login
run/walk vs. steady pace (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-03-10 12:36 PM in reply to: #2718764 |
Runner |  Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pacedscottmd - 2010-03-10 12:39 PM Bryan, do you know of any pros who have tried it?? Just curious. I think it would be a bit of an ego hit for a pro to try it so I'm wondering if any ever have. Either way, this is BT (Beginner Triathlete) and discussion of how the pros do things really isn't all that relevant in a lot of ways. You may be right in that at the extreme end of the spectrum with elite athletes, it's not a faster way to race, although again, has anyone tried it? For the other 98% of us, I think it is very debatable if it is a faster way to race and I'm as certain based on my experience as you are based on yours that the answer is ABSOLUTELY faster for some athletes. What percentage, I have no idea, but it's a significant number. Let's leave all the fitness and training aspects out of it, which you've already agreed that if Run/walk allows you to go farther and longer and provides increased fitness, it's a good thing. Lets just talk about the race. I went into my half mary with whatever fitness I had. I ran 8:10s and walked 30 sec every mile approx for an average of 8:28s. IF on that same day, with the same fitness, I tried to run the whole way, I do not believe I could have averaged less than 8:28 per mile running steady and honestly doubt I'd have been under 9 min/mi on average, so for me, it IS a faster way to race. I'd really like to see an elite give it a try. As Ronald Reagan said "It's not the things we don't know that are the problem, it's the things we know that simply aren't true" You were TRAINED to race that way. I am TRAINED to race without walk breaks. If I went out and trained the way I always do, but then raced differently, I would probably screw up my race. Just as you would most likely screw up your race by trying to eliminate the walk breaks. Race as you train. |
| 2010-03-10 12:41 PM in reply to: #2718887 |
Champion  9600     Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace Scout7 - 2010-03-10 11:36 AM You were TRAINED to race that way. I am TRAINED to race without walk breaks. If I went out and trained the way I always do, but then raced differently, I would probably screw up my race. Just as you would most likely screw up your race by trying to eliminate the walk breaks. Race as you train. For sure, but that still doesn't answer as to which protocol results in faster times. Would you or I be "faster" if we trained and executed a run/walk plan? I don't feel that I would. |
| 2010-03-10 12:46 PM in reply to: #2718904 |
Runner | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace bryancd - 2010-03-10 1:41 PM Scout7 - 2010-03-10 11:36 AM You were TRAINED to race that way. I am TRAINED to race without walk breaks. If I went out and trained the way I always do, but then raced differently, I would probably screw up my race. Just as you would most likely screw up your race by trying to eliminate the walk breaks. Race as you train. For sure, but that still doesn't answer as to which protocol results in faster times. Would you or I be "faster" if we trained and executed a run/walk plan? I don't feel that I would. It's a completely unanswerable question. The simple fact is that we have not trained that way so far, so it would hardly be a fair comparison at this point to say it was the changing up of the method, or the simple fact that we have another year of experience and miles under our belts. Which is really why the whole debate of "this method makes me faster" is rather useless. Of course it makes you faster. Because it makes you more consistent, and makes you better able to add volume. Whether you get that through a run/walk combo, or something else, is immaterial in my mind. It's like barefoot running. If running barefoot gets you out and training and building mileage appropriately, then awesome. But running barefoot in and of itself does not automatically make you any faster. |
| 2010-03-10 1:12 PM in reply to: #2718918 |
Champion 7233 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace something else a lot of people here are missing, or not syaing, a 1 min walk break means you need to run WAY faster during the run part to run the same split. That is a HUGE pace diff. and the mental effects of having to speed back up/catch someone that passed you take their toll as well. If you are able to do 26 1 mile repeats at 7:30 pace wit ha min walk, there is no reason you cannot run 8:30 or faster pace for the whole thing. just my thoughts. |
| 2010-03-10 2:22 PM in reply to: #2715754 |
| Veteran 549 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace Nebz- I understand your rationale but keep in mind that if someone is walking they are moving forward. How fast depends on each individual. So, they would be moving faster than a 8:30 pace with a 1 min walk. |
| 2010-03-10 2:54 PM in reply to: #2715754 |
Elite 3471 Evergreen, CO | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace Anecdotally only: I have had 2 race experiences where I and another racer started the run at the same time, 1 of us ran the whole race and the other followed a run/walk race plan. The run/walk person beat the run-only person in both races in the last mile or two of the race. First occurrance was a half mary and I was the runner; we kept passing each other and were able to chat for a few seconds each time and she explained her strategy to me. Second occurrance was a HIM and I followed a run/walk plan that I had decided on before the race (with D3 coaches' support) but had not done in training. In the HIM I beat my previous HIM time by 30 minutes. I think it works, especially if you feel undertrained. I've been a runner for most of my life and was very skeptical at first and wouldn't have even considered it if I hadn't been beat in the half mary by a run/walker 15-20 years older than me. Tnx for starting up this thread -- great timing since I have a mary in 2 months and will probably be run/walking to see if I can improve my time. |
| 2010-03-10 3:30 PM in reply to: #2719004 |
Veteran 812 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace newbz - If you are able to do 26 1 mile repeats at 7:30 pace wit ha min walk, there is no reason you cannot run 8:30 or faster pace for the whole thing. just my thoughts. I totally 100% agree with you here, but you are contradicting the point you wish to make. * 8:30 pace => 3:42 marathon * 7:30 mile repeats, followed by a minute of walking (16min/mi) => 3:27 marathon Really, if you don't trust me, please run the math yourself. So, if you guys are super-macho about being a "runner", please run. But if you would rather qualify for Boston, or just come in with a great time, you might want to consider giving these walking breaks a try. |
| 2010-03-10 3:44 PM in reply to: #2719373 |
Runner | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace mrcurtain - 2010-03-10 4:30 PM newbz - If you are able to do 26 1 mile repeats at 7:30 pace wit ha min walk, there is no reason you cannot run 8:30 or faster pace for the whole thing. just my thoughts. I totally 100% agree with you here, but you are contradicting the point you wish to make. * 8:30 pace => 3:42 marathon * 7:30 mile repeats, followed by a minute of walking (16min/mi) => 3:27 marathon Really, if you don't trust me, please run the math yourself. So, if you guys are super-macho about being a "runner", please run. But if you would rather qualify for Boston, or just come in with a great time, you might want to consider giving these walking breaks a try. I am fairly happy with my marathon times. And it had nothing to do with being macho. It had to do with the fact that I trained hard and executed a good race. Whether I walked or not as any part of either has absolutely no bearing on anything. I apologize if any of my statements have been viewed as condescending or "super-macho"; that was nowhere near my intent. To be clear, I see absolutely no problem whatsoever with people incorporating walking into their training and racing. It is another tool in the chest, so to speak, and it's a technique that works. Would I encourage people to try to train to run the full distance? Yes, I will. But that's how I see things, nothing more. I am no more right than anyone else in that regard. We all get to the finish in the manner that suits us best. |
| 2010-03-10 5:15 PM in reply to: #2718904 |
Master 2426 Central Indiana | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace bryancd - 2010-03-10 1:41 PM Scout7 - 2010-03-10 11:36 AM You were TRAINED to race that way. I am TRAINED to race without walk breaks. If I went out and trained the way I always do, but then raced differently, I would probably screw up my race. Just as you would most likely screw up your race by trying to eliminate the walk breaks. Race as you train. For sure, but that still doesn't answer as to which protocol results in faster times. Would you or I be "faster" if we trained and executed a run/walk plan? I don't feel that I would.I'd love to see a big wad of incentive $$$ put up to study a dozen well-matched elites/pros. Randomize to pure run or R:W training/competition strategy at start of the season, then offer most of cash as incentives for better times using the assigned technique. Maybe BT could apply for a big grant from the Gates Foundation  |
| 2010-03-10 5:34 PM in reply to: #2719373 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace mrcurtain - 2010-03-10 2:30 PM So, if you guys are super-macho about being a "runner", please run. But if you would rather qualify for Boston, or just come in with a great time, you might want to consider giving these walking breaks a try. That's a bit uncool. And somehow I did manage to qualify for Boston while running, go figure. The fact remains there is zero evidence that this actually works in any physiological sense. The fact remains it is not the fastest way to complete a running race for most people, anecdotal evidence not withstanding. The fact remains that it can provide a pyschological boost to break up the miles that way. The fact remains that for some people who possibly struggle with running, don't have the time to commit to a very comprehensive run training schedule, are prone to running related injuries, are having trouble increasing their mileage than run/walk is an excellent option. Personally, I run races to run them and that's what I train to do. I don't know anyone who does a run/walk training protocol here in the running or triathlon community in Phoenix and that includes people of all abilities. I'll ask my coach if he trains anyone who does it and what he feels about it's efficacy. I still think the majority of athletes can train to run the whole thing and do so faster. Edited by bryancd 2010-03-10 5:35 PM |
| 2010-03-10 6:43 PM in reply to: #2719616 |
Veteran 812 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace bryancd - The fact remains there is zero evidence that this actually works in any physiological sense. The fact remains it is not the fastest way to complete a running race for most people Come on Brian. In one breath you say that there is no proof that it works. And in the very next breath you claim it's a "fact" that it doesn't work. I call . These proofs go both ways. We can't prove that it works, and you cannot prove that it doesn't work. But we do know that people who are run/walking are finishing faster than people who are running the whole thing. And we do have an accumulation of anecdotal evidence, that people many people who switch from running to run/walking will show better times with less injuries. Here is a NY Times article interviewing some people who benefitted from run/walking: "One of them is Tim Deegan of Jacksonville, Fla., who had run 25 marathons ... His times had been slowing — to about 3 hours 45 minutes, 15 minutes shy of qualifying for the Boston Marathon — but as he ran-walked his way through the Jacksonville Marathon, “I started thinking I might have a chance to qualify for Boston again." He did, posting a time of 3:28." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02well.html One reference of many. I'd be sincerely curious if you you find someone, particularly someone slower than a 3:30 marathoner, who has given run/walking a real shot and not benefitted from it? |
| 2010-03-10 6:46 PM in reply to: #2719373 |
Master 1557 Maine | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace mrcurtain - 2010-03-10 4:30 PM newbz - If you are able to do 26 1 mile repeats at 7:30 pace wit ha min walk, there is no reason you cannot run 8:30 or faster pace for the whole thing. just my thoughts. I totally 100% agree with you here, but you are contradicting the point you wish to make. * 8:30 pace => 3:42 marathon * 7:30 mile repeats, followed by a minute of walking (16min/mi) => 3:27 marathon Really, if you don't trust me, please run the math yourself. So, if you guys are super-macho about being a "runner", please run. But if you would rather qualify for Boston, or just come in with a great time, you might want to consider giving these walking breaks a try. Wow, this thread has really gone all over the place, comparing 5ks to marathons to IMs with random anecdotes and understandings of muscular physiology that are sketchy at best. Since you've narrowed it down to talking about stand-alone marathons - I think the point is that you are seriously overestimating the difference in pace that you can sustain with one minute walk breaks built in. Despite the recovery that you believe occurs during walk breaks, your pace still needs to be sustainable and repeatable over 26.2 miles. The difference in effort required to run 8:30 vs. 7:30 miles is large, and I don't believe that just by taking walk breaks you would be able to sustain that much increased load over the long distance, especially at those speeds. In other words, if you are used to running steady 8:30s, and a 7:30 pace is challenging for you, then you will be cooked by mile 18-20, even with walk breaks; but if 7:30 is relatively doable with walk breaks, then you could probably sustain 7:45's with no walk breaks, so the giant time benefit of walk breaks disappears. So in the spirit of random anecdotal evidence and hearsay that have been the hallmark of this thread
|
, let me just add this. I started running in August of 2004, and ran my first marathon in October of that same year with a run/walk strategy. My attempt to run a slightly faster pace than normal, with "recovery" during the walk breaks, lasted all the way til mile 10 or so, and then became a shuffle/walk and eventually a walk/walk strategy. If you are not properly trained, no amount of walk breaks will magically keep your legs going at that distance.| 2010-03-10 7:03 PM in reply to: #2719733 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace mrcurtain - 2010-03-10 5:43 PM I call . These proofs go both ways. We can't prove that it works, and you cannot prove that it doesn't work. But we do know that people who are run/walking are finishing faster than people who are running the whole thing. And we do have an accumulation of anecdotal evidence, that people many people who switch from running to run/walking will show better times with less injuries. Your efforts to try and "compare" people is the problem which you seem not to see. I bet I could run/walk a marathon faster than about 80%-90% of the field, so what does that mean? Nothing. I could still run it faster. End of story. And I am not contradicting myself when I say that there is ZERO science or results in well trained athletes to support your supposition. And the I am not in error pointing out that the fastest marathons are run by people who run them. That's the reality. I'm sorry, but I think your are giving terrible advice in this thread based on no real facts and I will challenge that. The day the NYC Marathon is won using run/walk will be the day I would consider it an effective race plan. There are a lot of BAD ideas out there in the world of endurance sports. I believe in the one's that have always worked. Like Scout says, run, run often, run a lot. Edited by bryancd 2010-03-10 7:09 PM |
| 2010-03-10 7:28 PM in reply to: #2719733 |
Master 1404 Saratoga Springs, Utah | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace mrcurtain - 2010-03-10 5:43 PM bryancd - The fact remains there is zero evidence that this actually works in any physiological sense. The fact remains it is not the fastest way to complete a running race for most people Come on Brian. In one breath you say that there is no proof that it works. And in the very next breath you claim it's a "fact" that it doesn't work. I call . These proofs go both ways. We can't prove that it works, and you cannot prove that it doesn't work. But we do know that people who are run/walking are finishing faster than people who are running the whole thing. And we do have an accumulation of anecdotal evidence, that people many people who switch from running to run/walking will show better times with less injuries. Here is a NY Times article interviewing some people who benefitted from run/walking: "One of them is Tim Deegan of Jacksonville, Fla., who had run 25 marathons ... His times had been slowing — to about 3 hours 45 minutes, 15 minutes shy of qualifying for the Boston Marathon — but as he ran-walked his way through the Jacksonville Marathon, “I started thinking I might have a chance to qualify for Boston again." He did, posting a time of 3:28." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02well.html One reference of many. I'd be sincerely curious if you you find someone, particularly someone slower than a 3:30 marathoner, who has given run/walking a real shot and not benefitted from it? Totally disagree with this statement. The fastest runners in the world run the whole thing, for one reason, because it is faster. |
| 2010-03-10 7:55 PM in reply to: #2719739 |
Veteran 812 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace I think the point is that you are seriously overestimating the difference in pace that you can sustain with one minute walk breaks built in. Despite the recovery that you believe occurs during walk breaks, your pace still needs to be sustainable and repeatable over 26.2 miles. ... but if 7:30 is relatively doable with walk breaks, then you could probably sustain 7:45's with no walk breaks, so the giant time benefit of walk breaks disappears. First of all, those numbers were _not mine_. They were provided by newbz, and I just ran them through a spreadsheet I use. So, I ran your numbers too. Running 7:30 with 30 second walking breaks, seems _equal_ to running the entire race at 7:45. But I think that you're probably underestimating the differences where newbz overestimated them. If 7:30 repeats (with 30 seconds rest) means you can run 7:50 min/mi continuously, then the run/walking wins by 2 minutes. All I'm asking people to consider this, rather than rejecting it outright, and to do the math rather than making assumptions based on prejudice. If you are not properly trained, no amount of walk breaks will magically keep your legs going at that distance. I never claimed that it's magic. :-) It's just a strategy that _may_ help many runners go faster with fewer injuries. |
| 2010-03-10 7:57 PM in reply to: #2719849 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace mrcurtain - 2010-03-10 6:55 PM I think the point is that you are seriously overestimating the difference in pace that you can sustain with one minute walk breaks built in. Despite the recovery that you believe occurs during walk breaks, your pace still needs to be sustainable and repeatable over 26.2 miles. ... but if 7:30 is relatively doable with walk breaks, then you could probably sustain 7:45's with no walk breaks, so the giant time benefit of walk breaks disappears. First of all, those numbers were _not mine_. They were provided by newbz, and I just ran them through a spreadsheet I use. So, I ran your numbers too. Running 7:30 with 30 second walking breaks, seems _equal_ to running the entire race at 7:45. But I think that you're probably underestimating the differences where newbz overestimated them. If 7:30 repeats (with 30 seconds rest) means you can run 7:50 min/mi continuously, then the run/walking wins by 2 minutes. All I'm asking people to consider this, rather than rejecting it outright, and to do the math rather than making assumptions based on prejudice. If you are not properly trained, no amount of walk breaks will magically keep your legs going at that distance. I never claimed that it's magic. :-) It's just a strategy that _may_ help many runners go faster with fewer injuries. OK, now THIS post I can agree with. |
| 2010-03-10 8:17 PM in reply to: #2719767 |
Veteran 812 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace self-censored. Edited by mrcurtain 2010-03-10 8:18 PM |
| 2010-03-11 10:54 AM in reply to: #2719218 |
Champion 7233 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace kdlsch111 - 2010-03-10 1:22 PM Nebz- I understand your rationale but keep in mind that if someone is walking they are moving forward. How fast depends on each individual. So, they would be moving faster than a 8:30 pace with a 1 min walk. true, but if you are walking slow enough enoujgh to get that magic recharge (talking more to the people that are saying its faster than just running), then i would say its pretty darn slow. I'm not saying thisi s all bad, i think for those trying to get their distances up at first this works really well, i dont think however it is faster once you can run the whole thing. |
| 2010-03-11 11:02 AM in reply to: #2719733 |
Champion 7233 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace mrcurtain - 2010-03-10 5:43 PM bryancd - The fact remains there is zero evidence that this actually works in any physiological sense. The fact remains it is not the fastest way to complete a running race for most people Come on Brian. In one breath you say that there is no proof that it works. And in the very next breath you claim it's a "fact" that it doesn't work. I call . These proofs go both ways. We can't prove that it works, and you cannot prove that it doesn't work. But we do know that people who are run/walking are finishing faster than people who are running the whole thing. And we do have an accumulation of anecdotal evidence, that people many people who switch from running to run/walking will show better times with less injuries. Here is a NY Times article interviewing some people who benefitted from run/walking: "One of them is Tim Deegan of Jacksonville, Fla., who had run 25 marathons ... His times had been slowing — to about 3 hours 45 minutes, 15 minutes shy of qualifying for the Boston Marathon — but as he ran-walked his way through the Jacksonville Marathon, “I started thinking I might have a chance to qualify for Boston again." He did, posting a time of 3:28." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02well.html One reference of many. I'd be sincerely curious if you you find someone, particularly someone slower than a 3:30 marathoner, who has given run/walking a real shot and not benefitted from it? Isn't claiming that we know people run walking are faster than runners, (we know nothing about the runner, how did they train, did they have a bad dau, etc), is sort of like saying the guy that won the olympic marathon did so because he was black, or have a shaved head, or ran in brooks and the next guy didn't. Sort of just picking one thing without anything else to go on. |
| 2010-03-11 11:27 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
| Member 195 Akron, OH | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace I think you misunderstand the purpose of the walk break. It isn't to recover cardiovascularly, it's to change the muscle use patterns and give the muscle fibers a brief recovery. For me to take 30 sec walk breaks every mile I need to run at 8:10 or so and walk half that fast (16min/mi) and I'll average around 8:30 miles. With my current fitness today, yesterday or tomorrow, I can go many many more miles averaging 8:30 this way than trying to run 8:30 steady. As you get faster, the difference between the speed you are running and the speed you are walking obviously gets larger and you'd have to walk shorter and shorter or less frequent intervals to keep from having to run significantly faster to maintain pace. This is why I'm not surprised that this technique is less valuable for an elite runner than an AGer. I do think it has a lot of value for many, many athletes however. |
| 2010-03-11 11:33 AM in reply to: #2715754 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace The nature of the walk break is well discussed on the podcast "IM Talk" a few months ago when they did a show on this topic. It's very specific in terms of the pace of the "walk" and it's duration. Bottom line is that done properly, it's not a complete walk, it's more like speed walking. Again, I understand the concept and it's application and potential utility. Where I am getting a bit put off in this thread is that it's being WAY oversold as a panacea for all that ailes our run. It's not, it's likely a good method for a SPECIFIC group out there, but it will remain a bit of an outlier in the sport and will never eclipse running as the fastest way for most people to complete a race, random NYT articles and "I knew this one person who.." stories not withstanding. Edited by bryancd 2010-03-11 11:36 AM |
| 2010-03-11 6:00 PM in reply to: #2720724 |
Veteran 812 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace newbz: to get that magic recharge It's funny that you call it "magic". There is nothing magic about it. Ever run intervals? As you run through the 1/2 mile hard your legs start burning from lactic acid accumulation. As you walk to recover, that lactic acid is flushed out of your legs, and the burning goes away. The exact same process happens in run/walking, though to lesser degree with less accumulation, and less recovery time. You wouldn't claim that the recovery during intervals is "magic", would you?? Isn't claiming that we know people run walking are faster than runners, (we know nothing about the runner It's true, it doesn't tell us overly much. But it does give a baseline. People in this thread had claimed that run/walking is only for total newbies, or those who don't have enough base training. And that's just false. Since we know run/walkers are running sub-3:30 marathons and qualifying for Boston (beating the vast majority of "proper runners"), we _know_ that run/walking isn't just for newbies or those lacking proper base training. Right? The far more interesting cases though are people who were already moderately fast (3:45 marathoners) and are getting quite a bit faster by switching from running non-stop to run/walking. i dont think however it is faster once you can run the whole thing. And that though is based on what exactly? I ran your numbers through my spreadsheet, and using your numbers the run/walker was 15 minutes faster than your runner. Run/Walk Calculator I'm sorry if that previous post was overly snide, but using your numbers the hypothetical run/walker could have qualified for Boston, while the "runner" would not have. Once again. Don't stick with your guesses. I created a calculator just for you. Now I challenge you to run the math yourself, and see who is actually faster. |
| 2010-03-11 6:01 PM in reply to: #2720817 |
Veteran 812 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace bryancd - It's not, it's likely a good method for a SPECIFIC group out there, but it will remain a bit of an outlier in the sport and will never eclipse running as the fastest way for most people to complete a race And here's where you and I really disagree. I think that group isn't specific at all, but is almost everyone running slower than 7 minute miles for their races. And that consists of the _vast_ majority of marathon finishers. No one here is claiming "wonders". It is no replacement for training. But a 2-10% speed gain is substantial. Even a 0% speed gain, while feeling less beaten up at the end of a run is a significant and important step forward, right? You've condemned the anecdotal evidence supporting running/walking. But it's far better that nothing. Was there a single comment in here from someone who gave it run/walking a shot, and it didn't work for them? Have you, or anyone else, seen a 8- 12 minute miler try run/walking and had their times go down? |
| 2010-03-11 6:21 PM in reply to: #2721765 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace mrcurtain - 2010-03-11 5:01 PM bryancd - It's not, it's likely a good method for a SPECIFIC group out there, but it will remain a bit of an outlier in the sport and will never eclipse running as the fastest way for most people to complete a race And here's where you and I really disagree. I think that group isn't specific at all, but is almost everyone running slower than 7 minute miles for their races. And that consists of the _vast_ majority of marathon finishers. No one here is claiming "wonders". It is no replacement for training. But a 2-10% speed gain is substantial. Even a 0% speed gain, while feeling less beaten up at the end of a run is a significant and important step forward, right? You've condemned the anecdotal evidence supporting running/walking. But it's far better that nothing. Was there a single comment in here from someone who gave it run/walking a shot, and it didn't work for them? Have you, or anyone else, seen a 8- 12 minute miler try run/walking and had their times go down? Look, you clearly feel strongly about this. I respect that. I do think you are taking things personally because you assume we are judging you as a run/walker. We're not. I have stated where and how I feel this is a great concept. But in a few years, I'm willing to wager that as a training/racing protocol, this proves to have a very limited application. The reason for that will be very simple. A properly trained athlete, regardless of their current fitness, can be trained to run an entire long duration event faster than using this protocol. |
| 2010-03-11 7:01 PM in reply to: #2721790 |
| Regular 190 | Subject: RE: run/walk vs. steady pace bryancd - 2010-03-11 7:21 PM mrcurtain - 2010-03-11 5:01 PM Look, you clearly feel strongly about this. I respect that. I do think you are taking things personally because you assume we are judging you as a run/walker. We're not. I have stated where and how I feel this is a great concept. But in a few years, I'm willing to wager that as a training/racing protocol, this proves to have a very limited application. The reason for that will be very simple. A properly trained athlete, regardless of their current fitness, can be trained to run an entire long duration event faster than using this protocol.bryancd - It's not, it's likely a good method for a SPECIFIC group out there, but it will remain a bit of an outlier in the sport and will never eclipse running as the fastest way for most people to complete a race And here's where you and I really disagree. I think that group isn't specific at all, but is almost everyone running slower than 7 minute miles for their races. And that consists of the _vast_ majority of marathon finishers. No one here is claiming "wonders". It is no replacement for training. But a 2-10% speed gain is substantial. Even a 0% speed gain, while feeling less beaten up at the end of a run is a significant and important step forward, right? You've condemned the anecdotal evidence supporting running/walking. But it's far better that nothing. Was there a single comment in here from someone who gave it run/walking a shot, and it didn't work for them? Have you, or anyone else, seen a 8- 12 minute miler try run/walking and had their times go down? I think this is what I was getting at in my original post. Over the long run, 3-5 years, I would venture I would be better off running and building my base in this manner, as ultimately when I do get to the 7 min/mile mark, I will not have to change my training methodolgy significantly, rather keep training as a run only athlete. To each their own, but I have decided to run my miles for now and look for my improvements using that method. Thanks to everyone for such a good discussion. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK