walk breaks - experiences?

"Kyle E." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone out there tried walk breaks for running a marathon at a
fast time? I am trying to run a sub 3:10 time, but this time I will
be using walk breaks as described in Jeff Galloway's book "Marathon."

What has been your experience with walk breaks? How did they work?
What are the pros/cons? Thanks!

Cons: Irreparable damage to your self esteem. You won't have "run" a
marathon. All your running friends will point to you in the street and
whisper to each other about you. Complete strangers will mock you from the
sides of the race route when you start walking and runners coming up behind
you will get p*ssed off because they'll assume that you're a neophyte who's
set off too fast and is suffering already.

Other than that, it's all good. ;-)

Of course, all the above IMO. Never tried it myself and don't think I'm
likely too either unless it's a trail/hill marathon.

If you do try it, do let us know how you get on.

Tim

Kyle E. wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Has anyone out there tried walk breaks for running a marathon at a
fast time? I am trying to run a sub 3:10 time, but this time I will
be using walk breaks as described in Jeff Galloway's book "Marathon."

What has been your experience with walk breaks? How did they work?
What are the pros/cons? Thanks!

3:10 with walk breaks? How long do you plan to walk and what will your
pace(s) be? I did walk breaks according to the terrain in my 50k, but not
planned. You might do your walk breaks at aid stations? 3:10 seems a fast
pace to try with walk breaks, as your running pace will have to be pretty
high.

-Tony

Kyle E. said:

Has anyone out there tried walk breaks for running a marathon at a
fast time? I am trying to run a sub 3:10 time, but this time I will
be using walk breaks as described in Jeff Galloway's book "Marathon."

What has been your experience with walk breaks? How did they work?
What are the pros/cons? Thanks!

There was one guy who succesefully ran a sub 4 off minimal training using
walk breaks.

But I doubt you'll find many sub 3:10 Gallowalkers.

How do you make the math work for this ? A 3:10 is an average of 7:15min/mile.
A 30 second break each mile means that you need to run at 7:00 minute per
mile. Depending on how ambitious the goal is, that could be a large increase
in pace. Based on the "double and add 10" half-marathon to marathon formula
for example, then the difference between marathon pace and half-marathon pace
is about 22 seconds per mile. So to do a 30 second walk break every mile,
either the running segments need to be awfully close to half-marathon pace,
or you have to be prepared to run a relatively slow marathon.

Gallowalking works fine for runners who aren't pushing the envelope on time--
if you have a 1:30 half marathon for example, you could take 1 minute walk
breaks each mile in the first half of the race and break 3:30. But 3:30
isn't a terribly fast marathon time for a 1:30 half-marathoner.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

<< But I doubt you'll find many sub 3:10 Gallowalkers. >>

What's a Gallowalker
DonVon?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There was one guy who succesefully ran a sub 4 off minimal training using

walk breaks. <<

I did this, but there was still some crash and burn at the end. I was on
3:30 pace through about 19 and finished in 3:44. As a point of reference, I
ran a 1:36:55 half marathon ten days before, which wasn't probably the greatest
idea, either. But the half was a much more important race for me - I mean, I
was actually trained for the distance.
I believe that if you are undertrained, you can use Galloway to go further
than you would if you were to just run stright through. If you are adequately
trained to run the entire distance, though, I don't think that there's anything
to be gained through walk breaks.

Mike

(Kyle E.) said:

Has anyone out there tried walk breaks for running a marathon at a
fast time? I am trying to run a sub 3:10 time, but this time I will
be using walk breaks as described in Jeff Galloway's book "Marathon."

How long are the breaks supposed to be? I wouldn't like the idea of
walking more than a minute.

I did a PB 2h55 marathon with walks of 20-30 secs at each of 7 out of 8
aid stations (every 5k = 21 mins approx) to say hello to the volunteers
and then drink and refuel (Squeezy gel) properly. The splits looked like
this
http://running.steve.free.fr/larochelle_graph_c.jpg

The three slower kms which I marked "the wall?" on the graph were not
the wall at all, just a stupid loss of concentration on a long straight
where I caught a small group containing a guy from the r&d department of
my company.

If I remember rightly, despite that and the unexpected but unavoidable
pee stop in the second half, I did a one minute negative split.

Some would contend that I wasted two minutes at the aid stations. Some
may hold that I didn't really *run* the marathon. I say that's a load of
old bollocks :->

steve common said:

(Kyle E.) said:

Has anyone out there tried walk breaks for running a marathon at a
fast time? I am trying to run a sub 3:10 time, but this time I will
be using walk breaks as described in Jeff Galloway's book

"Marathon."

Quoted message said:

How long are the breaks supposed to be? I wouldn't like the idea of
walking more than a minute.

I did a PB 2h55 marathon with walks of 20-30 secs at each of 7 out of

8

Quoted message said:

aid stations (every 5k = 21 mins approx) to say hello to the

volunteers

Quoted message said:

and then drink and refuel (Squeezy gel) properly. The splits looked

like

Quoted message said:

this
http://running.steve.free.fr/larochelle_graph_c.jpg

The three slower kms which I marked "the wall?" on the graph were not
the wall at all, just a stupid loss of concentration on a long

straight

Quoted message said:

where I caught a small group containing a guy from the r&d department

of

Quoted message said:

my company.

If I remember rightly, despite that and the unexpected but

unavoidable

Quoted message said:

pee stop in the second half, I did a one minute negative split.

Some would contend that I wasted two minutes at the aid stations.

Some

Quoted message said:

may hold that I didn't really *run* the marathon. I say that's a load

of

Quoted message said:

old bollocks :->

Thanks for the info.

Hi Stève, how are you ?

Are you comming in Balma this friday ?

Now, we are returned from USA !

Am running along platte river near Denver and green lake in Seattle, good
spot for running !

Ciao, pace e salute,
d'Esnambuc,

steve common said:

(Kyle E.) said:

Has anyone out there tried walk breaks for running a marathon at a
fast time? I am trying to run a sub 3:10 time, but this time I
will be using walk breaks as described in Jeff Galloway's book
"Marathon."

How long are the breaks supposed to be? I wouldn't like the idea of
walking more than a minute.

I did a PB 2h55 marathon with walks of 20-30 secs at each of 7 out
of 8 aid stations (every 5k = 21 mins approx) to say hello to the
volunteers and then drink and refuel (Squeezy gel) properly. The
splits looked like this
http://running.steve.free.fr/larochelle_graph_c.jpg

The three slower kms which I marked "the wall?" on the graph were
not the wall at all, just a stupid loss of concentration on a long
straight where I caught a small group containing a guy from the r&d
department of my company.

If I remember rightly, despite that and the unexpected but
unavoidable pee stop in the second half, I did a one minute
negative split.

Some would contend that I wasted two minutes at the aid stations.
Some may hold that I didn't really *run* the marathon. I say that's
a load of old bollocks :->

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

How do you make the math work for this ? A 3:10 is an average of

7:15min/mile.

Quoted message said:

A 30 second break each mile means that you need to run at 7:00 minute per
mile.

Donovan is quite correct here -- if you're fast enough to really run 3:10,
walking just makes it harder: you'd have to practically be running half
marathon pace when not walking. It doesn't make sense.

Off the top of my head, here's where walking makes sense (and I've done my
share in ultras). There are probably many more scenarios:

1. You need to keep your effort to a certain % of v02 max to finish without
bonking. Example: a 50 mile race, and heartrate shouldn't rise above 145,
for example. Then a steep hill arrives: You have to slow down to a 3.5 mph
shuffle to keep your effort down. For many people, this is the point where
it becomes more efficient to walk. Or you can't even slowly jog up a hill
without leg burn -- you've got to walk, or you'll burn through your glycogen
too fast. Even the winner of the Angeles Crest 100 walks part of the climb
out of Chantry Flats.

2. You're not in condition to even jog the full distance. This would apply
to an undertrained marathoner, or many non-elite ultra runners. If you
throw in walking breaks (run 20min, walk 5, or walk the steep uphills),
you'll be able to cover the distance successfully, using the break for
recovery, recharge, eating, etc. Often in longer races, one gets the
"frankenstein" effect and dead legs come alive after a break.

But back to your point, if you're in shape for a 3:10 marathon, and it's not
a mountainous course, just run the thing and take minimal walk breaks to get
your fluids/carbs.

-- Dan

In article <[email hidden]>,

(M1ahearn) said:

I believe that if you are undertrained, you can use Galloway to go
further
than you would if you were to just run stright through. If you are
adequately
trained to run the entire distance, though, I don't think that there's
anything
to be gained through walk breaks.

Here's the big thing: if you're going to need to walk at some point
anyway, you're going to be a hell of a lot faster if you take the walk
breaks before you *have* to. For example, staggering the last 4 miles is
going to be a lot slower than walking the same 4 miles in small chunks
throughout the race, since you'll walk faster *and* run faster that way.

At least, that's how I see it.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

You rebel. I'll bet you jog when you're supposed to be walking too,
don't cha?

<<
You rebel. I'll bet you jog when you're supposed to be walking too,
don't cha? >>

not this morning.
i walked when supposed to jog.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Kyle E. said:

Has anyone out there tried walk breaks for running a marathon at a
fast time? I am trying to run a sub 3:10 time, but this time I will
be using walk breaks as described in Jeff Galloway's book "Marathon."

What has been your experience with walk breaks? How did they work?
What are the pros/cons? Thanks!

There was one guy who succesefully ran a sub 4 off minimal training using
walk breaks.

Quoted message said:

But I doubt you'll find many sub 3:10 Gallowalkers.

And I think you'll find more than you think. I don't use the
technique in a stand-alone marathon, but use it for an Ironman.

Quoted message said:

How do you make the math work for this ? A 3:10 is an average of 7:15min/mile.

Found the following on Galloway's web site:

Time goal of 3:22-3:29: 30 seconds walking every mile
Time goal of 3:16-3:21: 20 seconds walking every mile
Time goal of 3:08-3:15: 15 seconds of walking every mile
Time goal of 2:50-3:07: 10 seconds of walking every mile

The key is taking the walk breaks early and consistently, allowing you
to run at an overall faster pace.

It certainly works for me in an IM. At this Saturday's Great
Floridian, I was in 12th place (out of 14 in AG) coming off the bike.
I felt great (for a change) and fell into my planned jog/walk.

I passed 9, 10, and 11 - all who were from 45 minutes to over an hour
ahead of me. If I'd been a little closer to breaking 16 hours, I could
have pushed an even better pace, but settled for passing people all
night and finishing out of danger. My run split was the 6th best of
the 12 finishers, faster than 6, 7 and 8. Number 8 was still an hour
ahead of me, so there's no way I could have caught him. 13 and 14
dropped out or didn't make the cut-off.

If I'd pushed the early miles, running without breaks, I know I would
not come close to doing that time. I'd have died.

There is much anecdotal evidence of folks running faster marathons
overall using Galloway than they had before trying it. Even some
pretty fast runners.

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"

Mike Tennent said:

Quoted message said:

How do you make the math work for this ? A 3:10 is an average of 7:15min/mile.

Found the following on Galloway's web site:

Time goal of 3:22-3:29: 30 seconds walking every mile
Time goal of 3:16-3:21: 20 seconds walking every mile
Time goal of 3:08-3:15: 15 seconds of walking every mile
Time goal of 2:50-3:07: 10 seconds of walking every mile

And less than 2:50 ? (-; I think by the time you're down to 10-15 seconds a
mile walk break, the effect of it diminishes substantially. It might help you
to take in some fluids (instead of just spilling the drink all over yourself),
but besides that I don't see much point.

Quoted message said:

It certainly works for me in an IM. At this Saturday's Great

Yes, but you're not running at faster than a 3:10 pace. And an IM is a little
bit longer than a marathon (-; I'd bet that a lot of people end up taking
"walk breaks" sooner or later in those things, even if it's not part of the
plan. So better to do them early and keep them brief, instead of being forced
to a walk or a crawl at the end.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

There is much anecdotal evidence of folks running faster marathons
overall using Galloway than they had before trying it. Even some

Yes, and there is much evidence of folks making improvements on their marathon
times without using Galloway. Galloway himself did nearly exactly the opposite
of everything he recommends in the days when he was competitive. How many
elite athletes is he coaching ?

The problem is that the "control group" also improves, so the fact that the
"treatment group" doesn't get any worse (according to "anecdotal evidence"😉
doesn't make a very compelling case.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

So better to do them early and keep them brief, instead of being forced
to a walk or a crawl at the end.

And that's the case that Galloway makes. That you shouldn't wait until
you "have" to walk - and by putting the breaks in on a set basis, your
overall speed average works out to be better.

The question, of course, is whether it's a valid strategy for someone
who is capable of 3:10 without walking. Will it result in a faster
time? And with all the variables in a marathon, can you attribute any
increase to it?

I can't argue either way from experience, since I've never done it as
a deliberate strategy in a stand-alone marathon. Nor am I capable of
3:10.

I'm not an advocate of walking in a marathon, but it apparently does
work for some people.

Quoted message said:

The problem is that the "control group" also improves, so the fact that the
"treatment group" doesn't get any worse (according to "anecdotal evidence"😉
doesn't make a very compelling case.

True, but how many other expert racing techniques have been validated
by control groups? Is the Galloway method being held to a different
standard of proof?

One can argue that none of the elite runners use it, so it can't be
valid. But elite coaches used to advocate not drinking liquids. None
of the elite runners drank, so that was clear proof, right?

If pressed, I would say that it's a valid strategy to consider for
back-of-the pack, middle-of-the pack or slightly better runners, but
probably not for elite runners.

Until some elite tries it and proves everyone wrong. <g>

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"

Ignoramus6961 said:

Mike Tennent said:

Time goal of 3:22-3:29: 30 seconds walking every mile
Time goal of 3:16-3:21: 20 seconds walking every mile
Time goal of 3:08-3:15: 15 seconds of walking every mile
Time goal of 2:50-3:07: 10 seconds of walking every mile

Mike, I find this concept very interesting. What is the exact
purpose/biomechanism of walking improving running time? What is it
that "recovers" enough during a short walking interval, that lets one
finish faster?

Here's the link to Galloway's page where I found the above:

http://www.jeffgalloway.com/training/walk_breaks.html

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"

Mike Tennent said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

So better to do them early and keep them brief, instead of being forced
to a walk or a crawl at the end.

And that's the case that Galloway makes. That you shouldn't wait until
you "have" to walk - and by putting the breaks in on a set basis, your
overall speed average works out to be better.

The question, of course, is whether it's a valid strategy for someone
who is capable of 3:10 without walking. Will it result in a faster
time? And with all the variables in a marathon, can you attribute any
increase to it?
I can't argue either way from experience, since I've never done it as
a deliberate strategy in a stand-alone marathon.

Likewise (and in my case, I probably never will, as I hope to be off
Galloway's chart very soon) But I'm very skeptical.

Quoted message said:

I'm not an advocate of walking in a marathon, but it apparently does
work for some people.

I'm not sure how you can measure "work for some people". It might "work
for some people", in the sense that it helps them finish, and they feel
satisfied with the end result, but that doesn't answer any question I'm
interested in (e.g. would their end result be better if they didn't walk)

Quoted message said:

True, but how many other expert racing techniques have been validated
by control groups? Is the Galloway method being held to a different
standard of proof?

I think any technique must be tested against some sort of control -- in
the sense that the results must be compared with results that were obtained
by not using the technique. For example, training volume is something that
can reliably be shown to affect performance, at least up to 50 miles or
so. Take a 70mpw runner, and cut his milage to 30mpw and see what happens
to performance after an appropriate period of detraining. Or get two 50mpw
runners of comparable ability, have one increase his milage to 70mpw, and
the other hold constant. Who will be faster by the end of the year ?

Interval training methods have undergone more stringent standards, in that
they've been studied in clinical trials, and published in peer reviewed
journals.

IMO, Galloway doesn't make the cut. He's a good salesman and that's about
it.

Quoted message said:

One can argue that none of the elite runners use it, so it can't be
valid. But elite coaches used to advocate not drinking liquids. None
of the elite runners drank, so that was clear proof, right?

Well yes, it's possible that Galloway's advice is only applicable to "the
average" runner, and not elites. But that's not my point.

I don't think Galloway would advise an elite marathoner to take walk
breaks anyway. But my point about elite athletes was that I think the
guy is more of a salesman than a serious coach.

Quoted message said:

If pressed, I would say that it's a valid strategy to consider for
back-of-the pack, middle-of-the pack or slightly better runners, but
probably not for elite runners.

Until some elite tries it and proves everyone wrong. <g>

Well, apparently Bill Rodgers came to a dead stop for water at a Boston
marathon. He ran a 2:09. I wonder what the Galloway formula recommends
for a 2:09 marathoner ? If we extrapolate, a single 30 second walk break
might be fairly close (-;

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Mike Tennent said:

There is much anecdotal evidence of folks running faster marathons
overall using Galloway than they had before trying it. Even some
pretty fast runners.

When you get into longer distances (24 hr, iirc), the walk / run
strategy sometimes triumphs over the run-only strategy in US national
championship races. When skilled in both, using the two means of
locomotion gives muscles a chance to recover and the lower effort of
walking allows better food processing. I think he used something on the
order of 25 min run / 5 min walk.

Dot

--
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste
away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

Dot dot.h@#duh?att.net said:

Mike Tennent said:

There is much anecdotal evidence of folks running faster marathons
overall using Galloway than they had before trying it. Even some
pretty fast runners.

When you get into longer distances (24 hr, iirc), the walk / run
strategy sometimes triumphs over the run-only strategy in US national
championship races. When skilled in both, using the two means of
locomotion gives muscles a chance to recover and the lower effort of
walking allows better food processing. I think he used something on the
order of 25 min run / 5 min walk.

These guys are averaging a very slow pace. For example, the womens record
is an average pace of about 6mph (10 minutes per mile). That's a very slow
pace -- a good runner can go quite a bit faster than that without getting
close to anaerobic territory, and without causing much muscle damage. It's
not really about speed anymore, it's about economy and survival. I suppose one
could say that the marathon is about economy and survival, but not to the same
extent: even a good local runner can run it at close to their LT, and much
faster than their training pace for a marathon (burns energy fast, much faster
than the speed at which one can replenish glycogen stores, and leads to a crash
in less than 4 hrs if one tries to maintain it that long), whereas a 24 hour
race is usually run at a slower pace than ones aerobic training pace. If
someone told me I had to maintain a 10 minutes per mile average on a track, for
as long as possible, I'd use walk breaks -- it's just not that much harder for
me to run at 9mpm.

I suspect that the slow paces suggest that the sources of fatigue are somewhat
different to what one typically encounters in marathons (or even ultras, though
a tough ultra course may well be similar in some ways for the "average" ultra
runner). For example, total body fatigue resulting from a combination of sleep
deprivation and the absence of any sort of rest in a 24hr period would probably
be a factor (I don't think *walking* for 24 hours would be all that easy)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/