Running using the Jeff Galloway method

jjs22

I don't know how it applies to elite athletes, but for newcomers or for those of us who are a bit older, I think the approach is a good one.

I'm 50-ish, and have have been having problems with calf pain/injuries. I take time off from running, do some strengthening and stretching, and when my legs are back in shape I try (once again) to find a form that doesn't destroy my legs. The problem is that calf injuries seem to appear from nowhere in a split-second. Its like you can't see them coming.

Because of all the time I've spent unable to run, I've really emphasized my walking. Walking happens slowly enough that you can really pay attention to all the details of your form : what it means to "engage your core", how to use your arms effectively and keep them relaxed at the same time, how to keep your spine neutral, not slouched, etc. I really like walking, and for me its a fun and worthwhile exercise, not just a "running substitute." My walk is pretty fast, around 13 min/mi.

So now, I'm just starting to re-introduce some running into my walks. (I'm NOT going to overdo it this time !) I find that the walking intervals are a great way to go back and evaluate my running form. Sometimes I'll realize that I was doing something wrong, or that I'm feeling a bit tight/fatigued somewhere, and that gives me a chance to correct it or to call it a night *before* I do any damage. And I think there's something to the idea that walking gives your body a chance to recover from specific stresses and fatigues that would otherwise be harmful, all while keeping your heart going.

For a some time I've been signed up for a 10-miler happening in June. Originally my plan was to be able to run it. But now the plan is to walk/run. The cutoff time is 2:30, which I can manage with walking only. So my goal is an injury-free 2:00.

grinch031

If you have a full time job, long commute, and kids to take care of, then that is too much for most normal people but more importantly just isn't necessary to meet their goals. I run about 40 mpw and finish in the top 5-10% of the Half marathon races I've run. Sure I could be much better if I ran 60-100, but then I have to start sacrificing time from other things and there's a threshold where the time spent doesn't seem to be worth the added performance.

Full time job? Check
Long commute? Check
Kids? 2, check!
Consulting gig? Check
Community group 4 nights a week? Check
Eat dinner with the family every time we can all be together (kids schedules, not mine!)? Check!
60+ miles per week? Double Check!

Sounds to me like you are just making excuses not to up your mileage.

I find myself doing most of my runs on a treadmill at 9pm at night, and I wake up at 6am. Why, so that I can do my part in raising my children while also allowing my wife to train for her races with two toddlers at home. Not to mention, I play competitive tennis and lift weights. I find it very tiring living my lifestyle as it stands, I couldn't see myelf adding 50-100% more running into my life, especially when the only time I can do it is late at night on a treadmill.

Again, it's a matter of priorities. I understand where you are coming from. In order to make my running a priority, I had to give up two things. Sleep and TV. I can tell you that I really don't care about the TV. I could use a little more sleep though.

But, this isn't about you and me, it's about Galloway.

Right and I think we both agree that Galloway is not going to provide top performance. But I mainly object to the common advice that everyone should run high volume as if its the only way to meet their goals, when 90% of the time the runners couldn't care less about performance other than maybe how it relates to their last race.

Well, you have to define "high volume". For a novice runner, going from 15 miles per week to 25 miles per week is high volume. I think that this increase is going to provide a better performance boost if all those miles are run as opposed to walking between 10 and 25 percent of it.

Well you had mentioned Lydiard's principles which encourages very high volume running above anything else. But I think the majority of runners would be better off not following such principles because most runners aren't trying to compete for prizes, but simply want to be more physically fit and enjoy the challenge of a race. I think FIRST or other programs that have moderate volumes (20-40 mpw) but emphasize more higher intensity training would probably be more beneficial for their fitness and are plenty sufficient to reach their goals as a runner. If someone tells me they want to hit a 3 hour marathon, I'll be the first to say they need to dramatically increase their volume, but I don't usually come across novice runners with that kind of ambition.

Oh and I agree on running more of those miles as opposed to walking some of them. Actually I'm against slow running in general when your volume isn't sufficiently high because it ends up being too easy. You need to feel the effects either through volume or intensity to really maximize the benefits of the training. But still I emphasize intensity over volume for people who want to generally be more fit and do have other interests besides running.

brandyk77

I heard someone say "Train how you want to run in the race."

That's scary. 75% to 85% of my miles, depending up my training cycle, are run at a pace that is 2:30 to 3:00 SLOWER than my 5K race pace. If I tried to "train how I want to run in the race", I'd be dead, hurt or both!

Maybe they meant Gallowalking vs. running

at least I hope so

SweatpantsRebellion

I heard someone say "Train how you want to run in the race."

That's scary. 75% to 85% of my miles, depending up my training cycle, are run at a pace that is 2:30 to 3:00 SLOWER than my 5K race pace. If I tried to "train how I want to run in the race", I'd be dead, hurt or both!

Maybe they meant Gallowalking vs. running

at least I hope so

Yes. In the context I was asking someone about Galloways walk/run vs. Hal Higdon's running training. I plan to run my half, not walk/run. That was the response, so in the context it pertained to walking v. running, not that you shouldn't incorporate training that is at higher or lower intensity than actual race pace.

jennylew30

I have a BIG problem with "running bullies" who like to tell you exactly how and why you should run exactly like they do. I've run long distances both with and without walk breaks. For me the interval walk breaks allowed me to finish faster and with less injuries, but that was my experience. Experiment and do what works best for YOU.
I also hate the people who tell you that if you don't run the entire time you're not "really" running. Ridiculous. If run/walking allows you to finish, injury free and without burnout (which is what it did for me) than do it! You are every bit the "Real" runner as everyone else out there!

tallgirlshelley

I'm old and slow. I've done 2 half marathons and want to do another one this summer. I just feel like a dud if I have to stop to walk, regardless if it's going to help my time or not. Like running on the road - car's coming! Don't walk now!

CarsonRuns

I have a BIG problem with "running bullies" who like to tell you exactly how and why you should run exactly like they do. I've run long distances both with and without walk breaks. For me the interval walk breaks allowed me to finish faster and with less injuries, but that was my experience. Experiment and do what works best for YOU.
I also hate the people who tell you that if you don't run the entire time you're not "really" running. Ridiculous. If run/walking allows you to finish, injury free and without burnout (which is what it did for me) than do it! You are every bit the "Real" runner as everyone else out there!

Hey, great job resurrecting a post that's nearly a year old to make your first post to tell us who and what you hate.

Welcome!

jennylew30

You're the one who responded to it. Have a great day!