Anyone faster using Galloway than full run? (Page 2)

Yes agreed improved fitness was definitely a factor as well knowing what to expect!  I think with the JG method of training for a marathon is he recommends you train to at least the full distance if not a bit futher - his theory being that you will hit your wall at the furthest point you've trained to and I found that to be true - I hit my wall with about 2km to go and I trained to 40km.  It think for me I find I can go harder on the run section knowing that I will walk for a minute really soon.  Whereas without it, I just run and run and feel like I'm a failure when I need to walk.  If it's scheduled or planned it doesn't feel like a failure!

Every physio or sports therapist i've seen has always been impressed that I do a run/walk - they say I will thank myself when I'm 60 and won't need new knees or hips!

Some people though are born runners  and I can understand that they wouldn't want to use this method at all.  i am not one of those, I'm a born walker!

FWIW I did a HM in Adelaide a few weeks after that first 6 hour one - and there was a girl there doing it as a walk - she beat me by a long way.

Oh gee thanks - I am taking that as a compliment.  Though I think I did the same amount of training but I suppose it's the second year into it so fitness would have improved - oh and heaps of weight loss probably didn't hurt.

I think following the Galloway method - especially for us non- runners gives a real confidence boost - knowing that anyone but anyone can do a marathon using this method.

I used this method for the first time tonight so I thought I'd chime in. I have been dealing with lingering running injuries off and on all year so my running has been low and I'm gearing up for an Ironman in a couple of months. I am planning on using a run/walk strategy for the race...According to my level of fitness/goals a 4:1 ratio was suggested. That sounded just crazy to me so today I tried a 5:1 and was actually pretty surprised. I told myself if I averaged at least 9:30/miles I would give it a shot. Here is what I experienced...

First, it was very hard for me mentally to stop after 5 minutes. They say that it important to take walk breaks from the beginning before you feel like you have to. I had to remind myself of that to convince myself to stop before I even felt fully warmed up. It's amazing how much better you feel after a short minute walk, though...each time I'd start running again I felt fresh. It surprised me each time. And when I did start back up I only had to run for 5 minutes before my next break. At one point during the run I felt like I was cheating...like I wasn't working hard enough. But here's the important part: Did it make me faster??

These are the last few runs that I ran through the entire distance. I will say that these have been slightly slower than usual. My feet have been bothering me lately...I'm thinking I may need new shoes or something. The soles are pretty warn down and the pain is fairly recent.

00:46:26 - 4.93 miles - 9:25

00:39:42 - 4.16 miles - 9:32/mi (Brick)

1:41:00 - 9.44 miles - 10:42/mi (was not feeling this run at all. Was supposed to go 2 hours)

1:00:00 - 6.5 miles - 9:14/mi (this run was last night on the treadmill)

Tonight's run

00:57:52 - 6.55 - 8:50/mi

As you can see, I hit my 9:30 mark...I will say that I ran the last mile pretty hard. The run was short enough that I had a lot left over. I guess they say one of the benefits is that you save more energy for the end and I definitely did. I'm impressed enough that I'm going to incorporate it for all my long runs and see how I do. 6 miles or less I'll probably still run all the way through. If this thread lives on, I'll share anything new that I come up with...

Really interesting stories all.

I'm planning on using it for an upcoming marathon as a strategy from the start and for the last 4 weeks of training to work around an injury. I had been going strong with training but shin splints 8 weeks out I've been forced to take 4 weeks off running, missing 2 long runs. Realistically running all the way or training for near full distance  training runs will just result in re-injury.

I had been targeting 4.15, now I'm hoping 4.30 will still be realistic with the Galloway and will see how training goes.Will post how I get on.

Been cross training and doing strength work so fitness wise I'm in as good shape as I was pre-injury, just running fitness that will be lost.

Half and full marathon PRs are from Galloway run/walk for most of the miles.  I just did my half PR last week using 3/1 for the first 10 miles and a full on run straight through to the finish.  2:10:54 :3 Previous to run walk my PR was 2:25 for a half, so I think it's worked out for me.  My problem used to be I run out of gas by the end running the entire way.  Though you could do the same thing even with run walk. I got too excited for my full marathon and did a 2:08 half way split and then basically crashed and burned the last 10 miles and finished 4:48 (also, broke my foot, but I was getting tired before the foot thing.)  So if you do it right, a 4:15 is still possible!

I do training using both run walk and with no stop to practice the end run through, but all my long runs are done with run/walk since that's how I expect to do most of the race. 

After reading this thread, I decided to do a scientific experiment last night (hey I'm a geologist so I'm allowed to do that ).

Methods: (1) I ran one mile last night, then walked 30-90 seconds (through an imaginary aid station) for 6.4 miles on a treadmill run last night.  The previous Thursday, I had (2) run 5.7 miles, running 2 miles and taking 60-90 seconds walk breaks, until I got so tired at the end (about 4.8 miles) that I was taking walking breaks about every 0.4-0.5 miles. My fitness isn't going to have improved much after only one week, so I thought this was a pretty fair test.  I should also point out that these 5.7 and 6.4 miles are the furthest that I've ever run before!

Results: Overall my pace was exactly the same (ca. 5.6 mph) so I wasn't any faster using method (1) or method (2).

Discussion: However, some things I did notice using method (1).  These 1 mile marker short walking breaks allowed me to get my breathing more in control (important as I'm an asthmatic), and completely relax about taking fluids on board.  I also ran at a remarkably consistent pace (5.9/6.0 mph) for the first 6 miles, and then felt so good that I cranked it up to 6.5 mph for the final push.  I have never run that consistently before, or had so much energy at the end of a training session to push up my pace, so that was a real eye-opener for me.  I certainly didn't feel that way using method (2), as I was utterly exhausted during and after the run.

However, more importantly, it mentally allowed me to split up the race into 6 sections and treat each one separately, and push myself to get to the next water break, so it was something to look forward to.  Previously, I'd only looked at the mileage overall and always felt a bit negative ("what do you mean I'm only half way" etc).

Conclusions: I'm a complete convert to method (1) and I'm sticking with this for the 10k run of my first Oly in 2 weeks time

So for all the people that were able to run faster using the JG -  I guess you are all saying that changing a steady effort run into an interval run gets you a better overall time?

Someone indicated that they went from around 9:14mile over a little over 10k running steady state but was able to average 8:50/mile using a run/walk.

In achieving a better speed for run/walk (doing 5/1) , it would mean that for every minute of walking, you'd have to go significantly faster than the average - for example, running at 8:30/mile to make up for that 1 minute of walking.  Now we've all done intervals and know that it's a great way to INCREASE the time you can spend running threshold but the overall time and effort is longer and actually less efficient because of all the stopping and starting.  Just doesn't make sense unless someone doesn't know how to pace the effort properly.  In the above example, I bet that if he was able to run 8:30 for 4 minutes, then stop, then start again after a minute, they could easily have just run 8:45/mi the whole time without stopping.

The only explanation that would make sense is if someone was running above their threshold pace and they HAD to stop because of the lactic acid build-up or not having enough oxygen, dehydration, etc.

Which leads me to think that the run/walk method will work for someone who is trying to run at a pace that they are not trained/fit enough to do so it would be helpful in fine/tuning someone's 'consistent pace'.  For example, if I can do 8:50 with run/walk, then I should be able to do 8:50 or even slightly faster just keeping a steady pace (unless I hit threshold and have to stop?). If I'm not able to, then perhaps my endurance training isn't good enough?

Just trying to make sense of this....and whether I should think about running a marathon or HM interval style (run hard for 5 minutes then walk).  So is the hare really faster than the tortoise?

(notwithstanding ultras)  Obviously it's not faster, or competitive athletes would be doing it.  Run/Walk is for people who don't yet have the aerobic engine or other body dynamics necessary to sustain a comfortable jog at below threshold.  It will also help people mentally that don't yet understand how to feel and pace their body, or desire to minimize the suffering in a race. 

Gallowalking is a great way to start into a running program or for those without lofty speed goals.  But if you're asking about achieving faster times, it would seem you have different goals. If you train consistently, at some point you will no longer need the rest breaks.  And- if you do need the rest breaks- it means you're running too hard, didn't train sufficiently, or don't care about your time so much and would rather take a little break.  (the mental aspect to running is pretty big)

If there's any correlation at all between cycling and running- what I've learned with power training is that you can be under threshold a long long time, but each of those times above threshold costs you big time.  The fastest race is one with a steady pace at the fastest pace you can sustain for the duration. 

oh- rest breaks are not equivalent to slowing to a walk for 5-10s to grab gatorade during a marathon.  that's nutrition intake- and yes, I know Bill Rogers used to do that and win marathons.

I haven't run 8:45/mi during training since April or May...Like I mentioned in my post, I have been dealing with injury and my runs have been consistently in the 9:15-9:30 range. (which is why I said I'd give JG a chance if I came in around 9:30/mi.) Your assumption that I could have run 8:50's  throughout is just wrong. (Actually, I probably could, but I would be putting in race effort at that point.) I would love to be at that level again, but I'm just not [yet]...I can start at around 9:00/mi, but around mile 3 or so I start feeling really beat-up and have to slow down. I think the biggest thing for me was how good I felt through out. Like I said, I felt like I was cheating or wasn't pushing myself like I should be. My average HR was 151, pretty average for my runs...

Whether or not I'm adequately trained for that distance shouldn't matter...an 8:50/mi is an 8:50/mi regardless of how I got there. This was one of the fastest training runs I've had since before June so I'm gonna give it another shot. Not only that, but I felt great the whole time...no aches or pains during or after. (except for maybe that last mile that I really pushed myself on) Also, at no time during my run did I feel I HAD to stop...In fact, most of the times I had to talk myself into stopping for the sake of the test.

I think if you're trying to figure out if it's best for you, your best bet would be to give it a shot for your next long run...Then come back here and tell us what you found.

I'm 100% faster w/JG method... I do switch the ratios around for the distance running.  For example... I run a 3:1 for a marathon, I did 3:30:1 for HIM, I do 4:1 for 13.1 by itself, have done 5:1 for the 10k of an Olympic and will try a 6:1 for the 10k of the upcoming Lake Geneva Olympic I'm doing on Sept. 15th... for a 5K in a Sprint Tri, I run w/o stopping...  It really is more like intervals and not only does my body prefer this, it's WAY better on my mind.   

Why don't you go and try it before making any more judgemental posts on a subject you're just speculating about.

Mark

The best thing I can recommend as well as 'trying it' is to read the guy's book, Marathon You Can Do It - the testimonials in there blew my mind.  One friend of his had been trying to do a 3.30 marathon but best he could do was 3.40 - he signed up with a money back guarantee but insisted the walk breaks were for wimps.  anyway a deal is a deal so he had to stick with it - he hated the training with all the walk breaks and on race day had said he would run the whole thing.  His group leader on race day had to physically stop him from running, making him walk one minute each mile.  At 18miles he let him go and he finished in 3.25.

The key to the walk breaks is that at the end - I find the last quarter of the run, I have a huge amount of energy and it's sooooo good passing so many people who ran past me as they fade at the finish.  Every race I do - be it 10km or HM I take my breaks and I always have a spring finish and a mile on my face and so many people remark how fresh I look....

The other good thing is there is a lot of mental training techniques in his book - switching on the positive side of your brain, positive mantras to get you through etc.  I found it most beneficial but it's not for everyone.

I wasn't being judgmental - I was just trying to understand the theory and science behind it. If it's a placebo/mind trick that works for some, that's all well and good - but I like to know how/why something works before just jumping on the bandwagon.  This just confuses me as I know that interval-type efforts are not as efficient because of all the stopping/starting (I see that in cycling, I see that in the gasoline mileage of my car, etc) so I was trying to figure out how running in this fashion seem to go against those facts.  I think someone said it above - the fastest way to cover the distance is the highest constant effort you can sustain for the whole distance - so if someone needed the recovery of the walk segment, they were likely at an effort that they cannot sustain for the whole distance.

Now interval training is great so if this converts your long run into long intervals so that you can gain the fitness to improve for a race, then that's great!  However, for that same effort (from a scientific perspective, not necessarily the mental/psychological aspect), you could go faster by exerting a constant effort - which is what I would do if I was racing (and not training).

The OP asked if anyone was faster using the Galloway method.  Based on the responses the answer is yes, some people are faster doing a walk/run.  Nobody is implying that it is the best strategy for everyone.

If you're really interested in learning about the run/walk theory, then go here: http://www.jeffgalloway.com/ and do some reading.

Mark

it's kind of interval training but to a lesser degree - if you calculate your speed across the distance it makes sense.  What you're not doing is 'sprinting' the intervals, you are just doing a comfortable pace - a little faster coz you feel fresher. 

I am not fast as you can see below...

So I walk roughly 6kph for one minute and the speed I can maintain for a distance for the two minute run is 9.5kph.  That gives me an average for 3 minutes of  (wait for me to get the calculator)...drum roll.....417m covered. Which means my average speed is 8.3kph.  If I maintain this average speed for a full marathon my finish time is 5hours and 5mins.  I did 5 hours and 6 mins!

I figure for an IM (March) I'm going to be going slower than that though.

The key really is staying comfortable and fresh for the entire 42km, not dying at the end!

It works up to X speed, but then you reach a level of fitness that it's not sustainable. X speed depends on the person. Glancing at your logs you might use it on your 20+ km runs if you think you might not get through them. If you are under-mileage for the distance run/walk can get you through it.

My first 2 years I think run/walk with running room (10/1) helped huge because it got me through distances I wouldn't have finished otherwise (which let's you run more and less injured).

Training with various people it seems that a steady pace slower than 10min/mile should benefit from some run/walk combo - IF they go faster in the run segments.

I thought I'd give another update since I've started using this method just recently and just knocked out a longer run with the same 5:1 ratio. Here are the last 3 "long" runs that I logged compared to the one I did tonight.

12 miles, 1:58 - 9:54/mi

10.4 miles, 1:47 - 10:17/mi

9.44 miles, 1:41 - 10:42/mi

Tonight's run

11.43 miles, 1:44 - 9:07/mi

The difference, again, was that I felt really good throughout this whole run whereas on the others (especially the last two) I had to really push myself to keep a really slow pace. My average HR was 151, normal for me. Now, I don't have anything solid like the "scientific theory of consistent movement" that keeps getting brought up in here, but I do have my logs. And right now my logs (and my legs) are telling me that it works for me...I might also mention that my legs were toast from a 100 miler I did yesterday. I don't know if that helped or hurt my times...

I'm an older  slow runner... I've just added a coach to try and help my running as a result of some discussions I ran a couple of tests...

On exactly the same trail with exactly the same max HR (A much lower HR than I had been running I think letting my HR get too high on long training runs is part of my problem)  for a 50min run I'm about I was 12:30 steady run just holding the pace that kept my HR at the target... and I was 11:59 or so doing 2:1 R/W., (I'm trying to do a training pace here, my half mary was at 10min/mi 3:1 R/W)

I've never been a runner, running has always seemed really hard to me... part of the problem is that the gait and pace that feel most natural to me (about 8min/mi) is faster than I can aerobically maintain so the Run walk methon lets me run at the comfortable natural gait/pace and still keep up aerobically. If I slow down enough to maintain steady HR pace my run mechanics fall apart.

I started with the couch to 5K  program and at the end of that I could run a 35min 5K, some one suggested I try the galloway method and on my first try my 5K was about 30min.  In addition to being faster I did not feel wiped out.. the one minute break lets my HR  almost fully recover to resting.... 

I have no valid hypothsis as to why the "intervals" are better for me than steady running. I understand the square/cube law effort speed issues that say run/walk should be less efficient.

I have repeated the A/B test multiple times on exactly the same course(s) multiple times and for the same achieved pace both my average and peak HR is lower with the galloway method.    For those that are skeptical I compelty understand it sounds like voodo.... I would suggest giving it an honest try...  IE find your target  pace on galloways table, then use that run/walk ratio from the very first running and try a comparison run and see how you feel and how the objective HR data etc... differ.  I know when I ran my half marathon doing the very first walk break right at the start was mentally really hard....I did it and I met my pace goal for the race.

Does anyone use this for injury prevention rather than to allow them to run further.

I run fairly consistantly regardless of distance roughly 10kmh (slightly faster shorter distance but not much)

I can keep running (providing I fuel correctly) but want to include walk breaks to avoid injury. Has anyone else done this and if so, do you run faster on the runs so you still take the same time overall or does that defeat the purpose?

Should I just allow for extra time to complete the same distance?

Its my first marathon so time isn't my primary focus, the accompishment is the distance. Saying that I still want to get the best time i can without injuring myself so for me its striking the right balance.

Injury prevention is all about managing intensity and volume.  The walks would serve to help manage intensity therefore allowing more volume/distance with less risk than increasing both.

Most of my PR races have come when I trained and raced using a run/walk method.

M2tx, even Galloway writes in his books that he doesn't know the science. However, there is a lot of observational data that supports the run walk system. 

As far as it being a sort of "interval" system, I disagree. Although your pace is faster when you run than when you walk, it isn't like true intervals where you are running at threshold or above during the run time. Most of the running time is done at an easy pace, and the walk is done briskly.

Although I agree that most of the time someone who can manage a steady effort will be the better finisher, the run walk system seems to provide a number of benefits-including better pacing, ability to recover, etc. It could have something to do with the difference in how the muscles are used and how forces are generated. Perhaps the "rest" allows just enough metabolic recovery, or physical recovery to help stave off repetitive stress

When I am in better shape, I often use a run/slow run system instead of a full walk, and I also find this beneficial. The slowing down lets me resettle mentally and physically and I often find myself back at a good pace within that minute.

For me, I think that is the biggest help. On races like a 1/2 marathon or HIM, pacing can be difficult. Run/Walking forces you to go slower and ramp back up, which may keep you from going too fast, too often, too early and blow up and ruin your race.

I've read up some more on this topic since I was asking my initial question. As the OP inquired - some people ARE faster on this method for a specific target distance because it allows them to complete the distance in a manner that brings them closer to their optimum pacing.  Others can manage that intensity without having to walk - but pacing is tough to learn as there are a lot of variables on any particular day/run so there's no real set 'formula'.

I already use this method in my long runs as I do end up slowing down significantly, sometimes walking/stopping when I have to wait to cross a busy street, or when I have to take a gel but I also am very aware of what I'm doing when I'm running and will adjust my effort as needed (i tend to use HR and RPE).  During most of the run, I can adjust the intensity by just adjusting the pace slightly by changing cadence or stride length or even the stride itself to give me a little 'break'.  The walking comes in if I wasn't able to manage the intensity well enough using the 'fine tuning' and need a bigger 'break' to make sure I complete the distance.  Having said that, I try and learn from those workouts and adjust my starting intensity or my target volumes accordingly  (in other words, I didn't have the fitness to hold the pace for that particular distance). Bottomline, I do use some of the principles already - just didn't give it a name.

Now others talk about finishing a particular distance 'comfortably' but that's all subjective.  If it helps people mentally to chop up the run in segments(by breaking up the time into smaller segments mentally), then that's great too (I use that same technique quite a bit as I have my Garmin auto-lap every 0.5 miles) so essentially, I am mentally breaking up my runs every half-mile - and I oftentimes do something every mile to vary pace (I'll surge for 10 sec or so then slow down again - changing stride/stride length/cadence) for variety.

Anyway, most important thing is that people are getting out there and training/getting fit/staying healthy.  Whatever works for them works for them!