walking breaks during half/half?
Options
Replies
-
I think you might be nitpicking, Carson. If everybody was under-trained, then everyone was under-trained. They were equal. And, I think seven minutes is a lot less of a difference than you would have assumed was going to be found -- it is between a 1 percent and a 2 percent difference.
Plus, seven minutes is a big deal to someone who finishes marathons under 3:30 or faster, and runs them regularly. But to the average, 4-hour-marathon runner, it is not such a huge difference. Of course, you are not going to be able to walk part of the course and win. But, if you are over 4-hours anyway, is it worth it to add 1 percent to your time to feel much better the next day (which was also reported)?
I think the fact that they reported feeling much better afterward is not insignificant. Actually, that might be the most important suggestion the study makes.0 -
As I recall the physiological testing found no discernible difference between the two groups, so I'd question whether conditioning them to believe they would feel better has a more significant effect than the physical training.0
-
Placebo effect is still an effect.0
-
If this is the study I am thinking of, if you read the actual study, the people in the run group walked, too, at times. But it was "unplanned walking".
0 -
Also the study was concerned with whether a run walk strategy reduced cardiac stress/Load and it did not. They simply had more on the run/walk side report feeling better. However , as they obviously knew what the study was about (they were not blinded and knew run/walk was being tested), this fact is worth very little in the world of research. And it's not even bc placebo; self reporting when the subject is aware of the variable is highly unreliable - a lot of "telling the tester what you think they want to hear" happens. Or just making stuff up.
Also N=42.....
0 -
I plan on running this one, but I'll consider the run/walk for the next one.0
-
Okay. Okay. I cry 'uncle.'
But, obviously, the editors of the journal and the reviewers they used thought the study had merit, and they did not object to the observations pointed up in the Runner's World article.
Jeez. You guys are tough critics!0 -
I think run/walk is a great choice if it's what you want to do. It also gives you a chance to experience marathon completion and some have even qualified for Boston doing it.
But I also think that, if you can run/walk a marathon, you can run a marathon with proper training and preparation.
I can't judge the desires of others, but I do personally feel that there is a certain purpose to a running event. It is a challenge of running. Again, my personal thought.
And, I'm a research/science geek so studies and articles like that make me grrrrrrrrrrrr. Unless you get a whole bunch of them finding the same results with no one on the other side.0 -
At best (and in spite of other flaws) I suppose the study could show that run/walk is a good solution for people who haven't trained adequately for a marathon. But that wouldn't make it a good idea to plan not to train adequately. I am the same as Carrie and I can't see why I would want to do a race that I wouldn't be able to run all the way, though I am not knocking other people's desire to complete the distance run/walking.0
-
I run 11 minutes walk 1. Could I run the whole 13.1 without walking? Probably. Would I want to? No. I find that letting my heart rate drop and switch up the body mechanics for just a minute helps me stay relaxed. Could I have a better MM if I didn't walk? You betcha, but like others have said...there are a lot of reasons people run races and those who run/walk (I HATE that BTW, because it really should be run,run,run,run,run,run,run,run.../walk. It's not 50/50, grrrr...) probably aren't trying to win. If you are interested in the...run/walk...method, you should definitely practice it! There is a sweet spot you find as far as the intervals go. Also, if you find that you can run longer than 13.1 miles using a...run/walk...method, you should try it! I ran/walked (11/1) 26.2 miles and felt pretty good doing it. But, I think there is an idea that if you run 26.2 miles but you walk for 1 minute out of every 11 you didn't really run a marathon...you ran/walked it...so... (ooooh I'm bitter about this! I just realized!).0
-
But, I think there is an idea that if you run 26.2 miles but you walk for 1 minute out of every 11 you didn't really run a marathon...you ran/walked it...so... (ooooh I'm bitter about this! I just realized!).
I don't think so. I personally would not make that judgement. Plenty of people take unplanned walk breaks which might amount to the same total distance that you are walking (which isn't much, BTW). Would they say they ran/walked a marathon? Heck no. They ran that sucker. It takes a commitment to go the 26.2 mile distance, regardless of how you do it. Kudos to you for putting in the hard work and getting it done!
0 -
Dear jessspurr, I agree with lporter. Kudos to you. You are gittin' her done!
It occurs to me that I always used to stop and walk a bit in the middle of my training runs. I used to run hills and I would run to the top of the hill, and then walk part of the way down. Even on my flat runs, I would run out, stop, get water, maybe walk a bit, run back. I do think it allowed me to work harder.0 -
I walk through water stations, only because I end up waterboarding myself if I don't.0
