Anyone faster using Galloway than full run? (Page 3)

I didn't say they were incapable of managing their optimum pacing - I said that run/walk is a way to manage intensity (just like some other ways).  I think a lot of the posts here do indicate it helps with breaking up the longer distances mentally (26.2 miles is still 26.2 done 1 mile at a time right?) so I agree with that.  In my last post - I did say that I already incorporate this run/walk thing (just didn't give it a name) - for example, crossing the busy streets (which end up around a mile apart where I run), or taking a gel, or even just backing it down (someone above said run/run-slow vs run/walk worked for them).  About the use of different muscles - yes, that happens in other ways too! When you change your gait or cadence or stride length, you do end up using slightly different muscles or putting slightly different pressure on your joints.  I was actually validating that the principles behind run/walk also existed in other ways so it's not that different in terms of principles, but definitely a more radical application of intensity management.

Planned run/walk is your chosen method and you are faster doing it.  I already said other people are faster using it (like you) and in fact, most runners probably use a variation of the very same principles even when they're not using it.  I'm not claiming any special knowledge at all - just doing some analysis. 

I guess this is what those other past threads meant when people would just be so zealous and protective of the Galloway brand (similar to TI).  I guess I'm just the type to try to understand how something works.

By the way, I'm a new runner myself and I'm sure majority of the people here may already have more running experience than me. I've got a little over 2.5 years doing swim/bike/run with no prior experience in endurance sports so I'm no expert - but always tried to understand what makes things work ever since I was a kid    I was actually researching all the distance training philosophies out there and there's definitely a bunch - some contradicting each other, and each having their own "expert" or "case study" that shows how it's made people better.  Even with the differences, they all have similarities - creating training stress, recovering and letting the body adapt to get better.  Now how much training stress (combination of intensity and volume) is subject to a lot of debate.  Galloway's plans seem to push more volume and less intensity (taking up the long run to the full 26 mile distance but using a run/walk pacing that is pretty conservative as he advocates 2 minutes/mile slower than planned race pace), while others push the philosophy that it should be higher intensity and less volume (citing that exercising over 2.5 hrs is not really helping much but just increasing injury risk and focuses a significant amount of the runs at or close to race pace but shorter distance). 

In order for me to figure out how I want to train the run, I wanted to understand what each of these concepts/philosophies bring to the table for me.  I'm  not a coach, I don't follow canned plans, and I just build my own plans based on the knowledge I've learned (reading books, internet articles, talks with other athletes/coaches, and my own progress).  My personal philosophies have evolved as gained more experience and hoped that my contribution to the thread will also provide some insights to others that may have a similar mindset.

Faster than what though? What percentage of sub 45min 10K runners do run/walk? 

To answer your question, yes I use the run/walk primarily to manage existing injuries/weaknesses.  I'm 59 and have both chronic knee and Achilles issues.  Based strictly on my individual experience, if I limit myself to a 3:1 run/walk ratio I can keep my pain and soreness under control, particularly with my Achilles.     

Although I initially tried the Galloway method when training for my first half marathon in 2008, my primary motivation these days is to prevent further injury.   

Mark

Faster than what?? Well, faster than me before using this method...Isn't that what the question was? "Anyone faster using the Galloway than full run"?? The question was not, "do the fastest people in the world use a walk/method." Your point is invalid. I'm addressing the OP's question. You are not...

I was answering what I quoted, which I read as a bit of self-defensive posting ("How dare you question the JG method").

I said before and I'll say it again - run/walk is the best choice for many people, in many situations, possibly for their entire running career. Anything that gets people out the door is fantastic! But it is not the best for many others, especially as you go up the speed chain. 45 min/10K is not some rare benchmark. It's simply around that point that the delta between walking speed and run speed gets too big to overcome with greater intensity.

I haven't used it in a race situation, but, for training, I have been maintaining similar splits.

However, my recovery is much, much better than straight running.

For the records, I still weigh almost 240 lbs and have horrible ADHD, and I only medicate at work... so breaking things into smaller units helps my motivation and sanity.

And I have two screws in my right knee due to ACL and Medical Meniscus repair.

^^^

This.  And the answer is 0%.  I'd bet it's pretty close to zero at 50 min as well. 

I just ran my PR yesterday for a 10k using JG (6:1 ratio)- WHOO HOO!!  I'm certainly not a fast runner but was able to do it in 1:02 (don't laugh, I'm supper excited to be so close to doing it in an hour.  I know I'll get there one day

Btw, I used 5:1 for my last oly tri... this Sat. I'll be doing 6:1 at Lake Geneva Olympic (last tri of the season... wish me luck!)!! 

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's original question...No one asked if the fastest 10k runners use the run/walk method. Are you guys just so adamant to state your opinions on Galloway's methods that you'll completely disregard what is being asked?

I understand how it can be useful to slower runners, or during training (speeding LR recovery, injury avoidance, etc).  OTOH I have not found it useful for racing HM or shorter.  After looking into it again- maybe I should reconsider for HM+ events. Some (like JG) explain how R:W strategy could be used by faster runners. On his website JG gives suggested R:W ratios down to 8min/mi TRAINING paces, which would translate to ~3:15 race pace marathon.  Says walk breaks could/should be even shorter for faster paces, and eliminated during last 8mi of marathon if runner still feels strong. Hal Higdon also advocates planned walks and says they may be as little as just walking the aid stations (as he did when younger to run 2:29).

FWIW- don't think R:W'ers need to be particularly annoying IF they avoid blocking others.  I'm now roughly MOP so I pass some & yield while getting passed by others....R:W or not. 

Certainly run/walkers have the responsibility to stay off the side and not impede or create a hazzard for runners behind them when taking their walk breaks.  The start of a large race on narrow streets can be problematic for all the competitors, no matter what pacing strategy they're attempting to follow. 

I've never seen a race that had a rule that competitors had to maintain a "steady pace". 

If run/walkers irrate you because they can keep the same overall pace as you, then it sounds more like they're threatening your ego than anything else. 

Mark

As a run/walker myself, I think it is important to be aware of the other racers around you. I have seen many run walkers, especially training groups, at races who just stop in the middle of the course. 

it is more polite to move to the side, just as you would at an aid station or if you were stopping to tie your show. A running race may be an individual event, but you aren't out there alone.

I personally love this approach.  For me it may have become a mental thing and I'm also a numbers person.  When I run with my watch and run 6 minutes / walk 1 minute I can run forever.  (Well not forever but its as if I get a break every 6 minutes and can go longer).  I walk fast as hell so that makes this approach work for me.   If I run without a watch I find I take walk breaks for longer than I wanted to or I stop more frequently for walk breaks.  Im not super fast and run 9 - 9:30 min mile.  I do not think I would be faster if I ran straight through as I would likely be slower altogther. 

I used the pace calculator and tried the JG method last week.  I failed.  I had a 13.1 run.  I wanted it in 1:59:59 and that is a 9:09 pace.

I chose the 9:1 ratio where the run is 8:45 and walk was 15:00.  I could only do an hour of it before switching to straight run. It was hard to crank the motor back up after the walk each time. HR was jacked and the legs were shot after the first hour.

I had a similar experience when I first started using the r/w.  It hurt so much to start back up after walking that I would just keep running and skip that walk breaks.  Like most things it takes some practice.  It seems like second nature now, but it took some time to get there.

Mark

A 9:09 HM runner has a pace of 8:45 for something around 11km (slightly slower than 10k race pace) . You are trying to do 21km minus whatever you walk - thus no dice. How fast did you run the last hour? 10:30?

Wow, great discussion on this! 

Has anyone done all their long runs without walk breaks and then whipped this strategy out in a race?  I think I've heard of people doing this only at races and having success.  Thoughts?

I believe at the pace that you're looking for your ratios should be 4:1. (according to Jeff Galloway) I modified mine to 5:1 because 4:1 sounded just crazy. (I'm very new to this as well) I think the key to such frequent walk breaks is allowing your legs to rest before they need it. Maybe try to go to a 5:1 and see how you feel.

I had the exact opposite experience as you. My legs feel surprisingly fresh throughout the whole run and my heart rate averages a comfortable 151 BPM. My last long run I averaged 9:07 for 11.5 miles. I could have certainly gone 13.1 and probably much further. When I was finished I felt great and this was on spent legs from a long ride the day before. Keep in mind that my long run a week prior I averaged about 10:30 for about the same distance...

Yes.  I just slowed down and ran the rest in zone 2.

I will try it again.  How fast are you running the 5 minutes and walking the 1 minute?

I'd say my averages were right around the 8:30-8:45 range during the running...There were times that I'd look down at watch and be down to low 8's, but I'd slow myself down a little bit to make sure that I had enough in the tank. I've only done two runs this way and both times I've felt so good at the last mile that I've been able to crush it. (Well, my version of crushing it which is in about the mid 7's range.) The walking is in the 16:00-17:00/mi range or so.

HR maxes in the low 160's during running and drops down just below 120 in the minute walk.

It's all about the total time!  If you can run backwards and do cartwheels every mile  (saw some people do this at one race and finished at a decent time) and finish faster than someone who jogged the whole thing, then you were faster and completed the marathon!