Jeff Galloway failed BQ attempt

The whole concept that Gallowalking is inherently faster than just running it- is plain wrong.

Gallowalking is fine, if you're new to running and cannot comfortably sustain a jog pace at well below threshold.  it's a terrific way to start into the sport.  perhaps everyone should start that way.  It may also work for dealing with injuries- or where some part of your drivetrain needs extra recovery.

However- the fastest way to run an endurance race, is to stay at the maximum level at which you can sustain for the duration of the race.  Exercise science is pretty clear on this one.  So, if you can sustain 90%LT for 26 miles, or 95%LT for 13 miles, that's what you do!  if you spend any time higher than your sustainable level of intensity, it costs you greatly in fatigue.  Any time spent lower, costs you time than you cannot make up by running faster.

Now- I don't know how much Jeff trained or what other issues he may have that limited his performance; but all other things being equal, there is no Run/Walk combination that is faster than just Running!

The whole concept that Gallowalking is inherently faster than just running it- is plain wrong.

Gallowalking is fine, if you're new to running and cannot comfortably sustain a jog pace at well below threshold.  it's a terrific way to start into the sport.  perhaps everyone should start that way.  It may also work for dealing with injuries- or where some part of your drivetrain needs extra recovery.

However- the fastest way to run an endurance race, is to stay at the maximum level at which you can sustain for the duration of the race.  Exercise science is pretty clear on this one.  So, if you can sustain 90%LT for 26 miles, or 95%LT for 13 miles, that's what you do!  if you spend any time higher than your sustainable level of intensity, it costs you greatly in fatigue.  Any time spent lower, costs you time than you cannot make up by running faster.

Now- I don't know how much Jeff trained or what other issues he may have that limited his performance; but all other things being equal, there is no Run/Walk combination that is faster than just Running!

You may think r/w is not faster than just running, but there are many who are faster r/w than just running. Many are fast  runners as well not just slow, new or injured.

I don't think I'd agree that exercise science is pretty clear on your conclusion.

yup.  then you're an excellent candidate for a R/W strategy.  If you cannot stay below your threshold when running, then you need to rest and recover.  If you increase your fitness/capacity level such that you can comfortably run continuously, a R/W strategy will not be your fastest any more.

Fortunately- you're not a professional runner, and you're welcome to enjoy the sport any way you wish.  no criticism.  But, if someday you want to be faster....

I recall from reading his book Marathon You Can Do It - that whilst those elite 2.08 marathon runners, Kenyans Ethiopians etc, clearly don't run and walk but probably do change their pace.  It would be barely noticeable to me watching but i'm sure that's what he said....

Fortunately- you're not a professional runner, and you're welcome to enjoy the sport any way you wish.  no criticism.  But, if someday you want to be faster....

As some of you know, I've become a advocate of Jeff Galloway's run/walk philosophy over the past few years as I've gotten older and

had to deal with some chronic knee and Achilles overuse injuries. 

Through some trial and error, I've figured out that I can stay healthy and recover well if I keep my run/walk ratio around 4 min /1 min.

I was surprised and shocked when I read Galloway's blog over the weekend.  Galloway, who is 68, was trying to BQ at the USAF Marathon in Dayton last month and missed the cutoff time by 38 seconds, running a 4:10:38.

But the surprising part to me was reading that he did a 30 sec run/15 sec walk for most of the race.  Sure seems like it would be herky-jerky starting and stopping that many times over 26.2 miles.  Almost like running 220yd intervals the whole way. 

In my experience, the starting and stopping is stressful and it took a long time for me to get used to it.  I've dropped down to 1:1 a few times in races to gather myself, but can't imagine doing intervals that short for an entire race.  Then again, I've never done a 4:10 marathon, so maybe I'm missing something?  Would like to hear more about how he arrived at that ratio.  It doesn't seem to be consistent with charts in his books.

Mark

As some of you know, I've become a advocate of Jeff Galloway's run/walk philosophy over the past few years as I've gotten older and had to deal with some chronic knee and Achilles overuse injuries.  Through some trial and error, I've figured out that I can stay healthy and recover well if I keep my run/walk ratio around 4 min /1 min.

I was surprised and shocked when I read Galloway's blog over the weekend.  Galloway, who is 68, was trying to BQ at the USAF Marathon in Dayton last month and missed the cutoff time by 38 seconds, running a 4:10:38.

But the surprising part to me was reading that he did a 30 sec run/15 sec walk for most of the race.  Sure seems like it would be herky-jerky starting and stopping that many times over 26.2 miles.  Almost like running 220yd intervals the whole way. 

In my experience, the starting and stopping is stressful and it took a long time for me to get used to it.  I've dropped down to 1:1 a few times in races to gather myself, but can't imagine doing intervals that short for an entire race.  Then again, I've never done a 4:10 marathon, so maybe I'm missing something?  Would like to hear more about how he arrived at that ratio.  It doesn't seem to be consistent with charts in his books.

Mark

I don't mean to be a dickhead here- but yeah, it really is well understood.  Take cycling- where power meters can accurately track output.  your fastest race is where your Normalized power* is equal to or as close to your average power as possible. 

Physiological responses to rapid changes in intensity follow a time course that is predictable.  Plus many physiological responses (e.g. lactate production, glycogen utilization, etc) are not linear when related to exercise intensity.  For example,  a ride/run that has high intensity and then lulls (like a run/walk) will be more demanding on your energy systems than an effort that is much more steady – even though they may average out to being the same wattage in the end.  Normalized Power is basically an estimate of the power that you could have maintained for the same physiological “cost” if your power output had been constant.

Run/walk only makes sense when there are some other mitigating factors (injury, low fitness level such that mere jogging is near or above LT) that would prevent the runner from maintaining the fastest/most efficient pace.  So, if those are whom you are referring to as the 'many' who are faster, then so be it.  when Run/walkers start winning races, or even grabbing a couple of age group podium spots- then I'll perk up.  

*it's a bit of a complicated formula to calculate normalized power, which grabs 30 second periods of time, compares it to your threshold power, raises it to the 4th power, etc.   Something like that.  The salient feature of which, a little bit higher intensity costs you a heck of a lot more.  While there are no power meters for running, the same physiological processes occur- they're just much harder to measure.