Running using the Jeff Galloway method
cln714
Posts: 174 Member
I am fairly new to running. I did the Couch to 5K and worked my way up to running for 30 mins then worked my way up to running a full 3 miles. When I ran in my first 5K race I found that I really enjoyed running in a pack. So, I joined a running group.
About half of the people in the group run using the Jeff Galloway method of taking frequent short walk breaks. The theory behind this is to conserve your energy to run longer distances and prevent injury. Makes sense, but after doing the C25K, I was so proud of myself when I could run straight thru without intervals. Going back to intervals seems kinda wimpy I guess.
Although, I will say that the people who use this method are anything but wimpy. They have done several marathons, triatholons, and Iron Man competitions. Still, all things considered, I don't know if I want to go that route or not.
I'm just wondering if any of you are familar with the Jeff Galloway method and what your thoughts are about it. I would appreciate any comments or advice.
About half of the people in the group run using the Jeff Galloway method of taking frequent short walk breaks. The theory behind this is to conserve your energy to run longer distances and prevent injury. Makes sense, but after doing the C25K, I was so proud of myself when I could run straight thru without intervals. Going back to intervals seems kinda wimpy I guess.
Although, I will say that the people who use this method are anything but wimpy. They have done several marathons, triatholons, and Iron Man competitions. Still, all things considered, I don't know if I want to go that route or not.
I'm just wondering if any of you are familar with the Jeff Galloway method and what your thoughts are about it. I would appreciate any comments or advice.
0
Replies
-
Personal preference I guess. I'm not a fan of his method but I can't say it won't work for you. It doesn't seem intuitive for fast runners because there's a much larger difference between the pace of running vs. walking for a fast runner then someone who is a slower runner. So it seems a fast runner would have to push themselves very hard to make up the lost time from walking. Plus a fast runner usually has a very solid aerobic base such that they don't need to worry about a lack of endurance for longer distances as much as the more novice runner.
The majority of successful runners do negative splits (running slower early and faster later) during a race because conserving energy is very important in longer distance races for sure. But I would recommend his method in training runs for someone who is still novice and developing endurance for longer distances.0 -
I'm not a fan of Galloway, except for the very new runner just trying to get started. I believe that runners should run. Can you use Galloway's method to complete a marathon? Sure! But if you put the same amount of time into your training and do all of it running (except for the occasional walk break that happens at steep hill or if you just go a little too fast or far), I strongly believe you will perform better.
I guess the real question is, do you just want to survive a marathon (or whatever race distance) or do you want to perform your best. If it is performance you are after, don't go with Galloway, FIRST or any of the other fringe running methods. Do a training program built on Lydiards principles. That what all the world class runners are doing. Maybe I'll change my mind when someone "runs" a 2:08 marathon taking a walk break every ten minutes.0 -
I've been using the Hal Higdeon method to start training for my first half in September. It seems a long ways off, but I just had surgery 6 weeks ago and ran a 10 miler race on Sunday, so gradual steps and re-steps back into the full throttle of training. I know many of the Disney Marathons use Jeff Galloway, but as Carson says, it just seems to defeat the purpose. I think if you have a harness on your breathing as well as your pacing and you are doing good, you should just be able to run. I find it hard to stop and walk and re-start and get into a groove again. That's why, if there's a water stop, I run through it and grab. I hate doing that, because I always feel rude but honestly, if I stop, I won't get started and get my pacing back.0
-
My boss uses Galloway and has completed close to 30 marathons both using it and without using it. He actually has faster times with the Galloway method (because his run intervals are able to be at a faster pace than what he would have to keep if he was going to run the entire time) and he recovers from the marathons faster which means he doesn't have to have as much downtime before pursuing the next marathon he wants to do. He has experimented with various different run/walk ratios and usually uses about a 4/1 ration (running the 4 minutes) for his marathons. For 10ks or shorter he just runs straight through with no rest breaks. I don't think anyone could say he isn't a real runner after all those marathons.
I'm just getting into running and would like one day to run a half marathon. When I do I'm already planning on using Galloway's method.0 -
My boss uses Galloway and has completed close to 30 marathons both using it and without using it. He actually has faster times with the Galloway method (because his run intervals are able to be at a faster pace than what he would have to keep if he was going to run the entire time) and he recovers from the marathons faster which means he doesn't have to have as much downtime before pursuing the next marathon he wants to do. He has experimented with various different run/walk ratios and usually uses about a 4/1 ration (running the 4 minutes) for his marathons. For 10ks or shorter he just runs straight through with no rest breaks. I don't think anyone could say he isn't a real runner after all those marathons.
I'm just getting into running and would like one day to run a half marathon. When I do I'm already planning on using Galloway's method.
There are so many variables that impact your time in a marathon, that I think it would be really difficult to make the claim that he's faster with Galloway than without. Weather, course topology, level of fitness and whether you are just "off" that day all come into play. I'd be curious to hear times. Like is he 4:15 running and 4:10 with Galloway? Also, if he is concerned about recovery for the next marathon, then I'd venture to say that he is running his marathons too close together to really perform at his best. It's really hard to run more than 2 QUALITY marathons per year. If you are doing 5 or 6 a year, none of them are going to be at your very best.
So, like I said before. Galloway can get you through a marathon, but to perform your best, you have to run.
Also, as a foot note. I would never say that someone who uses Galloway is not a real runner. Any person that straps those shoes on (or barefoot!) and gets out the door and runs is a real runner, even if they like to walk a little bit here and there.
0 -
This is all great information. Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you everyone.
Carson, I totally see your point about performance. It sounds like you are a very experienced and fast runner. But for me, being a 40 year old, novice runner, there's not a big difference between my walking pace and running pace. It sounds like there might be a place for Galloway in my training right now. But ultimately I would like to wean off the walk breaks and work on my speed. I'll have to read more about the Lydiard principals. Sounds interesting.0 -
I'm not a fan of Galloway, except for the very new runner just trying to get started. I believe that runners should run. Can you use Galloway's method to complete a marathon? Sure! But if you put the same amount of time into your training and do all of it running (except for the occasional walk break that happens at steep hill or if you just go a little too fast or far), I strongly believe you will perform better.
I guess the real question is, do you just want to survive a marathon (or whatever race distance) or do you want to perform your best. If it is performance you are after, don't go with Galloway, FIRST or any of the other fringe running methods. Do a training program built on Lydiards principles. That what all the world class runners are doing. Maybe I'll change my mind when someone "runs" a 2:08 marathon taking a walk break every ten minutes.
The one thing I want to note about the typical advice to follow Lydiards principles is that probably 99% of all runners have zero interest in ever running at their true potential. Most people would be perfectly content if they never break a 4 hour marathon. So I think the training advice should really be catered to the goals of the individual. I would say Galloway is okay for someone with very modest performance goals. I think FIRST can take most people as far as they would ever want to go. But yeah if you really care about top performance, then you must devote your life to running. And I don't think most people need to be told that.0 -
I'm not a fan of Galloway, except for the very new runner just trying to get started. I believe that runners should run. Can you use Galloway's method to complete a marathon? Sure! But if you put the same amount of time into your training and do all of it running (except for the occasional walk break that happens at steep hill or if you just go a little too fast or far), I strongly believe you will perform better.
I guess the real question is, do you just want to survive a marathon (or whatever race distance) or do you want to perform your best. If it is performance you are after, don't go with Galloway, FIRST or any of the other fringe running methods. Do a training program built on Lydiards principles. That what all the world class runners are doing. Maybe I'll change my mind when someone "runs" a 2:08 marathon taking a walk break every ten minutes.
The one thing I want to note about the typical advice to follow Lydiards principles is that probably 99% of all runners have zero interest in ever running at their true potential. Most people would be perfectly content if they never break a 4 hour marathon. So I think the training advice should really be catered to the goals of the individual. I would say Galloway is okay for someone with very modest performance goals. I think FIRST can take most people as far as they would ever want to go. But yeah if you really care about top performance, then you must devote your life to running. And I don't think most people need to be told that.
I wouldn't say running 8-10 hrs a week is devoting your life to running. That is less than most people watch TV and sufficient to train 60+ miles a week. It is about priorities.
Side note: I am not a fan of Galloway. I believe the man is in it just to make money and I find him quite irritating. I just ran the Princess HM at Disney and he was at the FRONT of the pack (where you shouldn't be if you are walk / running) and spouting off about how you need to take walk breaks so you aren't exhausted at mile 8. I couldn't help myself....I blerted out "not if your train poperly" and everyone around me laughed..BECAUSE IT IS TRUE. If you are properly trained for a HM and run it smart, you don't need to take walk breaks. Same thing wtih a full marathon IMHO
BTW DH and I went on to win the co-ed team division...booyah
(he's a ringer though) 0 -
I'm not a fan of Galloway, except for the very new runner just trying to get started. I believe that runners should run. Can you use Galloway's method to complete a marathon? Sure! But if you put the same amount of time into your training and do all of it running (except for the occasional walk break that happens at steep hill or if you just go a little too fast or far), I strongly believe you will perform better.
I guess the real question is, do you just want to survive a marathon (or whatever race distance) or do you want to perform your best. If it is performance you are after, don't go with Galloway, FIRST or any of the other fringe running methods. Do a training program built on Lydiards principles. That what all the world class runners are doing. Maybe I'll change my mind when someone "runs" a 2:08 marathon taking a walk break every ten minutes.
The one thing I want to note about the typical advice to follow Lydiards principles is that probably 99% of all runners have zero interest in ever running at their true potential. Most people would be perfectly content if they never break a 4 hour marathon. So I think the training advice should really be catered to the goals of the individual. I would say Galloway is okay for someone with very modest performance goals. I think FIRST can take most people as far as they would ever want to go. But yeah if you really care about top performance, then you must devote your life to running. And I don't think most people need to be told that.
I wouldn't say running 8-10 hrs a week is devoting your life to running. That is less than most people watch TV and sufficient to train 60+ miles a week. It is about priorities.
Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.0 -
I'm not a fan of Galloway, except for the very new runner just trying to get started. I believe that runners should run. Can you use Galloway's method to complete a marathon? Sure! But if you put the same amount of time into your training and do all of it running (except for the occasional walk break that happens at steep hill or if you just go a little too fast or far), I strongly believe you will perform better.
I guess the real question is, do you just want to survive a marathon (or whatever race distance) or do you want to perform your best. If it is performance you are after, don't go with Galloway, FIRST or any of the other fringe running methods. Do a training program built on Lydiards principles. That what all the world class runners are doing. Maybe I'll change my mind when someone "runs" a 2:08 marathon taking a walk break every ten minutes.
The one thing I want to note about the typical advice to follow Lydiards principles is that probably 99% of all runners have zero interest in ever running at their true potential. Most people would be perfectly content if they never break a 4 hour marathon. So I think the training advice should really be catered to the goals of the individual. I would say Galloway is okay for someone with very modest performance goals. I think FIRST can take most people as far as they would ever want to go. But yeah if you really care about top performance, then you must devote your life to running. And I don't think most people need to be told that.
I wouldn't say running 8-10 hrs a week is devoting your life to running. That is less than most people watch TV and sufficient to train 60+ miles a week. It is about priorities.
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.0 -
Side note: I am not a fan of Galloway. I believe the man is in it just to make money and I find him quite irritating. I just ran the Princess HM at Disney and he was at the FRONT of the pack (where you shouldn't be if you are walk / running) and spouting off about how you need to take walk breaks so you aren't exhausted at mile 8. I couldn't help myself....I blerted out "not if your train poperly" and everyone around me laughed..BECAUSE IT IS TRUE. If you are properly trained for a HM and run it smart, you don't need to take walk breaks. Same thing wtih a full marathon IMHO
Again, spot on. Galloway ran 2:23 to win the Honolulu Marathon in 1974. I wonder what his walk/run ratio was? He performed at a very high level for years. He knows what it takes to perform versus what it takes to survive.0 -
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. 0 -
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.
Since most people couldn't care less about running sub-3 hour marathons, the whole debate is moot anyways.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
I thought it was about me! :laugh: Just kidding. Interesting debate. Thanks guys!!0 -
Thanks for posting this. I'm starting Hal Higdon's novice half marathon training next week. I just completed his 5k Novice program and I'm doing my own version of a bridge week this week. I'll have 18 weeks to complete his 12 week program, so a bit of breathing room for repeat weeks, stepback weeks, or perhaps a bit more mileage before tapering. I heard someone say "Train how you want to run in the race." While Galloway might make sense for beginning runners, I don't WANT to walk. I want to run. Not to mention, I find it disruptive to my pace to stop and walk and start again. I feel like I do my best running once I get into and stay in my "zone." Personally I feel like Galloway's program would take me out of that and cause me more hardship. That's just me though. What are Lydiard's Principles? I guess I just might have to google now...lol!0
-
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.0 -
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!0 -
My boss uses Galloway and has completed close to 30 marathons both using it and without using it. He actually has faster times with the Galloway method (because his run intervals are able to be at a faster pace than what he would have to keep if he was going to run the entire time) and he recovers from the marathons faster which means he doesn't have to have as much downtime before pursuing the next marathon he wants to do. He has experimented with various different run/walk ratios and usually uses about a 4/1 ration (running the 4 minutes) for his marathons. For 10ks or shorter he just runs straight through with no rest breaks. I don't think anyone could say he isn't a real runner after all those marathons.
I'm just getting into running and would like one day to run a half marathon. When I do I'm already planning on using Galloway's method.
There are so many variables that impact your time in a marathon, that I think it would be really difficult to make the claim that he's faster with Galloway than without. Weather, course topology, level of fitness and whether you are just "off" that day all come into play. I'd be curious to hear times. Like is he 4:15 running and 4:10 with Galloway? Also, if he is concerned about recovery for the next marathon, then I'd venture to say that he is running his marathons too close together to really perform at his best. It's really hard to run more than 2 QUALITY marathons per year. If you are doing 5 or 6 a year, none of them are going to be at your very best.
So, like I said before. Galloway can get you through a marathon, but to perform your best, you have to run.
Also, as a foot note. I would never say that someone who uses Galloway is not a real runner. Any person that straps those shoes on (or barefoot!) and gets out the door and runs is a real runner, even if they like to walk a little bit here and there.
To be fair, I think my best performance would probably be on my motorcycle.0 -
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 2:00.0 -
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.0 -
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 so0 -
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.0 -
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!0 -
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!0
-
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!0 -
You're the one who responded to it. Have a great day! 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions