General Discussion Triathlon Talk » run/walk vs. steady pace Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 6
 
 
2010-03-14 2:57 PM
in reply to: #2723539

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Scout7 -  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 do think that run/walking can cause less abuse on your body, and thus allow you to train more.  But I think that's just a bonus.

What we're still debating seems to be this:

With everything else the same, can someone who runs a marathon at 8:30min/mi, run 25 one-mile repeats averaging 8:00min/mi, with a one minute break between each?

 


Edited by mrcurtain 2010-03-14 3:02 PM


2010-03-14 3:01 PM
in reply to: #2725317

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
camaleon - I tho that my time would suffer but I guess I was wrong. 


Thanks for your report.

I too was initially a skeptic, and I've been convinced by trying it.

What I thought was just for total beginners, will definitely take me to the point of running 3:30 marathons, and maybe beyond.

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.


You didn't mention your average pace.  But you might want experiment with more rest. 

I know that it is counter-intuitive, but by resting 1 minute instead of 30 seconds you could see faster times.

Try Galloway's chart here:

8 min/mi—run 4 min/walk 35 seconds
9 min/mi— 4 min run-1 min walk
10 min/mi—-3:1
11 min/mi—2:30-1
12 min/mi—-2:1
13 min/mi—-1:1
14 min/mi—30 sec run/30 sec walk
15 min/mi—30 sec/45 sec
16 min/mi—30 sec/60 sec

2010-03-14 7:09 PM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Extreme Veteran
821
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
^^^ Thanks for the chart, I have been reading/reviewing it.

I will try it again on Tuesday.

There is no harm in try, so why not?

If I don't like, I would go back. Also, I like the theory behind; makes sense to me.

Will report back on Tuesday!

btw: I am trying at the gym, I am sure that if i can try this outside; I will get better result.



Edited by camaleon 2010-03-14 7:11 PM
2010-03-14 7:31 PM
in reply to: #2725533

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
mrcurtain - 2010-03-14 1:57 PM
With everything else the same, can someone who runs a marathon at 8:30min/mi, run 25 one-mile repeats averaging 8:00min/mi, with a one minute break between each?

 


The problem with that is if you show me an 8:30 marathoner who trains run/walk and is able to run 25 8:00 intervals, I'll show you an athlete who had they trained to run only can run a 7:45 average marathon.

See, you can't ascribe the technique to the result, just the training. From a physilogical standpoint, running the whole thing well trained is faster.
2010-03-14 7:56 PM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Veteran
120
100
Polar Bear Alley
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
I must say as a beginner, the fact that there is a run/walk method is comforting.  I'm currently on a "Learn to Run" program that uses run/walk until you're exclusively running.  I think too that some peoples perception of "walking" is different than others.  For example, during my walk portion I am actually moving at a race walk speed so there isn't a whole lot of difference between my run and my walk.  As well, I'm nowhere near as tired as if I try to run constantly and my muscles actually feel great, as my intervals go on in my training session, my running ends up feeling more effortless especially since I'm incorporating a walking breath into my running (so I'm not panting).  This is just my experience, and my ultimate goal is definitely to run full time, but I can see how run/walk could be beneficial as far as being able to decrease your min./mile.
2010-03-14 8:54 PM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
^^^Agreed 100%. If run/walk get's you going, it's a great protocol.


2010-03-14 8:58 PM
in reply to: #2715754

User image

Regular
220
100100
Where The Peaches Grow
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
This thread has been very enlightening. I've been feeling bad about having to walk because I can't run anymore, so I may try this method. I'm still very much a beginner runner and it sounds perfect for me.
2010-03-14 10:19 PM
in reply to: #2722569

User image

Champion
10471
500050001001001001002525
Dallas, TX
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
tritiny - 2010-03-12 9:01 AM

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.



Good for you and GOOD LUCK!!!!!

At the end of the day... do what YOU can DO to finish the race. We are all weekend warrior athletes who are just out there doing this to stay healthy and to feel accomplished!



2010-03-14 10:53 PM
in reply to: #2725878

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
bryancd -From a physilogical standpoint, running the whole thing well trained is faster.


That's your opinion.  And it may certainly be true of pro athletes and the top 2-3% of AGers.  

I don't believe that you have shown anything which proves your point for MOPs.  I also have seen few or no anecdotes where 8-12min/mi runners tried run-walking and it slowed them down.

Instead, I hear a ton of responses from MOPs who say almost exactly same thing.  I was totally unconvinced by the idea, it was very counter-intuitive, but I tried taking walking breaks and [with the same level of intensity], my average speeds went up.

See, you can't ascribe the technique to the result, just the training.


But it's not just an issue of training.

A runner who is capable of running a marathon at 8:30 pace, may see an improvement in his time simply by using a race strategy of taking deliberate walking breaks early and often.




Edited by mrcurtain 2010-03-14 10:54 PM
2010-03-15 5:17 AM
in reply to: #2726090

User image

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

Good for you and GOOD LUCK!!!!! At the end of the day... do what YOU can DO to finish the race. We are all weekend warrior athletes who are just out there doing this to stay healthy and to feel accomplished!

this

people go into crazy plans without realizing that they key of any sport is to max result while staying healthy!
2010-03-15 6:31 AM
in reply to: #2726110

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
mrcurtain - 2010-03-14 11:53 PM

bryancd -From a physilogical standpoint, running the whole thing well trained is faster.


That's your opinion.  And it may certainly be true of pro athletes and the top 2-3% of AGers.  

I don't believe that you have shown anything which proves your point for MOPs.  I also have seen few or no anecdotes where 8-12min/mi runners tried run-walking and it slowed them down.

Instead, I hear a ton of responses from MOPs who say almost exactly same thing.  I was totally unconvinced by the idea, it was very counter-intuitive, but I tried taking walking breaks and [with the same level of intensity], my average speeds went up.

See, you can't ascribe the technique to the result, just the training.


But it's not just an issue of training.

A runner who is capable of running a marathon at 8:30 pace, may see an improvement in his time simply by using a race strategy of taking deliberate walking breaks early and often.




Technically, you haven't really shown any evidence either, other than that you've heard a ton of people. I've heard a ton of people on running websites say they are faster now that they are doing nothing but running. Woo.

Again, I go back to the fact that your scenario is completely impossible to prove. Especially since you said "may see". A person will definitely see an improvement in race times, if the strategy is effective for him. That point has never been debated. Is it effective for everyone? No. Is it effective for most people? That's impossible to even begin to guess at. Considering I have no idea what group is included in MOP, then the whole debate becomes more than a little fuzzy.

Honestly, I'm surprised this whole conversation is still raging. We have given you as much as we can here. Is run/walk a viable strategy? Yes. Can it help people train and race effectively? Yes. What more are you trying to prove?


2010-03-15 3:32 PM
in reply to: #2726218

User image

Veteran
812
500100100100
Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace
Scout7 - Technically, you haven't really shown any evidence either, other than that you've heard a ton of people ... Is it effective for most people? That's impossible to even begin to guess at. ...


I totally agree that neither side has "proven" anything.  I just have some evidence in the form of lot of people trying it, not just beginners, and seeing faster results.  

That why I've tried to be clear in saying that there is evidence this may work for people, and suggest that people at least consider it or try it.

Is run/walk a viable strategy? Yes. Can it help people train and race effectively? Yes. What more are you trying to prove?


That's it.  Nothing more than that. 
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » run/walk vs. steady pace Rss Feed  
 
 
of 6