login
run/walk vs. steady pace
-
No new posts
|
 2010-03-09 7:13 AM |
Regular 190  |  Subject: run/walk vs. steady paceTrying to understand the science behind the run/walk philosophy. As I was running last night I started to think about the run walk methodology, and I was having trouble figuring out this philosophy worked better than a slower steady pace. As an example, if I wanted to hold 10 minute miles I would have to run harder the first several minutes to be able to walk and still make my mile pace, or conversely I could run the entire mile at an easier pace and make the time. I was wondering what the benefit of spiking your heart rate for the short term, followed by a decrease while walking, would benefit you more than a steady heart rate over the long term. |
| 2010-03-09 7:18 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Veteran 196 Parrish, Florida | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace I'll be interested in the responses to this. I'm currently using a run walk strategy which involves running each mile and then walking for a minute to recover....generally a 10/1 ratio. No science behind it, I just feel it works better for me at this point in my conditioning. And obviously, I'm slow anyway. |
| 2010-03-09 7:18 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Runner | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace What do you mean by "benefit"? It works, because you hold a slightly higher effort for a shorter period of time, followed by a recovery period. It's not really "spiking HR"; your HR is higher than it would be, but not by a large amount. In other words, it's not a xx minute sprint followed by a xx minute walk. It's all about managing effort in an attempt to get through a given distance. Walking is a good recovery method. Additionally, the goal is to increase the running segments and shorten the walking segments. Ultimately, what you do depends on your goals. |
| 2010-03-09 7:21 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Member 150 NoVA | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace As a girl who just ran a marathon using the Galloway method, I don't think the benefit is so much in the heart rate. I think the point is that on the long runs, the walk breaks use different muscles than running does so you give your muscles a brief period of recovery for a minute, then get back to running however many minutes. It saves your legs and makes recovery WAY easier after long distances. I'm slow regardless of what I do, but I know marathoners who've actually PRed using the Galloway method because their legs stayed stronger past mile 20 and they were able to finish faster than they had before. It's more about your muscles than your heart rate. |
| 2010-03-09 7:22 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Champion 19812   MA | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace I just ran for first 4 years I did tris, last 3 I started run/walking and guess what I'm faster run walking. My goal is to finish as quickly as possible. I run/walk my HIM and IM runs and sometimes Oly runs. I've heard many reasons why it helps..uses different muscles, easier to take in nutrition/hydration during walk break, I'm faster, mentally it helps knowing a break is coming. Bobby McGee is a big proponent of run/walking and encourages even fast IM runners to take walk breaks. I find doing them on planned schedule makes me feel in control instead of being discouraged when walking and have it continue instead of starting up back running. I find it is important to train to run/walk and when I started it was hard until I found the right ratio of running to walking. I now mostly do run mile and walk 20-60" depending on what I'm doing...typically shorter walk break early and longer towards end of my run. Adventure Bear shared this with me, "you are runing, many people build up significant compartmental pressure in their calves as a result of muscle tension, which prevents adequate muscle perfusion. By walking the blood circulates much better, removing waste, restoring blood flow, bringing oxygen to the muscles of the calf." |
| 2010-03-09 7:55 AM in reply to: #2715782 |
Champion 7036 Sarasota, FL | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace KathyG - 2010-03-09 8:22 AM Adventure Bear shared this with me, "you are runing, many people build up significant compartmental pressure in their calves as a result of muscle tension, which prevents adequate muscle perfusion. By walking the blood circulates much better, removing waste, restoring blood flow, bringing oxygen to the muscles of the calf." Yeah, that was exactly what I was going to say too. Seriously, I don't think I would have been able to do my half marathon last year without using the Galloway method. My run pace has increased, in large part because I think because run/walking lets me do longer distances in training than I could if I just tried to run. Mark |
| 2010-03-09 8:56 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Master 2426 Central Indiana | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace Galloway's site has numerous example of some very fast marathon times doing run/walks (e.g. under 3hrs). Obviously the R:W ratio is very different for different athletes, as are the R/W paces. I did my 1st marathon last Oct on very inadequate training. Most of my longer (13+mi) training runs were disciplined run:walk ratios & I used similar ratios during my marathon. As slow as I was, in those last 10k I passed a number of "run-only" folks who were walking & in much worse shape than me. In reality, prob most long distance runs are run:walks in some fashion. Runners often walk a bit (or at least slow their pace a lot) grabbing a drink at aid station, (ahem) off-loading fluid at port-a-let, adjusting shoes/socks, or just trying to recover from a tough hill late in the event. Let alone those who just run beyond their fitness & must walk towards the end. Many who advocate R:W argue that there significant benefits to planning your R:W throughout the event. No harm in experimenting with the technique in practice. At my admittedly slow running speed, my PB 5k (24') and 10k (53') are constant runs, but my PB 1/2 (13.1mi) was mostly R:W (all run last 3 mi). |
| 2010-03-09 9:31 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
| Regular 190 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but it seems more like a coping method or compensation method for lack of training of "base miles." I am not advocating one methodology over another, because I have not tried both, but in the first hand accounts mentioned above many people said they could not go as far in training, unless they used the run/walk method. I guess I struggle with the notion that to go 13 miles, while walking a significant portion, is more valuable to me than if I were able to hold a steady state pace for a shorter distance and build to the 13 miles over time in a training plan. I am not a runner by history but a swimmer, and to relate to that in my mind, it would be like switching to backstroke while doing freestyle on a long open water swim. I would not practice doing backstroke to ready myself for the long swim, but would build from shorter freestyle swims to the desired distance. I would only use the backstroke as a method to "get by," if I were in distress. Like I said in my orginal post, just trying to figure the sciece behind the methodology, and it always seems this forum has that knowledge. Not judging one method over the others, but trying to understand. |
| 2010-03-09 9:37 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Master 1681 Rural Ontario | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace I was skeptical for many years but the darn system seems to work - especially at longer distances. When running anything longer than 21km I find my 'comfortable' pace will start deteriorating at about the 2/3 distance mark. I guess it’s all that lactic acid and other metabolic crap building up in my leg muscles. If I walk for 30-60 seconds, the legs seem to recover a bit and I can better maintain my pace. This process works best for us ‘slower’ runners where walking and running paces don’t differ so much (i.e. we run slower than 5 min/km or 8 min/mile) There is some math behind the logic. If I do a 21.1km run at 5:30 min/km pace my total time will be about 1hr 56min… Now lets assume I do a 21.1km run at 5:30 min/km pace but every 10 minutes I walk for 60 seconds at a 10min/km pace. I will walk 9 times for a total of 9 minutes. I will cover 900m during that time. That leaves me with 20.2km to go at a 5:30 min/km pace which will take me 1hr 51min. Add to that the 9 min walking and you are looking at a 2hr half-marathon. Now, lets say you want to run a 1:56 Half-Marathon with walking – what pace will you need to run? Assuming you still walk 9 times, 1 min each – you’ll need to run 5:18 min/km. I find that its easier to run a little bit faster for 10 minutes and then to reap the benefits of rejuvenating my legs by walking. Disclosure: my 21.1km personal best was 1hr52min with no walking. But I suffered during the run and for 3 days afterwards. |
| 2010-03-09 10:11 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Member 98 Rocky Mountain High | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace Well, I feel better knowing I'm not the only one who runs/walks. I always thought I was just a BIG P*$$!! ha Haa!! I also thought it was just good interval training and helps me to go further and reserve energy. Sometimes I feel like my fast walk is pretty similar to some peoples jogging pace (not all  )? But I'm sure it's just me wishing I was some kind of stud!! Haa haaaa!!! Cheers! -Nick |
| 2010-03-09 10:34 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Master 1547 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace Here is a link with some info on run/walk training that I have found helpful. |
| 2010-03-09 10:51 AM in reply to: #2716294 |
Champion 19812 MA | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace sax - 2010-03-09 11:34 AM Here is a link with some info on run/walk training that I have found helpful. Great article that I have read many times Listen to the podcast very informative. For my last 1/2 Mary I ran with my husband for his first to help him pace. The run walk method worked well and we tried the 20" walk breaks first 5 miles, 40" next 5 miles, and what we needed last 5K up to 60" if needed. Last 3 miles we were able to pick up the pace just over 60" per mile. We passed so many folks last 7 miles but more the last 3 when many were walking. We had a pretty sizable negative split on our race and felt we paced dead on. |
| 2010-03-09 11:05 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
| Member 195 Akron, OH | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace The main reason I've chosen the run/walk for longer distances, pretty much anything over 4-5 miles is for injury prevention. I truly believe this method is easier on the legs by giving them a short walk break and using different muscles every so often. Running with altered form on overfatigued legs is a recipe for injury in my opinion. If you do the math as others have done, you don't have to increase your pace by much, maybe 20" per mile to add a 30 sec walk break per mile. It worked great for me. I liken it to doing push ups. If I'm trying to do as many push ups as possible in 5 min, slow and steady doesn't get me near as far as doing sets of 20 with some recovery in between. I do think as you get faster and the distance is shorter, the advantage disappears. For me that's anything over a 5k, for an elite, probably HIM or IM if that. |
| 2010-03-09 11:05 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace Last year after early-season surgery, I attempted an HIM at the tail end of the season. There was no way that I would have been able to run the whole thing, so I trained using a run/walk combo. I experimented with different combinations.. 4/1, 5/1, etc. and made a little spreadsheet to see what my overall time would be at different combinations. I assumed that I'd be able to "run" at about a 9:48 pace, and walk at 3.5 mph. Here are the total times for various run/walk ratios...
It was interesting how little difference there was over 13.1 miles doing, say, 5/1 as opposed to 10/1. Diminishing returns really kicked in. I ended up choosing 4/1. Edited by newleaf 2010-03-09 11:07 AM |
| 2010-03-09 11:18 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
| Veteran 549 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace I have done a run/walk for the last 3-4 years. I only do it on my long runs so I can eventually go longer time wise and also a further distance. Many people reccomend no more than 30 percent of a run weekly mileage to be the long run, but with this method you can make it a higher percentage of your weekly mileage and still recover better, probably because we break up the pounding our body takes. Plus, this method should allow you to have less injuries. I laugh at the "wus" statements sometimes. The same people who make these statements end up walking part of the half ironmans and especially the Ironmans many times. Seriously, how many dont walk part or a good portion of an Ironman. Might as well train like that so your body doesnt think you are quitting. Just my .02.  |
| 2010-03-09 11:49 AM in reply to: #2715826 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace RedCorvette - 2010-03-09 6:55 AM KathyG - 2010-03-09 8:22 AM Adventure Bear shared this with me, "you are runing, many people build up significant compartmental pressure in their calves as a result of muscle tension, which prevents adequate muscle perfusion. By walking the blood circulates much better, removing waste, restoring blood flow, bringing oxygen to the muscles of the calf." Yeah, that was exactly what I was going to say too. Seriously, I don't think I would have been able to do my half marathon last year without using the Galloway method. My run pace has increased, in large part because I think because run/walking lets me do longer distances in training than I could if I just tried to run. Mark Hehe...funny. Actually I was paraphrasing what Bobby McGee told me, so we are back to full circle. |
| 2010-03-09 12:18 PM in reply to: #2715754 |
Elite 3090 Spokane, WA | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-380-381-386-236-0,00.html This is an old article from Runner's World by Amby Burfoot that truly inspired me when I first read it several years ago. Much of the information is similar to what has already been posted, and he refers to Galloway much, but it was very well written. Plus Mr. Burfoot has some street cred. |
| 2010-03-09 12:57 PM in reply to: #2716080 |
Extreme Veteran 395 Smyrnasty | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace aswimr - 2010-03-09 9:31 AM I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but it seems more like a coping method or compensation method for lack of training of "base miles." I am not advocating one methodology over another, because I have not tried both, but in the first hand accounts mentioned above many people said they could not go as far in training, unless they used the run/walk method. I guess I struggle with the notion that to go 13 miles, while walking a significant portion, is more valuable to me than if I were able to hold a steady state pace for a shorter distance and build to the 13 miles over time in a training plan. I am not a runner by history but a swimmer, and to relate to that in my mind, it would be like switching to backstroke while doing freestyle on a long open water swim. I would not practice doing backstroke to ready myself for the long swim, but would build from shorter freestyle swims to the desired distance. I would only use the backstroke as a method to "get by," if I were in distress. Like I said in my orginal post, just trying to figure the sciece behind the methodology, and it always seems this forum has that knowledge. Not judging one method over the others, but trying to understand. x2 i get worse if i stop and walk. i start getting tight in my back and calves. and i also feel that it builds bad habits for myself. last year when training for my first hilly 1/2 marathon my partner always stopped at the same spot about 7 miles in. sure enough during the race i was extremely tempted to stop at that spot even though i felt just fine. luckily i kept moving but there was a mental battle because i had "trained" that stop into my run. |
| 2010-03-09 1:17 PM in reply to: #2715754 |
| Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace I find this topic very interesting. I suppose there is some sort of break point for each individual where run/walking becomes beneficial. For example...if you're doing a 50 meter sprint, you're going to run the whole thing no matter what. In now way is a run/walk method going to help you achieve a better time. For some people, a half marathon or a marathon is where a run/walk method crosses that break point. Then for some people it's an ultra, or an IM. At a certain point, everyone hits "that point"...because an extreme example would be if we were to hold a 5000 mile race. Who would win...the guy that tries to run all 5000 miles straight...at a steady pace the whole time...or the guy that runs 25 miles per day with numerous breaks, therapy, and gets 10 hours of sleep each night... |
| 2010-03-09 1:34 PM in reply to: #2716450 |
Veteran 183 Bellingham, WA | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace kdlsch111 - 2010-03-09 11:18 AM I have done a run/walk for the last 3-4 years. I only do it on my long runs so I can eventually go longer time wise and also a further distance. Many people reccomend no more than 30 percent of a run weekly mileage to be the long run, but with this method you can make it a higher percentage of your weekly mileage and still recover better, probably because we break up the pounding our body takes. Plus, this method should allow you to have less injuries. I laugh at the "wus" statements sometimes. The same people who make these statements end up walking part of the half ironmans and especially the Ironmans many times. Seriously, how many dont walk part or a good portion of an Ironman. Might as well train like that so your body doesnt think you are quitting. Just my .02. A surprising number of people don't walk good portions of the Ironman run. Walking during the run seems to be more related to bike fitness than run fitness, so I'm not sure your argument has a lot of merit wrt run/walk training. |
| 2010-03-09 2:21 PM in reply to: #2716813 |
Champion 5781 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace FeS - 2010-03-09 11:34 AM kdlsch111 - 2010-03-09 11:18 AM I have done a run/walk for the last 3-4 years. I only do it on my long runs so I can eventually go longer time wise and also a further distance. Many people reccomend no more than 30 percent of a run weekly mileage to be the long run, but with this method you can make it a higher percentage of your weekly mileage and still recover better, probably because we break up the pounding our body takes. Plus, this method should allow you to have less injuries. I laugh at the "wus" statements sometimes. The same people who make these statements end up walking part of the half ironmans and especially the Ironmans many times. Seriously, how many dont walk part or a good portion of an Ironman. Might as well train like that so your body doesnt think you are quitting. Just my .02. A surprising number of people don't walk good portions of the Ironman run. Walking during the run seems to be more related to bike fitness than run fitness, so I'm not sure your argument has a lot of merit wrt run/walk training. Just some numbers... Of 2399 run finishers at IM Arizona (just to pick a recent race): 822 -- over 1/3 of all finishers -- finished in under 4:30. At 10:18/mile, you can assume those folks ran most, if not all, of the course. |
| 2010-03-09 2:26 PM in reply to: #2716749 |
| Regular 190 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace tri808 - 2010-03-09 2:17 PM I find this topic very interesting. I suppose there is some sort of break point for each individual where run/walking becomes beneficial. For example...if you're doing a 50 meter sprint, you're going to run the whole thing no matter what. In now way is a run/walk method going to help you achieve a better time. For some people, a half marathon or a marathon is where a run/walk method crosses that break point. Then for some people it's an ultra, or an IM. At a certain point, everyone hits "that point"...because an extreme example would be if we were to hold a 5000 mile race. Who would win...the guy that tries to run all 5000 miles straight...at a steady pace the whole time...or the guy that runs 25 miles per day with numerous breaks, therapy, and gets 10 hours of sleep each night... It could also be argued that there becomes a point in which run/walk provides no benefit. What spurred on my original post was a thought I had about building base miles for the long term performance. I started thinking about how I was going to get to a point in which a marathon was going to be achievable for someone that dosn't consider themselves a runner. In swimming my best times were not just an accumulation of the workouts I did that season, but also the previous 10 seasons. I had a strong base of endurance and muscle memory that eventually led me to be pretty fast, and even to this day I can "get up and just swim" at a moments notice. My top end isn't as fast, but I can hold my own. I then started thinking about the other runners I know and their history, and none come from a run/walk background, and many of them are Boston qualifiers. None started out qualifiers, but by building base miles they have reached that acomplishment. I am wondering if you can ever really know how fast you can go unless you push yourself to max exertion over a distance, and then repeat by either going farther/faster the next time. I may not be able to run 26.2 miles today, but if I run 3, and then 4, and keep building then I know I will be able to run it come race day. I am not disputing the math that some presented, and injury prevention is a wise reason, but will you ever know how fast you can really go, if you stop to walk? |
| 2010-03-09 2:32 PM in reply to: #2715754 |
| Veteran 549 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace FeS- Totally disagree with you. I have never done an Ironman but know plenty who have. Also, if the race reports for half ironmans and especially Ironmans are any indication, then I am being conservative with what I posted. Go read the reports and see how many people walked the big majority of the run during an Ironman or even a HIM event. It is a large portion! It is easy to see why if they are only doing 2.5 hrs for a long run during training for an Ironman. Perhaps that same individual doing a run/walk during training could put in a longer long run and many more miles without getting injured and do much better during the Ironman because of his increased endurance, disregarding what type of bike training he has. Personally, I am very surprised many more people dont do it. I am sure part of it is we have to lay our ego at the door. :-) |
| 2010-03-09 2:36 PM in reply to: #2715754 |
Veteran 812 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace Here's how I understand it. As you're using a particular muscle group (e.g. calves) endlessly without rest, they get tired and weaker. Gradually the strength of this muscle will go from 100%, 90%, 80%, 70% ... down to some minimum as you endlessly it. But even a short walk break will allow these muscles to recover a bit, flush out some waste products, etc. Even a 30 second to 1 minute walk break can allow your muscles substantial recovery. So, (made up numbers) your choice is to run consistently at 70% strength, or run at an average of 85% strength, with some walk breaks thrown in. And as someone else said, it's not a HR spike. It's just a slightly higher level of effort, with some rest breaks in between. If you're hoping for 10 minute miles, try running 3 minutes at 9 to 9:30 min/mis. If you're capable of running consistently at 10min/mi then running for only 3 minutes at 9:30 should be easy. Walk for a minute, and repeat. I've found that taking walk breaks, seemingly ironically, makes me much faster overall. In addition to speed gains, when your major muscle groups get exhausted, smaller less used muscles and tendons are forced take up the load. If these muscles/tendons not strong enough to handle it, you're at serious risk to tear something. Thus, run walking can also be far safer, in addition to faster. |
| 2010-03-09 2:53 PM in reply to: #2716080 |
Veteran 812 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace aswimr - I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but it seems more like a coping method or compensation method for lack of training of "base miles." ... I am not disputing the math that some presented, and injury prevention is a wise reason, but will you ever know how fast you can really go, if you stop to walk? No offense taken. But you're missing the point completely. I came in just under the top 25% of my age group in my last half-marathon (332 out of 1203). And I'm planning to be 10 minutes faster than that in my next race in 3 weeks (still run/walking). It's not any matter of a lack of base miles. I can run 13.1 miles. But if I run/walk, I'm faster. I can imagine trying to qualify for Boston next year, and I'd still run/walk. For a novice runner you run 1 minute and walk 1 minute. If you're trying for a 3:30 marathon, you walk 15-20 seconds through the aid stations. But the principles are the same. Try it. :-) Edited by mrcurtain 2010-03-09 2:57 PM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK