General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Galloway vs. slow & steady Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2008-09-13 7:55 AM

User image

Champion
6503
50001000500
NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete
Subject: Galloway vs. slow & steady

221 lbs & tri-ing to get lighter and faster.  Right now I do the 5k in a tri in about 31 minutes (10 minute mile)  I have done this by running (not jogging) for about 90 seconds and walking for 30.

Does anyone have an opinion about whether this is better for a "big boy":

a) In training?

b) In races?

Also, I feel like when I "just run" that I should be increasing my distances to at least 50% MORE than the race that I intend to run in.  (5 miles or more for a sprint)



2008-09-13 12:55 PM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Master
2115
2000100
Dothan, Al
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady
Good question, and I will be keeing an eye on this thread to see what others think. Thanks for posting.
2008-09-13 1:15 PM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady

I've always been a Galloway Girl. The main reason: I recover faster and can go longer.  Oh yeah, and it's fun, I can now walk < a 15 min mile no problem, the trick is really being as speedy as  you can on the walk break.  I did a marathon years ago at a 7:1 ratio and this past year I did a half mary at a 4:1 ratio. Both times I was walking around happy the next day...

I think conventional wisdom says that there are diminishing returns once you get fast enough, which I will never be.  

It's a very personal thing though, there are some curmudgeonly types, ahem, on this board who say that you may not say you "RAN" a marathon if you walked parts of it, you may only say you "completed" it. I say I RAN it in 4:23, which is faster than many who actually ran the whole thing, so for me, it works..

2008-09-13 1:53 PM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Champion
19812
50005000500020002000500100100100
MA
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady

I had always been a run only person. Last year I started doing run/walk and found that I was actually faster. Being the goal of a race is to get to the finish line as fast as possible I found that was the best way to go. Normally I do 4/1 run/walk but it can very depending what I'm training for.

When I do shorter runs I just run unless I feel a little break and I may walk a short time..my long runs when I go over 7-8 miles  I do the run/walk thing. I find I can tell what feels best for my body and learn to be intuitive. 

When I started I did shorter runs but it just jacked my HR way up. 4/1 worked best.

2008-09-13 3:21 PM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Extreme Veteran
530
50025
Northwest Louisiana
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady

This is an interesting topic for me. I've never done the run/walk thing because I've always had problems with running after I've stopped to walk. The knees feel disjointed or something. I'm currently training for my first marathon and finding that I'm having trouble getting faster, so I'm definitely in the SLOW & steady group right now. However, I'm anxious about not making the time cutoff, so I find myself contemplating Galloway.

Can someone explain the benefits of the run/walk? Possum's point about making the walk as speedy as possible is a good one. Are you supposed to sprint during the run portion? Like go all out and then walk fast? I'm just wondering how this would work for someone who is only running a slower than 12 minute pace.

Thanks for the help!! I ran my first 14 miler ever today and it was kinda miserable. I'm just a bit worried I won't be able to meet the 14:50 pace limit.

2008-09-13 5:18 PM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Extreme Veteran
961
5001001001001002525
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady

I gave Galloway a brief try early on in my training. It sounded promising, but I found that while I was able to keep the same overall pace, I had a hard time recovering from run/walk workouts. Others swear by it, so it seems to be a personal preference.

My advice would be to give both approaches a try and see what works better for you. I'd also suggest trying a variety of run/walk ratios, which is something I probably could have been more patient about.



2008-09-13 6:08 PM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Champion
5183
5000100252525
Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady

NO!  Definitely no sprinting during the run part.  You should never be running so fast that your lungs look forward to your walk break, and you should walk fast enough that your HR stays up, but your legs get a break-- if you are walking fast enough, you actually look forward to the run part because you are using different muscles.  Does that make sense?

he's got gobs of info here:

http://www.jeffgalloway.com/

I know some people HATE the walk breaks, and say it makes them MORE tired, that they hate starting up running again after the break. For me, the walk part is not really a break, I keep cruising, and I look forward to the end of that minute to give my calves a break!

 

2008-09-13 7:06 PM
in reply to: #1672048

Elite
2608
2000500100
Denver, Colorado
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady
Interesting. I'm currently training for the Disney Marathon in January and I'm finding that the long runs are getting tough. I'm the same weight as you and I've managed to get my 5K pace to 11:30/mile running the whole time. I may try some of the run walk techniques, especially on my long runs. I've read Galloway's stuff and I understand that a proper run/walk ratio will actually get me to the finish faster. IBut like Possum mentioned, I want to actually run the whole marathon so I can say that I "ran" the marathon even if it takes longer. I'm just weird that way. I also have trouble getting back into running after a walk break. Walking is like drug - once I start I want more.

pga_mike - 2008-09-13 7:55 AM

Also, I feel like when I "just run" that I should be increasing my distances to at least 50% MORE than the race that I intend to run in.  (5 miles or more for a sprint)


This has been my experience as well. A 6 mile training run before a sprint would be even better, based on my experience.

Edited by MikeTheBear 2008-09-13 7:07 PM
2008-09-13 8:12 PM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Champion
6503
50001000500
NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady

I have a .98 mile loop around my house.  I run it three times on run days, but run it once even on "off" days (excluding my recent rash of minor injuries) to exercise my dog.  I have tried pushing the run, jogging steadily, doing negative intervals (first half ez, 2nd half harder) and running for 2 minutes, walking for 30 seconds.

All of these methods provide very similar results (from 9:05 to 9:25) with the Galloway intervals being a little more enjoyable and faster.  I have the following goals for 2009, and I am trying to make sure that I get there!

2009 Fitness goals

Run 1 mile in 6:30 or faster

Run a 5k in 25:00 or faster

Finish a sprint 400 meter /12 Mile / 5 K in under 1:15

Run a 10 miler

Do a cylcocross

Complete an Olympic length triathlon

Weigh 199 or less (AKA LEAVE CLYDESDALE DIVISION)



Edited by pga_mike 2008-09-13 8:13 PM
2008-09-14 6:23 PM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Veteran
406
100100100100
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady
Great thread. Thanks for starting it. I've done both. Run/walk really helps with long runs and days when I just can't seem to get going. Straight running feels wonderful on the days when everything just clicks into place. I go back and forth. No real system. Just depends on how I feel that day.

I also change my run/walk intervals anywhere from 2/1 to 15/1. Like I said, I just go with the flow. Gets me out there and keeps me out there.

I haven't seen any differences in my finish times yet, but I've only done two half marathons. Maybe with more experience...
2008-09-14 11:22 PM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Champion
6999
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady
I like walk run in training because it might help you go farther than a straight run. 3 miles running will not give you the same benefits 5 miles walk/run

In a race its about the fastest you can get to the finish line. As long as your within the rules you can do whatever it takes.

run walks can give your hr some rest which really can help.


2008-09-15 10:56 AM
in reply to: #1672048

User image

Master
1696
1000500100252525
Surprise, Arizona
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady
I find that the Galloway method is great for me in long distances (10+ miles), but for shorter distances, I am better off with consistent running.
2008-09-15 1:32 PM
in reply to: #1674587

User image

Sensei
Sin City
Subject: RE: Galloway vs. slow & steady

I have never been a run/walk guy.  Just run.  For the shorter races (sprint and Oly) it's all out, so no time for walking (for me).

HOWEVER, I am going to go by feel, but my plan for my IM is to walk through all the aid stations.  This, to get as much as I can to drink AND give myself a moment to recover. 

I had to walk during a long run I had last weekend, and I was a little surprised how much better I felt after the rests (a little hard to get started up running each time).  I went back to a straight run yesterday and found my pace a bit faster.  But the overall pace was only 15 seconds per mile slower, so it might be a price I can afford to pay just to survive the run of my long race.



Edited by Aikidoman 2008-09-15 1:36 PM
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Galloway vs. slow & steady Rss Feed