Just run.

CarsonRuns wrote: »

Just run.

Same as Carson.

You've done a 10mi run. It's just a 5k after.
walk at the water stations since trying to drink and run ends poorly

Yup same as Carson.

Yes, just run.

I went back to Run/ Walk in training at one stage and found I hated it. It took me time after each walk break to get comfortable running again, so I eneded up spending a disproportionate amount of time uncomfortable.

On trails I'll walk steep ascents, but that's about it.

Run that beast down and kill it.

ETA: I have a friend that run/walks a full marathon and can get in under 4 hours. I still don't understand why he does that. He's flipping fast and could probably get close to 3:30 if he'd run the thing.

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

Yes, just run.

I went back to Run/ Walk in training at one stage and found I hated it. It took me time after each walk break to get comfortable running again, so I eneded up spending a disproportionate amount of time uncomfortable.

On trails I'll walk steep ascents, but that's about it.

Same here. It hurts too much to get back into running after walking. I might vary my speed but never walk.

I use Galloway; run 5 or 6 and walk 1, depending on how I feel. he says it avoids injury. It's been true for me.

I started my marathoning/half marathoning run/walking (aka Galloway's method). Did my first marathon in 5:10, did my second one in 5:12 (which was in the cold rain and included an 8 minute stop at a medical tent). My third was 4:57. All six of my HM's have been done run/walking and those times have dropped from 2:13 to 2:01, but I haven't run a HM since October 2014 and that last one could have been less than two hours but I wasn't willing to "go for it" because it was my last fast run/walk of moderate distance in the taper before an upcoming marathon. Did that next marathon in 4:41...run/walk. Galloway suggests that I should be able to go considerably faster than I am going, but I like being functional in the hours after a marathon. I'm not all that far off what Galloway suggests for my time for the half-marathon using the run/walk..

I switched over to training for continual running for a marathon (on a tabletop flat marathon course). My training is not on flat terrain but the race course was. I did more miles following a Fitzgerald plan than I have ever done preparing for any race. My short-distance speed has increased significantly and I'd like to take that out for a spin in a couple of short-distance races (5K, 10K, and HM) to actually see how they work out in race conditions rather than on the trails, roads and the track.

But...when I applied continual running to my first marathon, it didn't go as well as I hoped. Granted, I went out in the first two miles about 30 seconds per mile faster than I intended but by mile 2, I was locked in to my target pace to finish at 4:30. I was on target through the halfway point, slowed somewhat by mile 20 (but still felt good and was on a 4:36 finishing pace). I picked up the pace at mile 20 and pulled away from the small group that I was running in.

However, at mile 23 the wheels began to fall off. First time I ever experience "the wall" and it was a surreal experience. I never experienced that with my previous marathons doing the run/walk. Although that group never caught up with me, the last three miles were little more than a moderately fast walk or a shuffle to the end (though I did manage to look like I was running at the finish). I was pretty much spent and I finished in 4:50.

The following weekend, I was running another marathon (first time I'd ever tried that) and in the seven days between the two races, I ran twice (three miles on Wednesday, six miles on Thursday) before running the race on Valentine's Day. The course was nearly as flat as the seven days before (fortunately) but had a huge headwind in the last nine miles. Rather than trying to run continuously like I had the week before, I went back to run/walk. Four minutes running, one minute walking and I made sure that the first two miles were slow.

I did that the entire way. When I got to mile 20, I felt slightly more tired than I had the previous Saturday and I stuck with the plan. This brought me to the last "hilly" section of the course and when I cleared that (mile 23) and was running into a constant 25 mph headwind, I decided to pick up the pace while still maintaining that 4:1 ratio. Each mile was progressively faster during those last three miles. My last walk cycle was just before the mile 26 marker, where I turned down the finishing chute and took off running to the end.

Finish time = 4:34:00.

I am running a marathon on Sunday. The plan...run/walk. My time goal is to simply beat my time from last year (4:57:02) to get the "special tee shirt." With 1250 feet of cumulative vertical according to the mapping software, I don't plan on trying to run anywhere near what Galloway predicts.

I run/walk. Probably always will. I'm slow, and nothing in my heart desires running 13 miles without stopping. But I can run 5 mins at a time.

Seems everyone is saying "just run." I hate to be contrary to so much experience. But I believe this question was put to the test recently. I do not remember the distance, whether it was for a half or a full. But they randomized a bunch of runners, to either a run/walk plan or a run plan, just a few days before the race or at the start line. The test showed very little difference in the finish times. And the people who walked? They reported feeling much less beat-up after.
Wait! It was a marathon distance.

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/study-runwalk-strategy-can-make-marathon-hurt-less .

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.

Placebo effect is still an effect.

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.....

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!

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.