General Discussion Triathlon Talk » run/walk vs. steady pace Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 6
 
 
2010-03-11 7:10 PM
in reply to: #2721763

User image

Champion
7233
5000200010010025
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace


Edited by newbz 2010-03-11 7:27 PM


2010-03-11 7:20 PM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Master
2158
20001002525
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Hey Everyone,
Great thread. Great discussions, and good stories.
I have a few questions, as well as a few thoughts and observations:

1. Are there any studies of muscle use difference  running/walking and recover? What would be an objective measure of recovery?

2. What do you consider "walking" and for how long to get the "benefit" sought?

3. What is the audience? I would say that run walking is a great way to help build up to longer distances as a bridge to running the whole time.

4. What distance? I would think that most people are thinking for 1/2 mary and full?

Observations:
1. Run walking has been around A WHILE!! It is not only applicable for many, but WIDELY used. Spend some time MOP at a large marathon and you will hear the watches warning people it is time for their walk break and see people rudely stop in the middle of the course to take their break (really, can't you at least TRY to move out of the way?).

2. As it realtes to better times...I would think that run/walk, depending on the ratio, could help someone who is trying for a PR that is juuuuust out of their range. An I mean that maybe they didn't build up the fitness to RUN the whole race at a pace that would get the PR, but by using run walking, they can.

3. Why aren't elites using it? Why aren't elites ALL wearing aero helmets (they aren't), why don't they ALL use the same nutritition plan (they don't), who friggin cares...You have to find what works for you

4. I am not fast, I PR'ed my open 1/2 mary at 1:51:49-an 8:32 mile. I may have walked or shuffles a water stop, but didn't use a run/walk plan. However, I used run/walk to train for my last few marathons, and I think it made the difference for getting to the distance and base fitness without injury. Since I am MOP, all I care about it finishing in the time I want.

5. Pacing is tough. You may NOT know what you are really capable of. I would think that a pro, with a coach, has a slightly better idea than most recreational or competitive AG'ers. The run walk may be a method that works for recerationals becuase they are less likely to blow up while looking for a PR? What do you think.
I will have to go re-read some articles about this, as I am sure some kind of study has been done. PLus, I DO think a KQ is fast, and I bet they don't care if they walked as long as they KQ'ed.

Edited by eliwashere 2010-03-11 7:23 PM
2010-03-11 7:29 PM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
^^Well said, Again, this is an issue of PACING, not of run or run/walk. Scout said it pages ago yet people seem to ignore that.
2010-03-11 7:41 PM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Champion
10471
500050001001001001002525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
aswimr - 2010-03-09 7:13 AM

Trying to understand the science behind the run/walk philosophy. As I was running last night I started to think about the run walk methodology, and I was having trouble figuring out this philosophy worked better than a slower steady pace. As an example, if I wanted to hold 10 minute miles I would have to run harder the first several minutes to be able to walk and still make my mile pace, or conversely I could run the entire mile at an easier pace and make the time. I was wondering what the benefit of spiking your heart rate for the short term, followed by a decrease while walking, would benefit you more than a steady heart rate over the long term.


Did not read all the responses... so forgive me if I repeat something.

I did a walk/run combo for a good year. I had been injured so much from running, I finally gave it up and started racewalking. Then I decided to run some too. So I would do a 3 minute walk, 2 minute run combo.

My running was so p-poor before that... I was going FASTER doing that method, than when I was straight running. With a walk/run I would keep a 11:30 mm (note: I would walk a 13 mm and run a 9:30 mm to get this average! I was not strolling along and I was racewalking!) for up to 12-15 miles. With straight running I was lucky to keep a 12 mm! So for me, it was all about time savings.

My times were faster, I was happier training (just less miserable), and I was not getting injured.

I did this to train for a marathon I did in May 2009. During the marathon I got a stress fracture in my foot. I then rested for 6 weeks. After I got back to running, because my friend wanted to come RUN a half marathon with me, I decided to try running and not walking.

And you know what, I found out I'm a decent runner. Now, on distance up to 13.1 miles, I typically rank in the top 30% of my age group. It's amazing. And shocking. Ha!

I really think my walk/run combo built a solid base for me, so when I went back to running- I was ready. I'm glad I did it.




Edited by KSH 2010-03-11 7:42 PM
2010-03-11 7:54 PM
in reply to: #2721882

User image

Champion
7233
5000200010010025
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
KSH,


That is 100% what i think it is good for (or people starting fresh from the beginning, which is similar).
2010-03-11 8:20 PM
in reply to: #2721849

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
aswimr - Over the long run, 3-5 years, I would venture I would be better off running and building my base in this manner, as ultimately when I do get to the 7 min/mile mark, I will not have to change my training methodolgy significantly,


Ummm.....  There isn't any "significant change" that you are speaking of.  It's a gradual shift.

A first time runner might start at 1:1.  As he gets faster, he'll move  to 2:1, 4:1, 6:1, 8:1. 8:0.5

Eventually, he'll be walking 15 seconds per mile.  

Going from walking aid stations, to running through aid stations, is hardly any quantum leap.



2010-03-11 8:22 PM
in reply to: #2721790

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
bryancd - A properly trained athlete, regardless of their current fitness, can be trained to run an entire long duration event faster than using this protocol.


No offense, but that seems like a slightly loaded question assuming infinite training.  Here's the important question as I see it:

=> With the same amount of training, will the majority of AG'ers perform better through running or run/walking?

Is that a fair question?

And I have seen little to no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, to show that the "runners" here win out. *

* That is at least up until approx. the 7-min/mi mark (3 hour marathon), which is only a tiny minority of runners.

I do think you are taking things personally because you assume we are judging you as a run/walker. We're not


I"m taking it more logically than personally.  I'm just pretty convinced by this.  

Am I wrong?  Maybe.  

But if I'm wrong, I'd rather hear facts from you guys rather than guesses.  Do you really feel like you have given run/walking a fair shot?  

I would be really curious to find any examples of 8 - 12 min/mi runners who tried it, and it did _not_ work for them?

2010-03-11 8:24 PM
in reply to: #2721855

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
newbz - Getting passed is a horribly demotivating thing, and if it happens every mile of a race, thats going to get old REAL fast


Twice you've mentioned this issue.

But it's not demotivating for me at all.  I've had people run past me shouting "Come on, keep on running".  I shout back "I'm fine, see you in a minute".  I say "hi", when I pass them.  

If you want to speak about demoralizing, how does it feel for those guys to have the "walking guy" zoom past them again and again?   

And often, the time that it takes for me to catch up with these guys becomes less and less, until I leave them in my dust and never see them again.

Knowing that a strategy works for you, and knowing that you'll pass these guys down the road is a much more healthy attitude, then some irrational fear of people momentarily going past you.  

newbz, if you actually give run/walking a fair chance, I think that you'll be surprised at how well it works for most runners.   Not only for reducing injuries, but counter-intuitively producing better results.

Did you try the calculator yet?

2010-03-11 8:24 PM
in reply to: #2721870

User image

Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
bryancd - 2010-03-11 3:29 PM ^^Well said, Again, this is an issue of PACING, not of run or run/walk. Scout said it pages ago yet people seem to ignore that.


x3

The reason why a lot of people blow up is not because they can't run the whole distance...it's because they don't know how to pace evenly.  If run/walking helps you keep your pacing under control throughout the entire race...because basically you need to be looking at your watch about 5 times a mile, then that's great.  But if you learn how to run the entire distance at an even pace, I believe you can show better results.

Look at almost every race report of someone blowing up.  In almost every case it's because the runner went out in a pace to fast for their ability.  Maybe they intended to run a 4 hour marathon (9:09 pace) but ran the first 10 miles at an 8:40 pace.  If they were to run/walk at an overall pace of 8:40 for the first 10 miles, they too would likely blow up.  But the chances of having an overall pace of 8:40 for the first 10 miles is unlikely when you are run/walking...because you're constantly monitoring your pace and time.  That doesn't mean run/walking is faster...it just may mean that it allows you to keep your overall race strategy/pace in check for ALL 26 miles...which IMHO is the most important key to a successful.marathon.
2010-03-11 8:44 PM
in reply to: #2721944

User image

Master
1404
1000100100100100
Saratoga Springs, Utah
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
mrcurtain - 2010-03-11 7:20 PM
aswimr - Over the long run, 3-5 years, I would venture I would be better off running and building my base in this manner, as ultimately when I do get to the 7 min/mile mark, I will not have to change my training methodolgy significantly,


Ummm.....  There isn't any "significant change" that you are speaking of.  It's a gradual shift.

A first time runner might start at 1:1.  As he gets faster, he'll move  to 2:1, 4:1, 6:1, 8:1. 8:0.5

Eventually, he'll be walking 15 seconds per mile.  

Going from walking aid stations, to running through aid stations, is hardly any quantum leap.



So when do you get to where you just run the whole thing? Or does it always have to include at least a :15 break per mile. I know I will probably get hammered for this but it is my opinion is that if you train properly and pace properly why do you need to take walk breaks at all? Not getting after you, I just want to know.

On a side note to reference of sub 10 ironmen in previous posts. I do think a sub 10 is fast (or KQ to an extent) but I think some people can and have accomplished this by finishing what I consider to be a slow marathon. It is the running portion of the IM to what I should have refered to, not the overall time.
2010-03-11 9:05 PM
in reply to: #2721948

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
mrcurtain - 2010-03-11 7:22 PM

bryancd - A properly trained athlete, regardless of their current fitness, can be trained to run an entire long duration event faster than using this protocol.


No offense, but that seems like a slightly loaded question assuming infinite training.  Here's the important question as I see it:

=> With the same amount of training, will the majority of AG'ers perform better through running or run/walking?

Is that a fair question?

And I have seen little to no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, to show that the "runners" here win out. *

* That is at least up until approx. the 7-min/mi mark (3 hour marathon), which is only a tiny minority of runners.

I do think you are taking things personally because you assume we are judging you as a run/walker. We're not


I"m taking it more logically than personally.  I'm just pretty convinced by this.  

Am I wrong?  Maybe.  

But if I'm wrong, I'd rather hear facts from you guys rather than guesses.  Do you really feel like you have given run/walking a fair shot?  

I would be really curious to find any examples of 8 - 12 min/mi runners who tried it, and it did _not_ work for them?



Well, other are opining and provided evidence which is contrary to you "logical" thinking. and BT is really not a huge demographic. Go post this on a running forum and see what you see. You're fighting the good fight, though.
I did try your calculator and it's flawed in the extreme. What it totally fails to consider is that to run the % required means a pace that after say 20K becomes impossible to hold. the walk breaks provide no meaningful recovery. Sorry, it doesn't work.

Edited by bryancd 2010-03-11 9:05 PM


2010-03-11 9:55 PM
in reply to: #2715754

Regular
107
100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Interesting discussion.  It seems the people that have had success with the run/walk strategy talk about their half-Mary or HIM times in the 1:45-2:15 range.  I can believe it works here.  But if you're wanting to run a sub 1:30 or 1:25 can run/walking really be faster?  Seems hard to believe.  I'm willing to give it a try in training sometime though.
2010-03-11 10:03 PM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
yup...post this in the "marathoners" forum at runnersworld.com and you'll get a very different response...even from those who don't run sub 3 hour marathons.
2010-03-11 10:27 PM
in reply to: #2721953

User image

Champion
10471
500050001001001001002525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
mrcurtain - 2010-03-11 8:24 PM

newbz - Getting passed is a horribly demotivating thing, and if it happens every mile of a race, thats going to get old REAL fast


Twice you've mentioned this issue.

But it's not demotivating for me at all.  I've had people run past me shouting "Come on, keep on running".  I shout back "I'm fine, see you in a minute".  I say "hi", when I pass them.  

If you want to speak about demoralizing, how does it feel for those guys to have the "walking guy" zoom past them again and again?   

And often, the time that it takes for me to catch up with these guys becomes less and less, until I leave them in my dust and never see them again.

Knowing that a strategy works for you, and knowing that you'll pass these guys down the road is a much more healthy attitude, then some irrational fear of people momentarily going past you.  

newbz, if you actually give run/walking a fair chance, I think that you'll be surprised at how well it works for most runners.   Not only for reducing injuries, but counter-intuitively producing better results.

Did you try the calculator yet?



Eh... I get passed and passed people the entire time I'm a race. Running or walking. When I run... if I stop at an aid station to get water... I get passed by people I just passed. Just how it goes. I am then motivated to pass them back.

Gosh, if I got demotivated every time I got passed in a race, I would shoot myself in the head. A bit dramatic, but you get my point.

2010-03-11 10:28 PM
in reply to: #2722067

User image

Champion
10471
500050001001001001002525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
feldon - 2010-03-11 9:55 PM

Interesting discussion.  It seems the people that have had success with the run/walk strategy talk about their half-Mary or HIM times in the 1:45-2:15 range.  I can believe it works here.  But if you're wanting to run a sub 1:30 or 1:25 can run/walking really be faster?  Seems hard to believe.  I'm willing to give it a try in training sometime though.


I would say, doubtful. Honestly, if you are running fast enough to do a 2:00 half mary or faster... like around 1:45... I mean really, do you NEED to walk? That's a darn good runner in my book. Not sure why they would do a walk/run combo.

Right now my PR on a half mary.... RUNNING is a 2:07. And I worked hard for that... RUNNING.


2010-03-11 10:31 PM
in reply to: #2721955

User image

Champion
10471
500050001001001001002525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
tri808 - 2010-03-11 8:24 PM

bryancd - 2010-03-11 3:29 PM ^^Well said, Again, this is an issue of PACING, not of run or run/walk. Scout said it pages ago yet people seem to ignore that.


x3

The reason why a lot of people blow up is not because they can't run the whole distance...it's because they don't know how to pace evenly.  If run/walking helps you keep your pacing under control throughout the entire race...because basically you need to be looking at your watch about 5 times a mile, then that's great.  But if you learn how to run the entire distance at an even pace, I believe you can show better results.

Look at almost every race report of someone blowing up.  In almost every case it's because the runner went out in a pace to fast for their ability.  Maybe they intended to run a 4 hour marathon (9:09 pace) but ran the first 10 miles at an 8:40 pace.  If they were to run/walk at an overall pace of 8:40 for the first 10 miles, they too would likely blow up.  But the chances of having an overall pace of 8:40 for the first 10 miles is unlikely when you are run/walking...because you're constantly monitoring your pace and time.  That doesn't mean run/walking is faster...it just may mean that it allows you to keep your overall race strategy/pace in check for ALL 26 miles...which IMHO is the most important key to a successful.marathon.


I will say this... I found with my walk/run combo... because I could run faster when I was running... my overall pace was faster. Why? Because instead of running really slow for all those miles... I could walk faster and run fast. Thus my time was faster doing a walk/run vs. running.

With that said, my walk/run marathon time has beat the times of people who have RUN the entire thing. AND I am talking about beginners... NOT people who are doing 5, 4, 3 hour marathons.



2010-03-12 6:46 AM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Really? We're arguing over whether it's faster to run/walk vs. just run in a race?

That is the dumbest argument I think I've ever come across.

Your time is your time. It is completely immaterial how you accomplish that time (as long as it's legal). I've seen people walk faster than some people run. So what? I know a fair number of people who run faster than most other people.

The real secret to being faster in a race has nothing to do with whether you incorporate walking or not. It's about the TRAINING. I would put money down on the fact that the people who run/walk to a sub 3 marathon train their rear ends off, and have been doing so for a number of years. I did not get my marathon times by incorporating some fancy training methodology. I got it by working hard for a couple years.

Christ in a race car.....
2010-03-12 7:28 AM
in reply to: #2722268

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Scout7 - 2010-03-12 5:46 AM
Christ in a race car.....


..is that like God is my co-pilot?
2010-03-12 9:01 AM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Extreme Veteran
347
10010010025
, Utah
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
I'm glad this discussion came up.  I'm training for my first tri.  In High School I was on the swim team. But I was never a runner.  In my twenties I had an accident that left me with nerve and muscle damage in my back and right leg. I was barely able to walk so I went back into the pool and worked and worked.  It took five years before I could walk without a limp.  

So for me the run is my hardest part.  I have been using my own version of run/walk  to train.  But until I read this thread I didn't  know there was a Galloway method.  I'll be using it from now on.  It gives me encourgement that I can complete my first tri and maybe run a half marathon with my neice.



Edited by tritiny 2010-03-12 9:03 AM
2010-03-12 9:03 AM
in reply to: #2722268

User image

Master
2802
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Scout7 - 2010-03-12 6:46 AM Really? We're arguing over whether it's faster to run/walk vs. just run in a race? That is the dumbest argument I think I've ever come across. Your time is your time. It is completely immaterial how you accomplish that time (as long as it's legal). I've seen people walk faster than some people run. So what? I know a fair number of people who run faster than most other people. The real secret to being faster in a race has nothing to do with whether you incorporate walking or not. It's about the TRAINING. I would put money down on the fact that the people who run/walk to a sub 3 marathon train their rear ends off, and have been doing so for a number of years. I did not get my marathon times by incorporating some fancy training methodology. I got it by working hard for a couple years. Christ in a race car.....


LOL my thoughts exactly.  I saw this thread had grown to 6 pages and just could just not believe it....
2010-03-12 10:22 AM
in reply to: #2721948

User image

Master
1826
100050010010010025
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
mrcurtain - 2010-03-11 9:22 PM
bryancd - A properly trained athlete, regardless of their current fitness, can be trained to run an entire long duration event faster than using this protocol.


No offense, but that seems like a slightly loaded question assuming infinite training.  Here's the important question as I see it:

=> With the same amount of training, will the majority of AG'ers perform better through running or run/walking?

Is that a fair question?

And I have seen little to no evidence at all, anecdotal or otherwise, to show that the "runners" here win out. *

* That is at least up until approx. the 7-min/mi mark (3 hour marathon), which is only a tiny minority of runners.

I do think you are taking things personally because you assume we are judging you as a run/walker. We're not


I"m taking it more logically than personally.  I'm just pretty convinced by this.  

Am I wrong?  Maybe.  

But if I'm wrong, I'd rather hear facts from you guys rather than guesses.  Do you really feel like you have given run/walking a fair shot?  

I would be really curious to find any examples of 8 - 12 min/mi runners who tried it, and it did _not_ work for them?



Here is a few questions. I ran some numbers. A person who runs 8:30 pace for a marathon (3:42 ish) would require the following pacing.. at a 1 minute walk break at 16 min/mile (what people have been throwing out as a walk pace) would require that you run 8:00 for the rest of the mile to get an overall pace of 8:30 for the mile. The thing is if you look at something like mcmillan or daniels your half marathon pace is 8:04 .. so basically you will have to run 26 repeats of sub half marathon pace. At 45 second walk break you would have to run 8:07 so slightly above HM pace. 

Earlier you stated how the lactic acid gets flushed in that 1 minute walk break. Sure there is a recovery on an interval.. ever done 5x or 6x interval? they get easier or harder.. does that recovery become less and less.. 26x intervals recovery is??

 run/walk .. run who cares.. do what works for you.. I do think run/walk is excellent for starting out and will get you more time running because 5-8 minute blocks are much easier to stomach for a new comer.. I have done run walk for injury recovery after back surgery and it feels good... but I don't believe I would use it for a full racing strategy.. it just doesn't add up for me


2010-03-12 12:12 PM
in reply to: #2715754

Member
195
100252525
Akron, OH
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
I think it's probably one of the best discussions on here in months!!  Lots better than looking at everyone's new bike that cost x thousands of dollars for what??  This is a strategy that has the potential to make runners out of non-runners (me), allow people to run farther and build faster with less injury (my opinion), and for a substantial segment of the running population, race faster (again, my opinion)  With the first two issues being the most important in my book.  The reason the last one comes up is because of the argument that you have to train like you race and therefore can't possibly run/walk for training and do as well racing as you could have if you just ran (BS, again, my opinion)

With regard to the post a couple back about 1:45-2:00 Half Mary and why you would run/walk if you were that fast, I ran/walked a 1:50 last fall, my first and only 13.1 and believe I can do substantially better than that with continued work and the same method.  I have much more confidence in that over spending the same training time working on running 13.1 with no 30 sec breaks and thinking I will do better.  There may be a speed where it no longer makes sense for me, but I'm not nearly there yet. 


2010-03-12 2:54 PM
in reply to: #2722817

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Scout7 - incorporating some fancy training methodology


Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.  That's like dismissing "intervals" a some fancy training methodology. 

There is nothing fancy or complex about taking deliberate walking breaks in your runs.

gerald12 - I know I will probably get hammered for this but it is my opinion is that if you train properly and pace properly why do you need to take walk breaks at all?


You don't _need_ to.   But it seems that for the vast majority of runners, run/walking may very well give you an overall better time.  

So the question is, why wouldn't you?

gerald12 - So when do you get to where you just run the whole thing? Or does it always have to include at least a :15 break per mile.


The limit seems to be somewhere around an average pace of 7 min/mi.

FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - Sure there is a recovery on an interval.. ever done 5x or 6x interval? they get easier or harder.. does that recovery become less and less.. 26x intervals recovery is??


Bryancd has made the same point, and here are my thoughts on it.  There is almost surely going to be some dropoff on pace and strength as you go through these 25 repeats.  Fair enough.

But the same _exact_ problem plagues people who run all 26 miles.  But probably more so. 

Here's the real question:  Is there more tiredness and dropoff for the guy who just ran 25 miles continuously, or the guy who just had 24 rest breaks?

FeltonR.Nubbinsworth - but I don't believe I would use it for a full racing strategy.. it just doesn't add up for me


Understandable.  But why not try this:

Go out on a training run with your normal level of effort, but add walking breaks according to the schedule shown on this page.

http://www.jeffgalloway.com/training/walk_breaks.html

If you find that you're going overall faster with the same level of effort, you could consider changing your mind about run/walking races.

2010-03-12 3:08 PM
in reply to: #2723502

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Intervals are "fancy", in my book. And guess what? That's exactly what run/walk is. Intervals.

At this point, I'm not even sure what the argument is. Are you saying that the majority of people out there could be faster if they incorporated walk breaks? If so, then OK, they very well could be faster.

BUT.....

They will be faster because they:
A) enjoy running more, because
B) they manage effort better, and therefore
C)train more

That's it. No more, no less. If you think the walking in and of itself is the key factor in the success here, then that's your belief. I think the same results can be had, if the person in question meets the three points I listed above. If it takes mixing running and walking to do so, then that's what it takes. I really don't see much difference one way or the other.
2010-03-14 10:53 AM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Extreme Veteran
821
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Hey guys!

Rookie reporting:

Tried this run/walk stuff today and 3M times was exactly the same. I was able to crank up the speed for 5min and walk the next 30 sec. Next week when I perform my long outside run, I'm going to give this a try to see how it works.

I tho that my time would suffer but I guess I was wrong.

I am going to read more about this technique!

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » run/walk vs. steady pace Rss Feed  
 
 
of 6