If I had set the TM for 5.28 mph and run the entire distance I would have used 945 calories, which is more than I used by run/walking. So I wondered...why is that? When I went looking for the answer I discovered that walking requires fewer calories than running for the same distance. On this particular TM the transition point is set at 4.5 mph. At 4.4 mph the TM assumes calories for walking, but at 4.5 mph it takes a huge jump, which I assume is because the calculator assumes running at that speed.

This suggests that run/walking requires about 95% of the energy required to run the same distance! Over an hour that isn't a whole lot, but over 4 hours it amounts to enough energy saved to run an extra 1.2 miles.

I intend to continue this little experiment to see what happens to energy consumption as the run/walk ratio is varied. This should result in an optimal run/walk ratio at a particular run/walk speed, which can then be charted as a series of optimal curves for different speeds.

Another interesting twist is that there might be a maximum pace where run/walking does not provide any energy conservation. If so, then this would define the dividing line between running and run/walking for marathons.


Great post! It's great to see someone actually put forth a logical well-thought out argument that involved a little bit of calculation ,personal research, and thought. After 3 pages of pointless going back and forth it was refreshing. I'm sure you're about to get slammed for your experiment not being scientific or that it is not a big enough cross section of the sample to prove anything. Also, you're probably going to get slammed for the treadmill calories burned based on pace around the 4.4 to 4.5 mph. How dare you not have the latest in athletic performance facilities when you do a personal experiment such as this!!!! You should be scolded. (The preceeding 2 sentences were typed using the highest level of sarcasm allowed by the forum moderators.)

You're only one person doing a little personal research. Good for you. I look forward to seeing the results of your future tests.

[This message has been edited by TCO (edited Nov-20-2006).]

IP: Logged

AndyHass
Cool Runner
posted Nov-20-2006 03:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AndyHass   Click Here to Email AndyHass     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That was a nice little experiment....the formulas on treadmills/HRMs are rough but get the point across.

This demonstrates the TRUE value of the program....if you're a low-mileage runner who doesn't do the full training necessary to really push the marathon, then this method can help get you to the finish line in better shape for the reason you mentioned (energy). Now, if you did a test and looked at it from the speed perspective rather than energy consumption, you'd find that run/walk forces you to run too close to your max during the run sections to make up for the walking sections....fine for slower times, but it reaches ridiculous proportions by the time you get much under 3 hrs. As you walk less and run more the calorie advantage disappears too as the faster speeds become less efficient calorically as well.

IP: Logged

maryt
Cool Runner
posted Nov-20-2006 05:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for maryt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think tigger has brought up this point before, and it's a really good one.

There is esssentially no difference in calories burned between running at marathon pace or half marathon pace or 10K pace. The rate is much higher, but the calories burned per total distance is almost the same. The real huge difference is between walking (at least one foot always on the ground) and running and maybe again between aerobic running and sprinting, although I haven't seen exactly how much that is.

If you look at the charts that phthenry made up in another post, you find that at a 3 hour marathon, 6:52 overall pace, with a 1 minute walk break and 10 minutes running, the runner needs to go at a 6:30 pace when running and about a 15 minute walk pace in order to finish in 3 hours. Going to the Team Oregon Pace wizard, that translates to running at a half-marathon pace. Not so ridiculous at all. The folks I know who have improved their times by using the walk-run method, do just that and maybe even a little faster. They run what would be half marathon pace when they ran half marathons the whole way, and find it's easy to run at a half-marathon pace for the marathon distance IF you add a 1 minute walk-break every 10 minutes. You don't have to get into a ridiculous anaerobic pace, even for a 3 hour marathon or below, although you do have to run at half-marathon pace.

If you go down to a 2:46 marathon, with the same assumptions, you find the same result. You need to run at theoretical half-marathon pace (6:00) when you are running in order to finish in the same time as as 6:20 pace the whole way.

It doesn't seem so outrageous when you consider the run-walk techniques as allowing one to run the running portions at half-marathon pace with the same effort or less than it would to run at marathon pace without the walk breaks. There's even more to it, because several I know have also found the injury rate is much less and recovery is also faster even than what they would have if they just ran a half marathon itself.

Team Oregon Pace wizard, if you don't already have it:
http://www.teamoregon.com/publications/wizard.php

From phthenry's chart:
Time per mile for a walk rate of 15:00 and a ratio of run/walk breaks of 10:1
rate of running Overall rate
5:00 5:19
5:10 5:30
5:20 5:40
5:30 5:50
5:40 6:00
5:50 6:11
6:00 6:21
6:10 6:31
6:20 6:41

[This message has been edited by maryt (edited Nov-21-2006).]

IP: Logged

hazelrah
Cool Runner
posted Nov-21-2006 09:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for hazelrah   Click Here to Email hazelrah     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I disagree with the concept that calories burned is the measure of how much "energy" it takes to travel a fixed distance. The bottom line line is when I run faster, even 5-10 sec/per mile faster over a long distance, I will tire faster then if I run slower. This is simply an empirical observation of my own running over several years of distance running. When I speak of "energy", I am simply referring to what I lose when I get too tired to maintain a fixed work load. I am not in the medical field so I cannot explain exactly what is happening (I did buy Tigger's suggested book by Noakes but to be honest I got lost in the first chapter, I am left with the feeling I need allot more anatomy & physiology in my background to understand what he is trying to say). I do see Noakes graphs that say energy consumed is equal per unit distance, but I do not know how he is defining energy. My suspicion is to use them to justify run walk as the optimum pacing strategy for racing a marathon is an error.

Galloway makes the same claim in his book (that even pacing is best for racing your fastest and that to speed up will require more energy), although this was already disputed by those in the Galloway school of thought as being "taken out of context", although I do not see what context it could be taken into say something different.

Net: I maintain it takes more energy per unit distance (ie, I will tire faster and eventually not be able to maintain pace) the faster one runs.

As what was said above, believe (the operative word being "believe") what you want to believe, this does sound like more religion than science to me. This why I, Wu et al have been asking for testimonials (ie, real life examples, not vague references to nameless "hundereds") to support what appears to me to be counter intuitive theory that does not agree with my own experiences.

Happy Holidays...

IP: Logged

tigger
Cool Runner
posted Nov-21-2006 10:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for tigger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by hazelrah:
(I did buy Tigger's suggested book by Noakes but to be honest I got lost in the first chapter, I am left with the feeling I need allot more anatomy & physiology in my background to understand what he is trying to say).

I'm happy you thought enough of my recommendation to spend the money on the book. I agree (I am also an engineer) that the first chapter is very difficult reading for someone not familiar with biology and biochemistry. I forced myself to read it...hating every page but stuck with it and managed to get into the real meat of the book in later chapters. Have faith that he leaves the technical stuff behind and gets into more running related stuff as the chapter numbers increase.

I think Noakes is a medical doctor and a scientist, and would therefore likely define energy in its proper context.

IP: Logged

AndyHass
Cool Runner
posted Nov-21-2006 08:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AndyHass   Click Here to Email AndyHass     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"If you look at the charts that phthenry made up in another post, you find that at a 3 hour marathon, 6:52 overall pace, with a 1 minute walk break and 10 minutes running, the runner needs to go at a 6:30 pace when running and about a 15 minute walk pace in order to finish in 3 hours. Going to the Team Oregon Pace wizard, that translates to running at a half-marathon pace. "

Running for 3 hours at HALF MARATHON PACE, with only 1minute rest every 10 minutes, IS completely ridiculous. If you think that is doable you don't know much about running. That's what, about 18X10min repeats? Ridiculous.

IP: Logged

aurang
Cool Runner
posted Nov-21-2006 08:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for aurang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
Running for 3 hours at HALF MARATHON PACE, with only 1minute rest every 10 minutes, IS completely ridiculous.
No it's not. My buddy Bob Sacamano once ran seven miles at two-mile pace. He was pacing Gerry Lindgren to a marathon world record.

IP: Logged

phthenry
Cool Runner
posted Nov-21-2006 09:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for phthenry   Click Here to Email phthenry     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
I

If you go down to a 2:46 marathon, with the same assumptions, you find the same result. You need to run at theoretical half-marathon pace (6:00) when you are running in order to finish in the same time as as 6:20 pace the whole way.


From phthenry's chart:
Time per mile for a walk rate of 15:00 and a ratio of run/walk breaks of 10:1
rate of running Overall rate
5:00 5:19
5:10 5:30
5:20 5:40
5:30 5:50
5:40 6:00
5:50 6:11
6:00 6:21
6:10 6:31
6:20 6:41

Nov-21-2006).]


I completely agree with your reasoning. A runner who can sustain a pace of 6:20 a mile for a marathon is capable of running well under 5 minutes a mile for a single mile, so if he runs each mile at 6:00 he is well over his so called "max," whatever is meant by that phrase.

Galloway reccomends that a 3 hour marathoner take a 10-20 second walk break every mile and run at a 6:30 pace. This means that Galloway has the runner taking between a 6:1 and 12:1 walking break and cacluates that the runner will lose 30 secnds per mile, so his math (and experience with runners) matches my math.

A runner who is capable of a 3 hour marathon is nowhere near his so-called "max" (this phrase is used vaguely) when he runs a 6:30. According to Galloway's charts, a 6:30 pace is his half marathon pace (exactly as you said), but of course the walk breaks provide substantial recovery to make sustaining this pace for double the distance possible.

I don't know if my math by itself can prove that walk breaks are efficient or ineffecient, but they certainly in no way prove the opposite, that walk breaks for faster runners are ineffecient.

IP: Logged

phthenry
Cool Runner
posted Nov-21-2006 10:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for phthenry   Click Here to Email phthenry     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:

Running for 3 hours at HALF MARATHON PACE, with only 1minute rest every 10 minutes, IS completely ridiculous. If you think that is doable you don't know much about running. That's what, about 18X10min repeats? Ridiculous.

Galloway recommends that you take a 10 to 20 second walk break after every mile and you run at a 6:30 pace in order to run a 2:59 marathon.

I want to point out that your "18X10min repeats" makes no sense. I could easily say that running a marathon without walking is like doing 26 X 7 minutes with *no* breaks. Either way it is just rhetoric.

Running at 6:30 a mile if you are a 3:00 marathoner is not like doing a repeat at 90 percent (or even 80 percent) of your maximum, as you are implying.

IP: Logged

aurang
Cool Runner
posted Nov-21-2006 11:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for aurang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by phthenry:
I want to point out that your "18X10min repeats" makes no sense. I could easily say that running a marathon without walking is like doing 26 X 7 minutes with *no* breaks. Either way it is just rhetoric.
Huh? Do you even understand the issue? The point is that 18 x 10 minutes at half marathon pace with a minute in between is an impossible "workout". It's not rhetoric, it's realizing that you can't just throw numbers out there.

quote:
Running at 6:30 a mile if you are a 3:00 marathoner is not like doing a repeat at 90 percent (or even 80 percent) of your maximum, as you are implying.

I race half marathons at around 6:30 a mile. If you're telling me that I can keep it up for 3 hours if I take a minute break in between, I'll tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not sure what "maximum" you're speaking of or where you got the idea. How fast I can run a mile has nothing to do with it. I can run at 6-minute pace for about a half hour. Tell me how can I run a 2:40 marathon since 6-minute pace is slower than my "maximum".

IP: Logged

maryt
Cool Runner
posted Nov-22-2006 06:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for maryt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I do know someone who has run 3 hours at half marathon pace with a 1 minute break every 10 minutes. Can't help it if ther are those who don't want to believe it. It's not ridiculous at all. What is ridiculous is having a closed mind and not being open to new ideas.

In fact I also know several people who run their marathons at half marathon pace (for the running portions) who are out there for 4 hours or more. For example, one of my 60+ friends who had been running for quite a while, not a newbie just starting out, used to run a half marathon in just about 2:00 or a little over without walk breaks, and 4:30 or so marathon - took up the walk-run method with a 10:1 and qualified for Boston (sub 4:15).

On first glance adding walk breaks seems intuitively like it couldn't possibly work for the same speed as without walk breaks. I was very skeptical myself, at first, but after hearing from those who have used it and will never go back, I gave it a try myself, and it is amazing how much difference those short breaks make, how much recovery you get, and also how much a difference it makes in injury pevention and recovery after the race. (not the topic here, I know, but amazing nevertheless). So it really doesn't surprise me that someone could run a 3 hour marathon using the walk breaks when they couldn't run one that fast without the breaks. Also as phtenry pointed out, for faster runners, shorter breaks than 1 minute are suggested which would make the run pace slower. I know some runners about that 3 hour finish who would never admit to using the Galloway method, but make sure they slow down to a walk for at least 30 seconds every water stop to get their drinks and have found that helps them a LOT.

Maybe trying for a 2:22 is pushing it, but for those who are trying for 3 hours, it's definitely worth giving a try. For those who aren't in the 3 hour or less speed, seems to me it's a nobrainer to at least give the walk breaks a try.

[This message has been edited by maryt (edited Nov-22-2006).]

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Time (US). > next newest topic | > next oldest topic
Topic is 6 pages:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Post a new topic    
Administrative Options: > Close Topic | > Archive/Move | > Delete Topic

Hop to:  
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

race directors shop my profile
Sponsored By

© 2014 Active Network, LLC and/or its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.
About Us | Terms of Use | Copyright Policy | Your Privacy Rights | Support
Cool Running Facebook Facebook | Cool Running Twitter Twitter | Newsletter Subscription | News Feed Subscription | WannaDo
Race Directors | Running Events | Race Results | Running Tips | Pace Calculator | Couch to 5K | Running Forum | Running News