Marathoners: What's the longest distance you ran while training for your first marathon?
Replies
-
Following a loose plan I did three 20 mile road runs before I did my first marathon earlier this year, but then kind of on a whim I did a 33 mile ultra a few weeks before! I have my next marathon in a couple of weeks and my training has been interrupted by injury but I did a multi terrain hilly 16 miler yesterday which will be my last long run before it, but I'm kind of doing this marathon as a 'time on my feet/ miles in my legs' training for the next marathon towards the end of October. But I'm also eyeing up my first 50 miler a couple of weeks before that. So really, probably best to ignore me LOL0
-
Thanks for all your advice! With "rest" weeks every 3rd week, I should be able to hit 20 by late this month, and then can play with that distance, and add some more (22, or 24 if I feel up to it) with plenty of time to recover, all the way through October (The race is Nov 8th). I really would feel better getting comfy with at 20 miles rather than continually upping my long runs. And I agree with all of you about the longer midweek runs and overall weekly mileage. I PRed my last half marathon by 20 minutes and it felt easy, and I was not sore after, and it's all due to more days per week and more mileage per week, I believe.
Not to mention, my time ALWAYS improves drastically per every 10 degree temperature drop, so whatever my 20 mile pace is in September, it will be better in November. I would like to finish in 4:30, but honestly, my goal is to finish period, and not feel like I need an ambulance after. I need to victory dance across the finish.0 -
Also, any of you feel free to add me if you want more LDR friends.0
-
19.
I personally don't find the need to even go 20. However, I run around 4 marathons a year. Multiple 14-18 milers seems to be my golden ticket.0 -
How does the training mileage max port over to ultras? If anybody has any input on that...
I haven't trained for an ultra. However, most of what I read depends on higher weekly mileage and back to back long runs to prepare you for ultra distance. So maybe you will do an 18-20 miler on Saturday and do another one on Sunday.
0 -
Depends on the Ultra too. I know several people that compete in the 100milers & 24hr races, and they will actually do 4 or 5 hour runs almost weekly, but then most of the other runs they do, may only be up to 60 or 90minutes.How does the training mileage max port over to ultras? If anybody has any input on that...
I haven't trained for an ultra. However, most of what I read depends on higher weekly mileage and back to back long runs to prepare you for ultra distance. So maybe you will do an 18-20 miler on Saturday and do another one on Sunday.
0 -
I ran 22 before my first marathon, because the local program went up to 22. I also had 2 runs of 20, and one of 21. The 22 was psychologically important because the 21 was a planned 22 where I had a gut bomb and had to abort the run late, after feeling great at 20.
All through the actual marathon, there was that nagging doubt that I could actually run 26.2 miles . . . until I crossed the finish line. Next time, there will be no doubt that I can run the distance.
Based on my experience of stretching the long run but not stretching the weekly volume all that much (peaked at 41 miles per week), I think the folks who say total volume is important are on to something. As I look toward my next marathon, my current focus is on building a better base of weekly mileage more than on building the longest long run. I know I can run 22 miles at an average pace of 8:13 in nice weather and recover well enough to do another long run the next week. I don't know whether I can run 60 miles in a week and still feel good enough to do speed work. That's something to work on.0 -
I was in a small race that had a marathon option, but I wasn't ready to call it my first marathon so I stopped at 40K so 2K short. I was never that anxious to get the last 2K in and was happy with a 40K time. Every time I hear about training plans that max out at 20 miles, I always think to myself that must be why people star the toughest part of the marathon is the last 10K. If that's what most people do, then I guess is enough.0
-
I used Galloway's plan for my first one. He has a two week jump from 14 to 17 miles. Once you get to 17 miles, he has you increase by three miles every third week. So there was a 17, 20, 23, and 26 (I did somewhat more than 26) and then the taper. But Galloway will tell you that the 26 miler serves two purposes. First, it shows that you can do it at the slow training pace. Second, his data suggests that training out to that distance is a safeguard against "the wall" assuming you don't run stupid in the first part of the race.0
-
I know I can run 22 miles at an average pace of 8:13 in nice weather and recover well enough to do another long run the next week. I don't know whether I can run 60 miles in a week and still feel good enough to do speed work. That's something to work on.
It's important that you don't try to build volume and intensity at the same time. If your speed work is 10% of your weekly mileage and you working on increasing the volume, it's a good idea to keep that speedwork at whatever mileage 10% equates to instead of keeping it at the same percentage.
0 -
Second, his data suggests that training out to that distance is a safeguard against "the wall" assuming you don't run stupid in the first part of the race.
I disagree with half of this statement. The only thing that will prevent you from hitting "the wall" is having the proper fitness to go 26.2 and by running at a pace that you can sustain. Running 26+ miles in training has nothing to do with this.
0 -
Every time I hear about training plans that max out at 20 miles, I always think to myself that must be why people star the toughest part of the marathon is the last 10K. If that's what most people do, then I guess is enough.
The reason that the last 10K is the hardest is because that's when most runners are starting to deal with glycogen depletion.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »It's important that you don't try to build volume and intensity at the same time. If your speed work is 10% of your weekly mileage and you working on increasing the volume, it's a good idea to keep that speedwork at whatever mileage 10% equates to instead of keeping it at the same percentage.
Thank you for that cautionary advice. It's my intention to build the mileage more slowly than the 10% per week standard, but I hadn't been thinking about watching how much the speed work builds. Now I'll keep an eye on both volume and quantity of speed work.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »Second, his data suggests that training out to that distance is a safeguard against "the wall" assuming you don't run stupid in the first part of the race.
I disagree with half of this statement. The only thing that will prevent you from hitting "the wall" is having the proper fitness to go 26.2 and by running at a pace that you can sustain. Running 26+ miles in training has nothing to do with this.
Carson:
I'm just repeating what Galloway says about his data. But he, too, indicates it's about training and fitness, weather / temperature and proper gear for conditions, practice in fueling your body to go the distance and proper pace. Nor are his plans particularly short (24 weeks is typical). So, it's not like "go out and run 20 miles and if you can do that, you can run a marathon."
He doesn't suggest that it is something that an untrained person could do easily (for example, on a whim. A friend of mine didn't commit particularly well to the level of training required and she basically walked the Anchorage marathon. She could say that she completed a marathon before she died. But if she was still alive, she would tell that it she should not have blown off the training and it would have been a better experience).
But Galloway also says this about his data he's gathered from people that have previously and recently trained by running shorter distance plans in their training (e.g., 20 miles)...that you can see the fall-off in many runner's pace within about one-mile of the longest distance they've run in training.
He has far more discussion on this point than I am providing here. But you can certainly contact him, present your data and tell him that you disagree with him. I certainly wouldn't discourage you from doing that.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »Second, his data suggests that training out to that distance is a safeguard against "the wall" assuming you don't run stupid in the first part of the race.
I disagree with half of this statement. The only thing that will prevent you from hitting "the wall" is having the proper fitness to go 26.2 and by running at a pace that you can sustain. Running 26+ miles in training has nothing to do with this.
Carson:
I'm just repeating what Galloway says about his data. But he, too, indicates it's about training and fitness, weather / temperature and proper gear for conditions, practice in fueling your body to go the distance and proper pace. Nor are his plans particularly short (24 weeks is typical). So, it's not like "go out and run 20 miles and if you can do that, you can run a marathon."
He doesn't suggest that it is something that an untrained person could do easily (for example, on a whim. A friend of mine didn't commit particularly well to the level of training required and she basically walked the Anchorage marathon. She could say that she completed a marathon before she died. But if she was still alive, she would tell that it she should not have blown off the training and it would have been a better experience).
But Galloway also says this about his data he's gathered from people that have previously and recently trained by running shorter distance plans in their training (e.g., 20 miles)...that you can see the fall-off in many runner's pace within about one-mile of the longest distance they've run in training.
He has far more discussion on this point than I am providing here. But you can certainly contact him, present your data and tell him that you disagree with him. I certainly wouldn't discourage you from doing that.
Honestly I think you 2 are comparing apples to bananas in terms of training between most plans and Galloway's. If I recall, Jeff Galloway's plan is designed to run/walk at a ratio of as much as 1min run/ 1 min walk. I think for my 4 hr goal last time his plan had me running 4 min then walking 1 min. I don't think I'd ever get my heart rate out of a very low aerobic state at that ratio. It also only had you running 30 minutes 2 other times a week. That type of a plan is for someone who just wants to get from point A to point B regardless of how long it takes. I've only really looked at what was on his website and that was the only plan available. He may have others in a book that are designed for someone who wanted to run more. He also had you doing nothing the day before a long run, where most plans would have you running 10-12 miles the day before a 20 mile run to put some wear on the legs. I think at best on the 26 mile long run week you'd only run 33 miles. I can't see how that would properly get anyone more prepared for the last 10k vs a plan that had you peaking at 60-70 miles with only a 20 miles long run.0 -
So this past weekend I ran a 21.5 mile long run (was only intending to run 20 but the weather was nice and my pace was awesome and I had a running buddy that I kept up with). I got my second marathon coming in December.
So last year was my first marathon and I did run a 3x 20 milers and a couple 22 miler runs when it was all said and done going into my first one.0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »Second, his data suggests that training out to that distance is a safeguard against "the wall" assuming you don't run stupid in the first part of the race.
I disagree with half of this statement. The only thing that will prevent you from hitting "the wall" is having the proper fitness to go 26.2 and by running at a pace that you can sustain. Running 26+ miles in training has nothing to do with this.
Carson:
I'm just repeating what Galloway says about his data. But he, too, indicates it's about training and fitness, weather / temperature and proper gear for conditions, practice in fueling your body to go the distance and proper pace. Nor are his plans particularly short (24 weeks is typical). So, it's not like "go out and run 20 miles and if you can do that, you can run a marathon."
He doesn't suggest that it is something that an untrained person could do easily (for example, on a whim. A friend of mine didn't commit particularly well to the level of training required and she basically walked the Anchorage marathon. She could say that she completed a marathon before she died. But if she was still alive, she would tell that it she should not have blown off the training and it would have been a better experience).
But Galloway also says this about his data he's gathered from people that have previously and recently trained by running shorter distance plans in their training (e.g., 20 miles)...that you can see the fall-off in many runner's pace within about one-mile of the longest distance they've run in training.
He has far more discussion on this point than I am providing here. But you can certainly contact him, present your data and tell him that you disagree with him. I certainly wouldn't discourage you from doing that.
I know you were presenting Galloway's findings. I have a lot of issues with his plans and how he markets them and himself. There are many far more accomplished coaches than I that have had these discussions with him. I'd be wasting my breath talking about statistic, which can be massaged to tell just about any story that you want them to.
0 -
I always wondered about the galloway thing...I have a friend who is a coach and some runners who come to her sessions are in the Raleigh Galloway program and she is always telling me about how they are "running 26 this weekend". For someone who runs a 4 hour marathon, that 26 training has got to take them 5 hours-ish! unless its done closer to race pace? If you had a 5 hour goal, you could be out there 6 hours or more.
The effect of that on the body is pretty huge. Impact sport and weight bearing for 5+ hours is not easy to recover from at a cellular level, specially when you are going to go do it all again the next weekend and then again for the race not that long after.0 -
I planned on doing 20 miles but I had a knee injury that interrupted my training. I lost 2 weeks plus conditioning so four days before the marathon I ran 15 miles (which remains the second longest run I've ever done). If I couldn't do the 15 then I wasn't going to run the marathon, if I could then I would. Everything went well and I ran the marathon four days later.0
-
I do at least a 20 and 23 miler0
-
So, I return to address the OP's question...26 miles following Galloway's "train to finish" plan. As a 60 year old marathon first timer, I finished in a relatively satisfying 5:10. I would have been faster had I not stepped on a sweet gum ball at mile 14 and strained my left Achilles tendon. That made running the last 12 miles an interesting challenge. I recovered from that injury and trained out to a maximum distance of 18 miles before my next marathon three months later.
The underlying point is this (lest we lose sight of it), for the first marathon (and subsequent marathons) you have to build enough aerobic base (without getting hurt) to be able to finish the distance without getting hurt before the course is closed. It is possible (but not likely) that you can train out to a single run at a maximum distance of 16 miles for your longest run and run a BQ time in your first marathon. And while weekly mileage is an important correlating factor, so is the make up of that mileage and how it is structured.
For example, if I told you that I am currently running 50-60 miles per week and over the next 24 weeks I am going to gradually up that 90 miles per week before my marathon run, the correlation of the statistics would probably tell you that is a good thing.
But if I told you that I accomplish that by running two 45-minute runs per day (once in the morning and once in the evening), at a very sustainable personal average aerobic pace of 9:00/mile, at least five days per week and gradually up that to six days per week, what would your mileage per week statistics suggest? Could I also begin to throw in a 45 minute run at lunchtime as the weeks wore on and begin to run a little faster while keeping my heart rate in the aerobic zone? (Note: in the past two years since I returned to running, there are only a handful of runs where I don't know what my heart rate profile looks like.)
Would running 90 miles per week at a training pace of 9:00/mile get me a BQ (8:46/mile) for my age group if my maximum distance run was five miles?
I know you were presenting Galloway's findings. I have a lot of issues with his plans and how he markets them and himself. There are many far more accomplished coaches than I that have had these discussions with him. I'd be wasting my breath talking about statistic, which can be massaged to tell just about any story that you want them to.
Well, can't you make that claim about any plan and any coach (including yourself)? I can't help you with this because this is your baggage, not mine. You have to manage the organization of all the 18-wheelers required to haul this baggage around.
However, if your strategy is to cut-off discussion and not have to interact or explain "your issues" by deferring to other "experts," then you can consider your strategy successful.0 -
Carrieendar wrote: »I always wondered about the galloway thing...I have a friend who is a coach and some runners who come to her sessions are in the Raleigh Galloway program and she is always telling me about how they are "running 26 this weekend". For someone who runs a 4 hour marathon, that 26 training has got to take them 5 hours-ish! unless its done closer to race pace? If you had a 5 hour goal, you could be out there 6 hours or more.
The effect of that on the body is pretty huge. Impact sport and weight bearing for 5+ hours is not easy to recover from at a cellular level, specially when you are going to go do it all again the next weekend and then again for the race not that long after.
Carrie:
Actually, Galloway's plan doesn't call for that whether you are running the train to finish or to train for time plans. The train to finish plan is on his website and I think it is only slightly different from the one I originally worked with. He used to post one of his intermediate train for time plans on his website but he took that down when his webpage changed last year. I also have different variants of his intermediate to advanced plans. I like using them as a guide on the "in-between" times when I'm not in that 18-20 week period of training before a marathon. And the more advanced Galloway plans look a whole lot like any number of other plans I currently have accumulated.
As for how the long runs are structured (having actually done this before):
There is a gradual step up in the weekend long runs of two miles every two weeks once you've reached six miles. The premise is that you've got to be able to do three miles on the first weekend on even his most basic plan (you have some work to do if you are a couch potato and can't even start at this point). So, they progress every two weekends as follows: 6, 8,10,12, and 14 miles. On the in-between weekends, the mileage is roughly half the distance of the previous weekend.
Then there is a change in the approach. Two weekends after the 14-mile run, you go to 17 miles. The difference is that instead of two weeks between the mileage increase, it goes to three. So, three weekends later, it is 20 miles, and three weekends after that it is 23, and finally, three weekends after that (and three weeks before the marathon race), it is the 26 mile run. Then into taper mode. The more advanced plans call for the maximum run of 29 miles on the same type of 3 week step increase nut also three weeks before the race. But the advanced plans also have a step up in "repeats" that many plans feature.
Yes, if you are following Galloway's plan you are going to be out there a long time doing that run/walk. Most importantly, you aren't going to be doing anything near race pace nor the run/walk ratio of the actual race. You want the running mechanics to be maintained even though you are going at a slower pace. For the marathon distance, he suggests two minutes per mile slower than your projected race pace, adjusting for temperature/ humidity conditions, and his projected race pace (assuming you do all the training) is based upon periodically running a one-mile test run (he calls it the magic mile).
Now, I haven't run a mile test run on a track in eight weeks to plug into his calculator. That last one in the summer heat was a 7:31 mile. So, Galloway's suggested training pace for me is 11:46 mile. A 20-mile run, like I will be running tomorrow, would take just under four hours. And yes, if I was doing 26 miles (eventually) based upon the last mile test run, it would be more than five hours.
Of course, I'm months out from my next marathon and I'm just rebuilding base miles as well as some shorter speed work during the week. Working on that 80/20 endurance (aerobic) / speed ratio. I kick into a different training mode in November which takes me from the current four day per week running schedule, through five and then six days per week.
Ironically, it was this run/walk approach that gave me my current marathon PR after a "crash and burn" just a week before on another flat South Carolina course (in worse conditions than the previous week). I can definitely attest that running a marathon distance on one weekend (and surviving it) is tough on the body. But one week later, I ran 16 minutes faster than the previous weekend and I really didn't really try to "open the throttle" until the last three miles.0 -
Well, can't you make that claim about any plan and any coach (including yourself)? I can't help you with this because this is your baggage, not mine. You have to manage the organization of all the 18-wheelers required to haul this baggage around.
However, if your strategy is to cut-off discussion and not have to interact or explain "your issues" by deferring to other "experts," then you can consider your strategy successful.
I've already gone on and on about this ad infinitum. I just don't feel like rehashing it given the limited amount of time I have to dedicated to this forum. It's not baggage, it doesn't require me to haul it around. My opinions of Galloway are shared by many. That was my point.
Is it a good plan to go from couch to marathon? Sure, if you think that kind of thing is advisable, it's probably the best way. Is it the best way to run your best marathon? Absolutely not. Ask Jeff Galloway how what his run/walk ratio was when he was running marathons in the low 2+ hour range.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »
Well, can't you make that claim about any plan and any coach (including yourself)? I can't help you with this because this is your baggage, not mine. You have to manage the organization of all the 18-wheelers required to haul this baggage around.
However, if your strategy is to cut-off discussion and not have to interact or explain "your issues" by deferring to other "experts," then you can consider your strategy successful.
I've already gone on and on about this ad infinitum. I just don't feel like rehashing it given the limited amount of time I have to dedicated to this forum. It's not baggage, it doesn't require me to haul it around. My opinions of Galloway are shared by many. That was my point.
Is it a good plan to go from couch to marathon? Sure, if you think that kind of thing is advisable, it's probably the best way. Is it the best way to run your best marathon? Absolutely not. Ask Jeff Galloway how what his run/walk ratio was when he was running marathons in the low 2+ hour range.
Perhaps you have gone on ad infinitum...just not here on this website. That is an easy thing to check through the search function. Nor was there a request (by me) for you to do that. However, this type of deflection is a strategy of avoidance. You may have also had conversations with others who share and conform to your opinion (or you took on and conform to theirs). And you either have evidence that Galloway fraudulently presents his data or you do not.
If he isn't presenting fraudulent data but you think the data actually shows something else, that is different. But that was not your claim...and that is what I term as your baggage. I always warn people that in statistics correlation is not proof of causation. But causation had better show correlation.
Want to know the best answer I've seen you give on Galloway and this issue? I'll paraphrase, but it was that it is impossible to test an individual runner for whether continuous running versus run/walk produced better results because you can really do one or the other in any one training cycle. For any person there are too many variables to consider.
Any individual's experience is, at best anecdotal (as is mine). I've only attempted one race of continuous running. The fact was that I used a different training plan than Galloway's that had me run many more total miles, many more slow miles, and a number of fast finish runs. But the plan had my longest runs capped at 20 miles. I bonked at mile 23 where I was disappointed with the time I ran and felt pretty spent. I can point to at least five different things that contributed to that experience. Then 7 days later I ran my best marathon off the same conditioning sequence, with the addition of a marathon race attempted under race conditions,under worse conditions, using Galloway's method. And I beat my previous weeks time by more than 16 minutes.
In a larger population of runner data, that might fit into some pattern.
Is it proof that running at least 26 miles as my longest distance (the week before) got me a PR? No. Is it proof that run/walk was a faster way to do things? No, but on that day it was. Am I planning using Galloway's run/walk for the next race in March? No. Am I using Galloway's training plan for next March's race? No. I am using his year round plan to help give my recovery structure and to get me back from injury to 35 miles per week (where I have finally reached and feel surprisingly good. But I've been here before so I know what that felt like before and this feels "better"). In a few weeks, I'll switch over to a different plan for the run-up to my next marathon.
From a practical standpoint, there should be a limit where run/walk cannot or will not give you faster times than running continuously and that is the race where you show no change of pace over the entire distance. And to answer your question about Galloway...when he ran his PR of 2:16:35, there was no run/walk ratio that he was using.
However, if you know his fastest run/walk race, you know that it was run some years later and it was a 2:39 run at a target pace of 5:50/per mile with a 20-second walk break every mile.
0 -
However, if you know his fastest run/walk race, you know that it was run some years later and it was a 2:39 run at a target pace of 5:50/per mile with a 20-second walk break every mile.
Wow! that's pretty incredible. I do remember a run last season when I was suppose to go 2x4 miles at tempo and the second 4, I took a walk break and still hit the pace I needed to for that mile. But 5:50s with walks? wow0 -
Carrieendar wrote: »However, if you know his fastest run/walk race, you know that it was run some years later and it was a 2:39 run at a target pace of 5:50/per mile with a 20-second walk break every mile.
Wow! that's pretty incredible. I do remember a run last season when I was suppose to go 2x4 miles at tempo and the second 4, I took a walk break and still hit the pace I needed to for that mile. But 5:50s with walks? wow
Oh, it gets better. His mile repeats were 5:30/mile. I can't imagine running 14 repeats of them as training.
The best single mile time I can remember I ever ran was 5:15 and that was in the summer 42 years ago when I was 20 years old. In those days, I could routinely run a 5:45 mile on the track. I also weighed 145-150 pounds and was at about 6.5% body fat.
But I also wasn't keyed into long distance running or racing. My running was part of the conditioning program for basketball. We kept track of the one-mile running times on the track near where we practiced. We typically ran about 3 miles three times per week and our longest runs were only about 5-6 miles. I also swam laps nearly every day and rode a bicycle to and from work (five miles each way).0 -
How does the training mileage max port over to ultras? If anybody has any input on that...
The typical longest that I've seen for a 100 miler is 50 to 62 miles and for a 50 miler is 31 miles. But those aren't magic numbers, just convenient race distances when you use races as supported training runs. Rob Krar, two time winner of Western States, doesn't do any single long run longer than 35 miles.
I usually take it to 50 but I don't know if that has more to do with needing it as a mental confidence booster. Of late I've taken to alternating back to backs with a single long. This weekend I did my first triple, a 20-30-20 weekend. I have a couple of friends who do this for their training so I thought I'd give it a shot. I did find it simulates the progressive fatigue in a 100 without the wear and tear on your body of going super long on a single run.0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »
Well, can't you make that claim about any plan and any coach (including yourself)? I can't help you with this because this is your baggage, not mine. You have to manage the organization of all the 18-wheelers required to haul this baggage around.
However, if your strategy is to cut-off discussion and not have to interact or explain "your issues" by deferring to other "experts," then you can consider your strategy successful.
I've already gone on and on about this ad infinitum. I just don't feel like rehashing it given the limited amount of time I have to dedicated to this forum. It's not baggage, it doesn't require me to haul it around. My opinions of Galloway are shared by many. That was my point.
Is it a good plan to go from couch to marathon? Sure, if you think that kind of thing is advisable, it's probably the best way. Is it the best way to run your best marathon? Absolutely not. Ask Jeff Galloway how what his run/walk ratio was when he was running marathons in the low 2+ hour range.
Perhaps you have gone on ad infinitum...just not here on this website. That is an easy thing to check through the search function. Nor was there a request (by me) for you to do that. However, this type of deflection is a strategy of avoidance. You may have also had conversations with others who share and conform to your opinion (or you took on and conform to theirs). And you either have evidence that Galloway fraudulently presents his data or you do not.
If he isn't presenting fraudulent data but you think the data actually shows something else, that is different. But that was not your claim...and that is what I term as your baggage. I always warn people that in statistics correlation is not proof of causation. But causation had better show correlation.
Want to know the best answer I've seen you give on Galloway and this issue? I'll paraphrase, but it was that it is impossible to test an individual runner for whether continuous running versus run/walk produced better results because you can really do one or the other in any one training cycle. For any person there are too many variables to consider.
Any individual's experience is, at best anecdotal (as is mine). I've only attempted one race of continuous running. The fact was that I used a different training plan than Galloway's that had me run many more total miles, many more slow miles, and a number of fast finish runs. But the plan had my longest runs capped at 20 miles. I bonked at mile 23 where I was disappointed with the time I ran and felt pretty spent. I can point to at least five different things that contributed to that experience. Then 7 days later I ran my best marathon off the same conditioning sequence, with the addition of a marathon race attempted under race conditions,under worse conditions, using Galloway's method. And I beat my previous weeks time by more than 16 minutes.
In a larger population of runner data, that might fit into some pattern.
Is it proof that running at least 26 miles as my longest distance (the week before) got me a PR? No. Is it proof that run/walk was a faster way to do things? No, but on that day it was. Am I planning using Galloway's run/walk for the next race in March? No. Am I using Galloway's training plan for next March's race? No. I am using his year round plan to help give my recovery structure and to get me back from injury to 35 miles per week (where I have finally reached and feel surprisingly good. But I've been here before so I know what that felt like before and this feels "better"). In a few weeks, I'll switch over to a different plan for the run-up to my next marathon.
From a practical standpoint, there should be a limit where run/walk cannot or will not give you faster times than running continuously and that is the race where you show no change of pace over the entire distance. And to answer your question about Galloway...when he ran his PR of 2:16:35, there was no run/walk ratio that he was using.
However, if you know his fastest run/walk race, you know that it was run some years later and it was a 2:39 run at a target pace of 5:50/per mile with a 20-second walk break every mile.
Obviously you are a Galloway fan boy and that's fine. It works for some people, including you, and that's fantastic. I've stated before and I'll state again, that I am not a fan of this methodology. I don't have the time nor the inclination to go back through all the research that I have done that has lead me to this opinion.
What I don't get is why you feel the need to make this a personal attack with comments like the baggage thing. I don't agree with Galloway. I didn't make any commentary on the people that believe it or that use it.
I'm finished with this.
0
