run/walk vs. steady pace (Page 3)

tcovert - 2010-03-09 3:32 PM Guys, if run/walk yielded optimum speed at any distance, the elites would be run/walking.

They aren't...because it doesn't.  (Other than, perhaps, in the exceptional cases covered by the link from Adventure Bear that KathyG provided.)

I used run/walking for months when I got off the couch to regain fitness.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.  And it does provide advantages in certain contexts (which have been covered in this thread).  I still walk for active recovery the day after long races or training sessions.

But the meme that there's some sort of inherent physiological speed advantage to run/walking a distance vs. running it is bogus.  Run/walking provides optimum speed at a distance for those who are adapted to run/walking that distance.  For those who have adapted to running that same distance, the point of diminishing returns from extended walk breaks is hit pretty quickly.

Despite what someone implied earlier in the thread, pace doesn't automatically fall off significantly over distance if you are running at a pace you are adapted to for that duration:  My slowest mile in my last marathon was only 5% slower than my fastest (not counting the start and the finish) and was within 4% of my average for the race.  From others I've talked to, that's not unusual...some people negative split their marathons.  Pretty much the same story for the 20+ mile training run I did on Sunday:  Pace was almost constant (sub-4 mary) for 17 miles, falling off less than a minute/mile for two miles, then recovering to my original pace for the remainder.

There's nothing particularly exceptional about me...I was a fat guy on the couch a bit over five years ago...other than that I didn't set out to train to run distance X for race Y by date Z...I just set out to lose weight and gain fitness and that turned from 45-60 min. walks with run breaks into just one mile, then three mile, then five mile, etc., runs...and that eventually led to a marathon.

Some of what keeps people in an endless run/walk routine is that they start out by setting a timeline to cover a certain distance by a certain date that doesn't allow for building adequate run fitness, but does allow for adequate run/walk fitness.  At some point, to transition from run/walk to running only implies stepping down duration and building anew...it seems like there's a reluctance in some cases to "pulling back" in that way.

markz - He includes a ratio table and if you can run at 7m/mile - it's basically not for you!

gerald12 - I don't think sub 10 hour people do a lot of walking. Thats part of the reason they went under 10. They may walk the aid stations for a short period but that is about it for most.

meblack - For me, walking means failure and dissapointment...my goal for every race is to NOT walk...and I'm proud that I have not given in.

mrcurtain - 2010-03-09 8:24 PM

Maybe so.  But 7min/mi is a 3 hour marathon.   Can anyone here run a 3 hour marathon?

And, it's possible that the benefit may actually extend beyond that.  In the Ironman Podcast, they talk about advanced(tm) run/walking, where the rest breaks are short through the aid stations, and a sort of speedwalking is used instead of normal walking.

But until we get up to point of running sub 7-minute miles for any significant distance, we probably don't have to worry about that.



That's still something.  Even many of the sub 10 hours people are walking 15 - 30 seconds a mile?



I can sort of understand that attitude.  But as a serious question.  

A) Running all 13.1 miles of your 1/2 IM.

b) Finishing 30 minutes _faster_ through strategically scheduling walking breaks.

Would you chose A or B?

mrcurtain - 2010-03-09 11:24 PM



Maybe so.  But 7min/mi is a 3 hour marathon.   Can anyone here run a 3 hour marathon?

And, it's possible that the benefit may actually extend beyond that.  In the Ironman Podcast, they talk about advanced(tm) run/walking, where the rest breaks are short through the aid stations, and a sort of speedwalking is used instead of normal walking.

But until we get up to point of running sub 7-minute miles for any significant distance, we probably don't have to worry about that.



That's still something.  Even many of the sub 10 hours people are walking 15 - 30 seconds a mile?



I can sort of understand that attitude.  But as a serious question.  

A) Running all 13.1 miles of your 1/2 IM.

b) Finishing 30 minutes _faster_ through strategically scheduling walking breaks.

Would you chose A or B?

Oldteen - 2010-03-09 11:54 PM

I've never been convinced of this single notion of "normalized power".   Studies finding better performance at same (or lower) lactate levels with active vs passive (zero watts) recovery between efforts of the same maximal intensity would argue against the unified normalized power concept (e.g. Connolly DAJ, et al. J Sports Sci Medicine 2:47-51,2003.). And according to most recent scientific publications in the field there is no direct relation (4th power or not) between lactate levels and muscle performance in humans, particularly for varying intensities of muscle work.  In fact, many now feel it is not lactate but exercise-induced muscle acidosis  which is mainly responsible for muscle fatigue & performance decrement. 

http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/33/4/302  (Is lactate production related to muscle fatigue?)
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/287/3/R502 

mgalanter - 2010-03-10 6:40 AM

I believe that Chris Lieto, and Chris McCormack both walked a bit during the last Kona Ironman. I don't think they were the only ones.

I can run a half-marathon without stopping. I might even be able to run a full marathon without stopping.
BUT I know I'll finish faster if I take a few short walk breaks.
Its a race.
I want to finish faster.

MadMathemagician - 2010-03-10 9:59 AM

Let's look at the situation from a muscle fiber point of view.    Walk/run will benefit the people with a preponderance of fast twitch type of muscle cells, whist it will be of little to no benefit for those with a preponderance of slow twitch types of cells.   

I have found that even in a 5k, taking a 15-20 seconds walk break at the 1 and 2 mile marks will give me a slightly better time that trying to run a a consistent pace throughout the race.   This is also how I get through 10k races.

It suits my physiology.

mrcurtain - 2010-03-10 1:24 AM

Maybe so.  But 7min/mi is a 3 hour marathon.   Can anyone here run a 3 hour marathon?

And, it's possible that the benefit may actually extend beyond that.  In the Ironman Podcast, they talk about advanced(tm) run/walking, where the rest breaks are short through the aid stations, and a sort of speedwalking is used instead of normal walking.

But until we get up to point of running sub 7-minute miles for any significant distance, we probably don't have to worry about that.



That's still something.  Even many of the sub 10 hours people are walking 15 - 30 seconds a mile?



I can sort of understand that attitude.  But as a serious question.  

A) Running all 13.1 miles of your 1/2 IM.

b) Finishing 30 minutes _faster_ through strategically scheduling walking breaks.

Would you chose A or B?

Oldteen - 2010-03-10 10:39 AM




To me that raises the interesting question.
What if they had changed their race strategy and included short planned walk breaks?  Might they have been able to avoid some of this "physical distress" and perhaps improve their run times?  I realize there would be major negative press for any elite first trying it, but what if such an unconventional strategy were to win Kona or another major IM competition someday?  Fun to speculate....

Sometimes unconventional technique can have breakthrough success and even become the new athletic standard over time, as in the high jump after 1968. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosbury_Flop

meblack - 2010-03-10 10:32 AM Yeah the whole would I choose to finish 30minutes faster if I run/walked...um yeah sorry don't buy it. I know that with my body and training that if I implied a run/walk strategy I would most definitely be slower. All those pro's and even really good ameatures that finish in good times like sub 11 in ironman's....pretty damn sure they didn't walk.

dscottmd - 2010-03-10 10:47 AM

 I'm also convinced that these mini-breaks is why I always enjoyed cycling and hated running.  When cycling, you can take little mini-breaks whenever, soft pedal, spin a little, whatever you want to call it, but every stride was work, even downhill running was hard for me.  I truly enjoy running now and I credit it entirely to Galloway's Run/Walk strategy.  Ran a hilly 9 miles yesterday with walk breaks.  Great work out and not bad for a guy who one year ago had the mantra "I only run when chased"

dscottmd - 2010-03-10 11:22 AM

We will have to agree to disagree.  The repetitive running motion, no matter how easy, led to fatigue issues that were easily overcome by these short breaks.  You're opinion is I ran too hard.  My opinion is I needed short walk breaks.  You're right, it is whatever works for you.  My disagreement with you is the attitude that someone obviously is doing something wrong, ie running too hard, not training properly, etc, which is why Run/Walk works for them.  I think it's simply a better way for a lot of people, period.  

nighthawk - 2010-03-10 7:56 AM

I can run the entire half marathon and when I did I usually did about 2:05. I switched over to run/walk and got my half marathon time down to 1:56.

I even tried it out at a 5K distance, and knocked my 5K time down to 23 minutes and I used to hang out around 26 minutes for a 5K.

My feeling is, as long as you are not cheating, do what's best for you.

zed707 - 2010-03-10 9:50 AM
But for those MOP or BOP who are trying to build distance/duration (like me), it works just great.