login
Run/walk question...no not that one
-
No new posts
|
 2009-07-06 8:55 PM |
Member  24 |  Subject: Run/walk question...no not that oneOk, please bear with me. What follows is an unscientific observation that just happened and has me a bit baffled. Facts: 1. there is a 3 mile loop that I have been running recently 2. my best time is ~27m (I am not that fast) without stopping. 3. yesterday I did a 38mi/2h20m bike ride (longest and farthest thus far...but not hardest) 4. Two days before that I did a 6.5mi run at my 9m pace (was exhausted afterwards) 5. went for the 3mi run today knowing that probably wasn't much left in the legs 6. ran an 8m mile to start (damn fast for me) 7. walked twice for 1m each 8. finished the loop in 25:45 Huh?!?! The two minutes of walking didn't cover much distance (.1mi total maybe), so that would have me running ~8:12m/mi if you exclude them. My question really goes to strategy at this point. I am pretty consistently running a 9m mile, but I am wondering if I should think about a planned all-out/walk repeat since I seem to be faster (8.5m including walking time/distance). I know that in the long run I should be pushing my times to be able to sustain that 8m pace longer, but in the meantime I have two races, a sprint and an oly. It sure would be nice to have run times in the 8.5m range. Anyone ever heard of doing this? Are there any suggestions for when to start the walk (well before my feet stop moving)? Am I being silly and should just HTFU and always run 8m/mi? Come on... give it to me straight. |
| 2009-07-06 9:09 PM in reply to: #2266160 |
Extreme Veteran 349   Burke, VA | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Don't plan on walk, run being your best bet for any race. I am not a running expert, but did run x country in HS and have gotten back into running the last 2 years. My 5k time might even be lower than yours if you are running 8min, but my guess would be your body was feeling good, legs were loose. I would say maybe your normal 3 mile loop, you might have typically run it slow. Did you have the ability to talk while running today? Use a HR monitor? |
| 2009-07-06 9:12 PM in reply to: #2266160 |
Member 24 | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Nope. While I was running I was all huff and puff. Didn't run with hydration due to the length and was swallowing sandpaper. I knew I was pushing my body speed wise, I just figured the walking would more than make up for it. Guess my pace was fast enough that the walking helped me keep pushing. Don 't get me wrong, I don't ever plan on stopping, but I though for this run that I would try to run all-out as long as I could, recover then go again. I was just so surprised that my overall time was so much better than my normal rate. I guess I am not pushing my normal runs hard enough eh  |
| 2009-07-06 9:30 PM in reply to: #2266160 |
Pro 6520   Bellingham, WA | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one 30 seconds of walking is worth .04-.05 miles. 2 minutes would be .16-.20 miles. I trained to run my first HIM with a 30 second walk at each mile so I paced it with my Garmin. For me, it turned my 13.1 mile run into a 12.5 mile run. While there are too many variables to say that your 25:45 loop was directly attributable to the walk sessions I wouldn't rule it out and would duplicate the effort a few times to see if you get the same results if you are curious. Also, if you are careful about injury, this type of tempo work may increase your overall speed. |
| 2009-07-06 11:25 PM in reply to: #2266160 |
Champion 5782 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Nothing really mysterious here. You just did an "interval workout." Really. That's how they work: You run at a higher intensity than you normally will sustain in a workout and then have a short rest (walk, jog, or just rest) before repeating the effort. It's a way to develop more speed without the need for excessive recovery that tends to follow that sort of effort sustained over the course of an actual race. What you may have learned is a better sense of your potential pace in an actual 5K race, as opposed to a 3-mile training run. Just for comparison, I rarely do a nonstop 3-mile training run faster than 7:15/mile, but my 5K race pace is more like 6:25 and I will do 1/2-mile intervals in training around 3:10 (6:20/mi). So it wouldn't be surprising if your 9:00/mi training pace yields a race pace of under 8:30/mi. and that you can hit that pace or better in an interval set. |
| 2009-07-06 11:33 PM in reply to: #2266160 |
Master 2665 The Whites, New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Sure, lots of people find that they are faster overall when they have the walk thrown in. Trick is finding the ratio that is right for you. I believe KathyG figured out her ratio for her IM run that was about 5:1, saying she was faster at that than running the whole time. Keep fiddling with it - it'll keep your workouts interesting, plus you'll learn about your body. |
| 2009-07-07 12:57 AM in reply to: #2266389 |
Pro 3932 Irvine, California | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one I think a lot of marathoners do a combination of run/walk too. Here's a link to Jeff Galloway's page on the topic: http://www.jeffgalloway.com/training/walk_breaks.html |
| 2009-07-07 5:40 AM in reply to: #2266160 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one There was an article recently in NYTimes that addresed this, and offered support for the walk/run being faster. You build in a rest with the walk, allowing you to push a little harder with the run. I'm also a slow runner, and this makes a big difference. As someone already said, the key is to find the right mix of walk/run to maximize time. |
| 2009-07-07 10:13 AM in reply to: #2266513 |
Veteran 205 | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one I have comtemplated this theory of which is faster: sprint with walk breaks or normal run pace. Outside of interval workouts, when I'm trying to complete a distance the quickest it comes down to the overall distance for me. For shorter distances (<3mi), I can sprint then walk and complete the distance quicker than a normal run pace over the entire distance. For longer distances this doesn't work because the law of diminishing returns kicks in and my "sprints" take longer and longer. With that in mind, its also a frame of mind. If I add walk intervals its more difficult for me to pick it back up and keep going for longer distances. |
| 2009-07-07 10:19 AM in reply to: #2266160 |
Champion 10471 Dallas, TX | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one I found that on longer runs sessions... I am faster when I walk/run. For example in 2007 when I did 12 miles, I ran the entire way with a 12 minute mile (MM). Whereas in 2008, when I did a 3 minute walk (12 MM) and a 2 minute run (9 MM) it would work out close to a 11 MM. My walking sessions (although fast) allowed for me to RUN faster when I did run. Yes, RUNNING the ENTIRE way does sound and look better... but in the end, it's about speed... right? If you are FASTER doing a walk/run... then why not do it? I took 6 weeks off running due to a stress fracture (got it my walk/run marathon in May)... but now that I'm back to running again I'm trying to RUN the entire way. Only made it up to 6 miles at this point though. It's been painful too. Might go back to my walk/run if this running business doesn't work out so well over 6 miles.  Edited by KSH 2009-07-07 10:20 AM |
| 2009-07-07 10:33 AM in reply to: #2266160 |
Champion 7595 Columbia, South Carolina | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Seems to me you just discovered that you can in fact run faster than 9:00/mile. If you can run/walk at 8:15 or so, I'll venture to guess (yeah, it's guessing) that you can maintain 8:30 steady the whole way. On the other hand, if that pace is pushing super hard, then training that way is probably a bad idea. Better to throw in a LITTLE speed from time to time than to push to the limit every time. And yes, unless something is very odd, you should go quite a bit faster in your races. For me, that just happens. without putting much thought into it. I very rarely train faster than 7:00/mile (usually more like 8:00/mile or slower on average), and yet my sprint and Oly runs this year have all been significantly faster than that. I'll also venture to suggest that, in the LONG RUN (no pun intended) you are better off running at a steady pace than run/walking. For a given distance, and a given situation (conditions on the day, level of training and fitness) it may be that run/walk is faster, but I'll suggest that with proper and sufficient training, steady running will always be faster than run/walk. |
| 2009-07-07 10:35 AM in reply to: #2266160 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Run/walk definitely has its place. Based on what you wrote I don't think in the short 3 mile run that run/walk made you faster. Run/walk tends to help more at longer distances (IMHO). But hey...if you really want to figure it, be scientific and try some combinations. |
| 2009-07-08 1:43 AM in reply to: #2267350 |
Master 2665 The Whites, New Hampshire | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Experior - 2009-07-07 11:33 AM I'll also venture to suggest that, in the LONG RUN (no pun intended) you are better off running at a steady pace than run/walking. Not sure if this is what you are getting at, but in training, especially when building, the run/walk allows you to get a HUGE increase in mileage and time. There's no way I would be doing ~40 min runs right now (rebuilding after four-month hiatus), but a 40 min run/walk is my easy day. I can crank out 3.5-4 mi without a thought if I have walks, but until recently I couldn't have run more than about a mile. So if I'd stuck with run-only, I'd probably only be up to maybe a mile and a half and about a 20 min workout. Instead, I'm covering 3.5-4 mi and a 40 min workout. Another thing to consider with the walk is that you want to work up to the point where you are walking so fast it is a relief to start running again. This takes time to adapt your muscles (especially the hips), but you get that change of pace, a small recovery, and then you are off into your run. This kills the Idon'twannarun feeling after a walk, too - I'm usually checking my watch more on the walks to see when I can run rather than checking on the run to see when I can walk! |
| 2009-07-08 10:43 AM in reply to: #2266160 |
Veteran 189 Mississippi | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one As others have pointed out, Jeff Galloway is a huge proponent of the run/walk method-he makes the case that many people would be quicker in longer distances if they did the walk breaks. For myself, I can go a LOT farther (and at a point faster) than just running alone by taking planned walk breaks. The key, however, is walking before you're tired in order to extend the "freshness" of your legs. The faster you are, the less you need to walk-I do 4min running and 30 seconds walking on long (8+miles) runs; my friend (who is training for Boston) is doing a mile running with 30-60 seconds of walking. Obviously, there is a point at which this is no longer faster than just running. I think the better shape one is in the longer the distance becomes before it is useful. For example; I know my 5k is faster if I just run it straight through, and I think now that I'm in better shape I'd be faster running a 10k straight through. However, I have no doubt in my mind that in a half marathon I'd be better off run-walking. My faster (and in better shape) friends may not be able to make use out of a run-walk until a full marathon. The key is taking planned before you're tired-and swallowing your pride. The second part was the hardest for me to grasp! Edited by rowotter 2009-07-08 10:45 AM |
| 2009-07-08 11:04 AM in reply to: #2270084 |
Champion 10020 , Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one I think that the walk/run strategy is a great one for you. It's not really worth a debate - you ran the exact distance in less time. Win! This doesn't mean that you must run that pace, nonstop, from now on. (Although a little confidence doesn't hurt) I never find that my training runs have much to do with my results on race day. You may very well find yourself running the faster miles, without walking, or ever faster on race day. For a short race you can go by feel. I run my long runs at about 10:30 with a few walk breaks, sometimes 10:00 if I am running with people. However, I was as surprised as anyone when I pulled out a half-marathon with a 9:30 pace overall. I really never do better than about 9:45s on a training run, but have consistently managed a few 9 m/m 5ks as well. You may also find this is a short term strategy. A few years ago I ran a half-marathon with a friend who was used to the walk/run strategy and finished with about 2:18. This year the same guy finished sub-2 hours in a half, running the whole way (as far as I know anyway...). It's all part of the process. |
| 2009-07-08 11:23 AM in reply to: #2266160 |
| Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one For what it's worth, I experimented with walk/ run last night in a 5k training run... shaved 30 seconds off my total time... may be enough for a few places up on the scoreboard. Im gonna give it a try in Keen this weekend. I feel more proud when I run the whole way, but 30 seconds is 30 seconds... it is a race. |
| 2009-07-08 11:49 AM in reply to: #2270226 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Interesting. I've always experienced that running more and consistently I have been able to build up my FITNESS and been able to run faster as a result. Who'd of thunk I've been doing it wrong all along! I need to add more walking into my running regimen .........  |
| 2009-07-08 1:14 PM in reply to: #2270313 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Daremo - 2009-07-08 11:49 AM Interesting. I've always experienced that running more and consistently I have been able to build up my FITNESS and been able to run faster as a result. Who'd of thunk I've been doing it wrong all along! I need to add more walking into my running regimen ......... I dunno, didn't some of your races include a substantial amount of walking already? |
| 2009-07-08 1:27 PM in reply to: #2266160 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Only the ones I didn't adequately train for.  |
| 2009-07-08 1:32 PM in reply to: #2270674 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Daremo - 2009-07-08 1:27 PM Only the ones I didn't adequately train for. ...and the ones you didn't pace correctly! |
| 2009-07-08 1:39 PM in reply to: #2270689 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Six here, half dozen there. If I'd adequately trained for the pace that I ran, I would have been fine. If I'd paced the run the way I adequately trained, I would have been fine. Run-walk will pretty much never be able to beat all run assuming proper training and pacing in my opinion. Will it allow someone to "extend" their reach and ability for longer distances? Maybe. Will it be faster than all running (even if that run is at a slightly slower pace)? No. If your goal is to go longer/slower on lower fitness, then go for it. Otherwise, give it time and build up to the distance properly. I'm not talking about blowing through water stops and all that. It is often needed to walk there to make sure you can get fluids down (instead of all over your clothes). For someone who is physically able to (and there are always exceptions to every situation), then running continuously will be faster. /Flame suit on |
| 2009-07-08 1:43 PM in reply to: #2270313 |
Champion 10020 , Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Maybe you should! Try it out and let us know. (I don't know that anyone would argue that your technique isn't also good. I am not sure that those who can run fast with relative ease can ever really understand the plight of a newish runner who's perhaps not built for speed. While he can devote his life to running better, it sounds like the run/walk combo worked well for him and improved his overall speed for now. I am sure there are some things in life that you aren't very good at and that you've occasionally taken shortcuts to get the job done better and more efficiently, if not in the most traditional way. Daremo - 2009-07-08 11:49 AM Interesting. I've always experienced that running more and consistently I have been able to build up my FITNESS and been able to run faster as a result. Who'd of thunk I've been doing it wrong all along! I need to add more walking into my running regimen ......... |
| 2009-07-08 1:47 PM in reply to: #2266160 |
Master 4119 Toronto Bronze member | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one If you like the run/walk then use it and check out Jeff Galloway's site. Our local marathons include pace groups that do this all the way to 3:30 on 10mins run, 1 minute walk. I started with the walk breaks and have phased them out over a long period. They can work especially for newer runners it can help to build endurance and cover longer distances safely. |
| 2009-07-08 1:50 PM in reply to: #2270717 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Daremo - 2009-07-08 1:39 PM If I'd adequately trained for the pace that I ran, I would have been fine. If I'd paced the run the way I adequately trained, I would have been fine (runs and ducks for cover) |
| 2009-07-08 1:53 PM in reply to: #2266160 |
| Subject: RE: Run/walk question...no not that one Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK