Walk-Run on the Long Run

According to Jeff Galloway, yes!

Check out this web site and book:

 http://www.jeffgalloway.com/

http://www.shelterpub.com/_fitness/_marathon/marathon_book.html

I am new to running and I am trying it out. It does seem a bit wimpy, but when I see that I can go much farther with little to no recovery time, I can't argue.

I just started this after 5 years of trying to up my distance gradually running the whole time.  Every year I would get injured and end up never making the distance.  My bike training would also suffer.

So far with a 10 min run 1 min walk schedule, I have been doing wayyyy better.....no injuries so far!

Jen

I do a run walk when I train and when I race.

Today I did 15K in 1:36:47, 7r/1w and walk at h2o stations. That's a 10:23 pace.  I was 969 out of 1542 women.  My first half was 47:59. I have no idea why I am telling you this, except to suggest that walk breaks are not a sign of weakness nor of a lack of athleticism, as some might suggest. I am quite sure that many of the 500 plus women who came in after me did NOT take walk breaks. And I know that I will not get injured if I keep increasing my time out there (=increase mileage) this way.

This is exactly the opposite of what J Galloway has found the walking to work. If you take the frequent walk breaks, you will slightly increase your normal pace, you keep a steady pace in the later miles rather than tacking on to the pace, you stay fresh, are less susceptible to injury and you have a quicker recovery time which means you miss no training. You should really visit his website. All of this contributes to better times, fewer injuries and more training.

{{{BRRRRRRRP!}}} (sound of can of worms being opened)

At least that's what Galloway maintains, and it certainly helps him sell a lot of books. What hasn't been forthcoming (at least to my knowledge) is a scientific study. Gallowalking has been around for years, you would think someone would provide hard evidence. Galloway provides lots of anectdotal evidence, but you really don't see a whole lot of sub-three marathoners using a run/walk strategy. I would think you would, if it actually made you faster.

This comes up occasionally, and I don't mean to denigrate anyone using run/walk. I've done marathons using both methods, and I'm decidedly faster (by 20 minutes) just running, and find it to be more satifying an accomplishment. Truth be told, people run/walk because it's easier, not because it's faster. On an individual basis, it may make someone faster by allowing them to train sufficiently to do the whole race, but in general terms someone who can properly train for and execute a run-only plan will be faster doing so.

Ok - time to chime in :-)

I work with Bobby McGee - Bobby has coached a Gold Medallist in the Olympics in the marathon and has coached a number of ultra champs as well. He and I have had this discussion on numerous occasions - we are actually talking about doing a study on all this...anyway to my point - I consider Bobby an authority - and I repsect his opinion a great deal so when he says it works, I take his word for it. He has taken many a person who had been running 10:00-11:00 a mile and asking them to walk every 8 minutes and suddenly they drop their run pace and start setting PRs. Bobby doesn't sell books on this and isn't making a living off of a certain 'method' of training. The one thing we have in common in coaching athletes is that we agree that different things work for different athletes. The reason why we see the improved run pace is that when people walk before they accumulate fatigue they are flushing the lactate build up out - then they start running again repeat the cycle. Of course you aren't walking like you are walking down the street - you are walking fast 'with purpose' like I call it. There was just a guy  who ran every mile of the marathon for 20 secs - his finish time was 2:40 - PR before that was like 2:55 or something.

So-you can continue doing what you do - and many people will, and they won't change a thing and they won't improve and wonder why. The other option is to try something new, test yourself and see if you get some improvements. Lastly- to answer VM's question - as long as your HR is up in the right zone (Be it run, walking, jumping rope, or whatever) you are building endurance. Building specific endurance is different but for what you are trying to achieve this method would work fine.

ERRRRk - opening the can a little more.....peace, out.

MR

Soooooo.:

1) Where's the scientific study backing this up?

2) Why don't we see elite marathoners doing run/walk?

Anecdotes are great, but even when there are "many" of them, but they're still just anecdotes.

Since there is no money on these type of studies you probably won't see a study - just  like there aren't many studies of men over 40 - there is no money for a study like this - so chances are good you won't fine one.

Not sure why you wouldn't believe what I am saying, I don't lie. Also - watch IM hawaii and tell me you don't see PNF walk the aid stations, of course you do. Same thing with Welch, Allen etc.
I see the Japanese marathoners in town all the time - they walk for 8 hours a day on their off days - so there is some benefit to walking.

Why don't we see Elites walk in a marathon? Well, b/c this is like comparing apples to oranges. You are talking about humans that have VO2 maxes in excess of 70 - and aerobic threshold speed of 5:05 a mile. This is not even close to what an AGer who has a VO2 of 40 and an aerobic pace of 11:00 mile has to deal with. Plain and simple its not the same thing.

Jack Daniels' college team one year wanted to break the run across America record which was 7:00 mile average - with a team of 15 guys. He took 10 men, 5 women, and they all ran 1 minute intervals with 3 groups of 5 running for 4 hours. They ran for 1 minute and rested for 4 minutes. The result? They ran 6:14 pace and he had two guys who averaged below 5:00 pace - so how did they do this? They rested after each effort - and this is NOT much different in what we are talking about with the run / walk method - run upper aerobic, recover on the walk, repeat.

I ran the entire LP marathon this year - 3:47 - I walked the aid stations in CA one year and ran 3:41. :-) I am my own personal study - I would like there to be a few studies to base some of this on, but for now I have to go on what my athletes have done and what I have learned from coaches like Bobby, Jack Daniels, George Dallum (coach  to Hunter Kemper) and I trust these coaches and continue to learn. I have seen the run/walk method work and unless you have given it an honest try over the course of 3 months I don't think you should knock it down as 'easier' and if it is - AND you go faster isn't that a smarter way to approach it?

One of Jack Daniel's best quotes this weekend (I am at the International Tri Coaching Conference) was that he likes to see his athletes do less and get the most out of the time they have to train - and one example he gave was that of a girl he coached who loved to run and she ran 90 miles a week and her 10k PR was 36:00. He asked her to cut back the volume to 60 miles a week. She complied and her 10k time went to 34:00. So his point was :"Wouldn't you rather do it easier and go faster?"

 Certainly, I think that's what we all want.  

Mike R.

Can you please post word by word about Jack Daniel's speech at the conference?   OMG I am so upset I couldn't make it overthere (stupid job!!!). I hope you guys had a great time though

Haven't accused you of lying, have I? Just saying the anectodal evidence of your friend may be ignoring an awful lot of other variable, such as the training regimines and structures he put his athletes through in addition to the run/walk strategy. A lot of fad diets, for instance, work because they have their users pay attention to what they're shoving down their throat for the first time, not because of a unique mix of nutrients.

So back it up a little: How many sub-three marathoners do we see using run/walk? How many sub-3:30? When we get to the point that over half of the marathoners faster than me are utilizing walk breaks, then I'll be convinced to try them again myself.

Sorry, fellow, but I have, through four marathon training cycles. Through them, I managed a PR of 4:19. A year later, training and racing without walk breaks, I ran a 4:05. Since then I have run three faster than 4:19, all without walk breaks, so I guess "I am my own personal study" for the other side of the argument.

Certainly, indeed. But based on scientific method, not someone else's impressions. I have no doubt you truly believe this is better based on extensive experience. However, if you go to, say, the Runner's World forums, you will find dozens willing to share personal anecdotes supporting the other side. My major point here is to try it yourself, don't fall for claims by either side.

That's a big ol' muddled mess of a post there. Without trying to quote and discern what's yours, let me just try to throw out some clarifications here.

• My sample is twelve marathons, four Gallowalking, six running, and two walking. Not as extensive as the number of folks you coach, but certainly more than the two races you cited as proof that run/walk was faster.
• Yes this is triathlete site, but the original poster is training for a marathon and/ or an ultra. Back to apples to apples.
• Nice of you to denigrate my 4:20, but that's my Gallowalk PR. Yes, I'm sure you could coach me to faster than my 3:58 PR, but given my age, history and resources, I'm proud of it and it's going to have to stand for now. Not sure if I'm "happy with my performance," but it is for me to decide. Meanwhile, I'm having a blast. And running is working better than walk breaks.

Running then walking,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 Isn't that what we are doing when we interval training.

 I have no scientific data to back this up, but several years back, I was doing 25 1/4 mile repeats with a short walk break in between and ran one of my fastest races from that training.   

But any way you slice it, run 9 minutes walk 1 minuite, doing that 20 times, is bound to be more beneficial than running for an hour, or at least would seem to me it would.

 And why is it on this forum, or at least it seems to be when someone shares their personal experiences and/or that of somone they know, so many people want to see a scientific or clinical study to back it up.

I thought a significant part of this forum was for people to share their own experiences and opinions. I would like to think most, I am sure not all, but most people are intelligent rational thinking people who can filter through all the info and gain some benefit from them.

Regarding clincial and scientific studies,,,,,,,,,,,,, ah, how many studies are contradicted by other studies?

How many clincial studies are funded by an entity with a vested interest in the outcome instead of completely unbiasted one?

Look at how many drugs are pulled off the shelf after the clinical study said sure their ok!

Just my $.69

cruse, I'm talking about racing, not training. When you race, do you sprint for 440 yards, then walk?

And about scientific proof versus experiences, what I am trying to say is that there are a wide variety of experiences out there and it's fine to hear them all and try to sift through it. Just be careful taking someone's experience as science or fact. In absence of "scientific studies," be willing to experiment. I'm pretty sure Mike's barking up the same tree...