Galloway as a speaker

Kelly M said:

I had the chance to listen to Jeff Galloway speak at the Spirit of St. Louis Marathon pre-race
dinner. I was very disapointed. I guess I was expecting something inspirational, something
personal, some talk about his running experiences - or coaching - that would be of interest to
people who were about to finish their dinners, go to bed, and wake up and run a marathon. But,
instead, he came of as kind of a salesman, explaining his walk-run method. He even (patronizingly,
in my opinion) polled the audience for people's expected finishing times, then told them their
recommended intervals for walking and running.

----Galloway IS nothing but a salesman. Any former elite runner like himself knows that his method
is bogus and is not the best way to get a marathon PR. Yet he pushes it anyways, even saying that
elites could benefit from his method. What a crock. His only contribution to running is that a lot
more people have FINISHED marathons because they used his plans. I know people on here have done
that, and I'm not knocking their accomplishment, I fully support anyone out there covering that
distance. However, wouldn't it be an even greater achievement for them if they actually RAN the
whole marathon? Stopping to grab some water is one thing, but scheduling walk breaks is not RUNNING
a marathon (here come the flames...). It makes me sick that this guy is making himself wealthy by
fooling people into believing they aren't capable of running a marathon and must rely on his
crutch-plan, when I'm sure most everyone on his plan could succeed in running the whole thing if
someone equally as charismatic convinced them so and put them on a real training plan. Like I said,
I'm not knocking you if you've followed one of his plans to finish a marathon, I respect anyone who
gets out there and does it. I don't respect a guy making a fortune fleecing the running public into
believing they aren't capable of reaching their goals and must settle for his solution. Andy Hass

In article <[email hidden]>, <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

----Galloway IS nothing but a salesman. Any former elite runner like himself knows that his method
is bogus and is not the best way to get a marathon PR. Yet he pushes it anyways, even saying that
elites could benefit from his method. What a crock.

Let's narrow the focus, perhaps, for the crockery. It may well be the best way for some folks to
get a PR, for instance. People who have a hard time slowing down to a proper, sustainable, pace
for the running side could benefit. They'll run the running part faster, but get sufficient
recovery in the walk to average out properly. As a f'rinstance.

Quoted message said:

His only contribution to running is that a lot more people have FINISHED marathons because they
used his plans. I know people on here have done that, and I'm not knocking their
accomplishment, I fully support anyone out there covering that distance. However, wouldn't it
be an even greater achievement for them if they actually RAN the whole marathon? Stopping to
grab some water is one thing, but scheduling walk breaks is not RUNNING a marathon (here come
the flames...).

Considering that Bill Rodgers stopped dead in more than one marathon, including some that he won,
it doesn't seem a meaningful distinction. (The Rodgers rule for tying your shoes, remember.)

People can make their own calls about what achievement they want to target. Fine by me. (Notice
that 'but' is coming up.)

Quoted message said:

It makes me sick that this guy is making himself wealthy by fooling people into believing they
aren't capable of running a marathon and must rely on his crutch-plan, when I'm sure most
everyone on his plan could succeed in running the whole thing if someone equally as charismatic
convinced them so and put them on a real training plan.

The 'crutch-plan' aspect is, imho, more a matter of opinion. Ok, you don't like that approach, and
I'm not that favorable either (though my reason is more that I have to walk to drink, so by
drinking appropriately, I'll wind up with a 'gallowalk'😉.

The spot where, in my mind, it truly hits the fan is not that people walk/run, or finish marathons
slower than they might, or that is 'disrepects the achievement', or any of those aesthetic points.

I part company where it is touted, successfully, as a couch to marathon in 4 months (or 6) plan.
To heck with aesthetics, this is putting people to the start line of a marathon before their body
has even finished first order adaptation to the fact that they're not still sitting on the couch!
Worse, it's putting these people whose bodies are still adapting to running and regular exercise,
period, out on the race course for 5-6-7-9 hours! Being marginally well prepared for a race of 6
hours (my time in my trail ultra), I look at those couch to marathoners being out for 6 hours +
and cringe in horror at what is going on to their bodies. In that respect, I'm glad they're doing
some walking (I did in my ultra, totally without shame). Otherwise they'd need body bags.

Aesthetics are debatable. Setting up groups of people to risk serious injury is
malpractice (imho).

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this
great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more
abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Quoted message said:

Let's narrow the focus, perhaps, for the crockery. It may well be the best way for some folks to
get a PR, for instance. People who have a hard time slowing down to a proper, sustainable, pace
for the running side could benefit. They'll run the running part faster, but get sufficient
recovery in the walk to average out properly. As a f'rinstance.

----In this case, the run/walk is still not the best way.. The best way is to learn how to pace
properly. This is the #1 reason people sub-perform at marathons at EVERY level.

Quoted message said:

Considering that Bill Rodgers stopped dead in more than one marathon, including some that he
won, it doesn't seem a meaningful distinction. (The Rodgers rule for tying your shoes,
remember.)

----Yes, but stopping a couple times briefly is not the same as walking significant portions and
then running faster to try and make it up.

Quoted message said:

People can make their own calls about what achievement they want to target. Fine by me. (Notice
that 'but' is coming up.)

----That's true, point taken. I agree with you here, which is why I tried to say that I respect the
efforts even if it isn't a give-away-your-life- to-get-a-PR attempt.

Quoted message said:

The 'crutch-plan' aspect is, imho, more a matter of opinion. Ok, you don't like that approach,
and I'm not that favorable either (though my reason is more that I have to walk to drink, so by
drinking appropriately, I'll wind up with a 'gallowalk'😉.

----True too...but it still bothers me that people need to give this guy money to tell them how to
turn in sub-par performances. Anybody can do that!! Walking while running full speed is a learned
art that I only recently mastered. I get around it by accelerating slightly coming into the stop,
then slowing slightly to take water, and accelerating slightly coming out.

Quoted message said:

I part company where it is touted, successfully, as a couch to marathon in 4 months (or 6) plan.
To heck with aesthetics, this is putting people to the start line of a marathon before their
body has even finished first order adaptation to the fact that they're not still sitting on the
couch! Worse, it's putting these people whose bodies are still adapting to running and regular
exercise, period, out on the race course for 5-6-7-9 hours! Being marginally well prepared for a
race of 6 hours (my time in my trail ultra), I look at those couch to marathoners being out for
6 hours + and cringe in horror at what is going on to their bodies. In that respect, I'm glad
they're doing some walking (I did in my ultra, totally without shame). Otherwise they'd need
body bags.

---You hit the nail on the head there, I forgot that point. This is actually one of the
biggest reasons I dislike the guy. The other is that he takes what might me a passable plan to
FINISH a marathon, and instead of stopping there, has to try and tote it as the ULTIMATE way
to run one. Andy Hass

Quoted message said:

However, wouldn't it be an even greater achievement for them if they actually RAN the whole
marathon? Stopping to grab some water is one thing, but scheduling walk breaks is not RUNNING a
marathon (here come the flames...).

No flames :-)

I ran my first marathon, in 3h28m, and arrived completely shagged-out.

In my last marathon, I stopped+walked for around 20secs at the first 7 aid-stations to drink
comfortably (each 5km up to 35k). I finished in 2h55m, fresh and well enough to jog 2km back to the
car at a faster pace than the guys who were finishing in ~4:15.

I don't feel that the first race was a greater achievement just because I ran all the way.

I can run 42k non-stop once every fortnight, at 13km/h average pace. So what? Finishing as fast as
possible seems more impressive to me and I'm still not convinced either way (to stop or not). I'd
like to do 15km/h average (2h48) and if that means stopping 20secs from time to time, it's all the
same to me.

I *do* wonder about those 2 minutes "wasted" though. So, at my next "serious" marathon, in June, I
intend to try the "run it all" to see what happens. Hopefully there'll be some useful conclusion,
amongst (but not limited to):
- stopping/walking wastes time
- not stopping, just to say I ran it all, is fine for the ego but is a lousy race strategy for
maintaining highest overall pace
- makes no difference either way

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Let's narrow the focus, perhaps, for the crockery. It may well be the best way for some folks
to get a PR, for instance. People who have a hard time slowing down to a proper, sustainable,
pace for the running side could benefit. They'll run the running part faster, but get
sufficient recovery in the walk to average out properly. As a f'rinstance.

----In this case, the run/walk is still not the best way.. The best way is to learn how to pace
properly. This is the #1 reason people sub-perform at marathons at EVERY level.

That's a rather higher standard of 'best'. Sometimes you have to work on getting from here to
there. Not that I disagree with you as a matter of optimality. By all means everyone would be best
served by having an excellent pacing sense and the ability to carry it out in spite of the race
day excitement etc.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The 'crutch-plan' aspect is, imho, more a matter of opinion. Ok, you don't like that approach,
and I'm not that favorable either (though my reason is more that I have to walk to drink, so by
drinking appropriately, I'll wind up with a 'gallowalk'😉.

----True too...but it still bothers me that people need to give this guy money to tell them how to
turn in sub-par performances. Anybody can do that!!

Well, yes and no. There's always the matter of salesmanship, which is essential to any variety of
coaching. Your athlete has to _believe_ you when you say that something is the case. Being
believable is not easy. Knowing the contents of Noakes, Glover and Schuder, Pfizinger and Douglas,
... is much easier.

Plus 'sub-par' is hard to define. For instance, for my first marathon (whenever that turns out to
be) I'm planning on running extremely negative splits. The point being that until I've run a
marathon, I can't really be positive about what my marathon time might be. The spread from
different estimators based on my race times at other distances, from 5k to half marathon, is about
50 minutes. (Note that the spread is there for each of the distances, not a matter of my 5k being
disproportionate to the 10 mile time.) So I'll do the first half at the conservative end, to mile
20 at the median estimates if the legs are willing, and the last 10k at the optimistic end, legs
willing. This will almost certainly give a 'sub-par' result, unless it turns out that the
conservative estimates are correct. Still, I vote for that and finishing strong over crash and
burn. Next time out, of course, I'll be looking for faster. (If there is a next time.)

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Walking while running full speed is a learned art that I only recently mastered. I get around
it by accelerating slightly coming into the stop, then slowing slightly to take water, and
accelerating slightly coming out.

You're going to have to demonstrate this sometime. Can you get a quicktime video? Walking while
running full speed must definitely be a learned art!

(Thinko for drinking?)

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this
great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more
abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Robert Grumbine said:

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Let's narrow the focus, perhaps, for the crockery. It may well be the best way for some folks
to get a PR, for instance. People who have a hard time slowing down to a proper, sustainable,
pace for the running side could benefit. They'll run the running part faster, but get
sufficient recovery in the walk to average out properly. As a f'rinstance.

----In this case, the run/walk is still not the best way.. The best way is to learn how to pace
properly. This is the #1 reason people sub-perform at marathons at EVERY level.

That's a rather higher standard of 'best'. Sometimes you have to work on getting from here to
there. Not that I disagree with you as a matter of optimality. By all means everyone would be
best served by having an excellent pacing sense and the ability to carry it out in spite of the
race day excitement etc.

I think the point is that folks are not taking the time to LEARN how to pace themselves. It is not
something you are born with (although some are better than others). You learn better pacing by
experience ... in long races and workouts.

You can't expect to go out the first time and run exactly even splits no matter how fit you are. It
just takes practice, patience and experience.

-Keith

P.S. I too admit to slowing to a fast walk for about 5 seconds at each water stop ... not because I
think the walking will help me finish faster ... but because I know that getting all of the
water in me instead of on me makes a huge difference in finishing faster.

--
Keith Gemeinhart Technology Service Corp. Sebring, FL
--

steve common said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, wouldn't it be an even greater achievement for them if they actually RAN the whole
marathon? Stopping to grab some water is one thing, but scheduling walk breaks is not RUNNING a
marathon (here come the flames...).

Quoted message said:

No flames :-)

Quoted message said:

I ran my first marathon, in 3h28m, and arrived completely shagged-out.

Quoted message said:

In my last marathon, I stopped+walked for around 20secs at the first 7 aid-stations to drink
comfortably (each 5km up to 35k). I finished in 2h55m, fresh and well enough to jog 2km back to
the car at a faster pace than the guys who were finishing in ~4:15.

Quoted message said:

I don't feel that the first race was a greater achievement just because I ran all the way.

Quoted message said:

I can run 42k non-stop once every fortnight, at 13km/h average pace. So what? Finishing as fast as
possible seems more impressive to me and I'm still not convinced either way (to stop or not). I'd
like to do 15km/h average (2h48) and if that means stopping 20secs from time to time, it's all the
same to me.

Quoted message said:

I *do* wonder about those 2 minutes "wasted" though. So, at my next "serious" marathon, in June, I
intend to try the "run it all" to see what happens. Hopefully there'll be some useful conclusion,
amongst (but not limited to):
- stopping/walking wastes time
- not stopping, just to say I ran it all, is fine for the ego but is a lousy race strategy for
maintaining highest overall pace
- makes no difference either way

---What were your splits like in that first marathon (no walking)? Did you slow down significantly
at the end? My GUESS would be 1) you did and that means you went out too fast to run an optimal
time, or 2) you weren't yet conditioned for the marathon, and the second time around you probably
could have run even faster had you run an evenly-paced race under 2:55. I don't know that either one
of these is true, but both are often the case. My first marathon I was guilty of both. If you are
properly conditioned for a marathon, you can run fairly close to your aerobic threshold the whole
way and this produces an optimum time. If you try to walk/run, you will need to spend a lot of time
faster than your aerobic threshold to make up the time. This will eventually fill your blood with
lactate and down you go. This is why Galloway's method is NEVER the optimal way for a conditioned
athlete to run, no exceptions (a big statement but I stand by it). If you weren't quite in shape for
the whole distance, then I can see that maybe you could not run anywhere close to threshold for the
distance and a few breaks might help you run closer to it. Andy Hass

Quoted message said:

---What were your splits like in that first marathon (no walking)? Did you slow down significantly
at the end?

I did 3:28 for a 3:24 target. I'd planned a negative split of 1 minute. plan real 10k 48'20 49'09
21k 1:42 1:43 30k 2:25 2:26 42k 3:28 3:24

I went through the first 30km on target (counting for the 45" it took to pass the starting line) but
had a very hard time between 31km and 38km, where I lost 3 minutes (km37 took 5'59!).

Basically I had no idea how hard it was going to get.. But I'm no longer convinced that this was
really "the wall", because I picked up speed again when I realised it was all in the mind (thanks to
words from the
3:30 pacemaker, who'd caught me at km38).

The last 4km were done at, or faster than, the target pace of 4'50"/km (4'52, 4'42, 4'39 et 4'34).

Interestingly, I'd based my target pace on my 21k PB (1:34 at the time) That gave an objective = 2 x
HM time + 10% (average training) => 3:28 or 5% (optimal training) => 3:19

So I split the difference => 3:24...

Quoted message said:

My GUESS would be 1) you did and that means you went out too fast to run an optimal time, or 2)
you weren't yet conditioned for the marathon, and the second time around you probably could have
run even faster had you run an evenly-paced race under 2:55.

I think 2) is nearer the truth: it was just a question of experience. If I'd known about Ozzie's sky
hook, and other energy-savers, at the time, I think I'd have run evenly all the way, as I did in my
second marathon (few seconds negative split) and the last one (1 minute negative).

Quoted message said:

This is why Galloway's method is NEVER the optimal way for a conditioned athlete to run, no
exceptions (a big statement but I stand by it).

I'll definitely do the Mont Saint Michel marathon, running all the way. We'll see what happens (BTW,
my marathon pace corresponded nicely to the sports department's evaluation of : 161-165bpm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Walking while running full speed is a learned art that I only recently mastered. I get around
it by accelerating slightly coming into the stop, then slowing slightly to take water, and
accelerating slightly coming out.

Quoted message said:

You're going to have to demonstrate this sometime. Can you get a quicktime video? Walking while
running full speed must definitely be a learned art!

Quoted message said:

(Thinko for drinking?)

----Duh, yeah, I meant DRINKING while running. That's what I get for typing before my morning
caffeine... Andy Hass

I think the hydration breaks are a "natural" pause in a ver long run - not to mention quite a bit
shorter than Galloway's planned breaks. I tried the Galloway method in training and found that I was
more fatigued by the stopping and starting than if I had just dropped my pace by, say, ten seconds
per mile. Learning to pace yourself is, I agree, the key to happy running.

In article <[email hidden]>, steve common

Quoted message said:

In my last marathon, I stopped+walked for around 20secs at the first 7 aid-stations to drink
comfortably (each 5km up to 35k). I finished in 2h55m, fresh and well enough to jog 2km back to the
car at a faster pace than the guys who were finishing in ~4:15.

I don't feel that the first race was a greater achievement just because I ran all the way.

I can run 42k non-stop once every fortnight, at 13km/h average pace. So what? Finishing as fast as
possible seems more impressive to me and I'm still not convinced either way (to stop or not). I'd
like to do 15km/h average (2h48) and if that means stopping 20secs from time to time, it's all the
same to me.

I *do* wonder about those 2 minutes "wasted" though. So, at my next "serious" marathon, in June, I
intend to try the "run it all" to see what happens. Hopefully there'll be some useful conclusion,
amongst (but not limited to):
- stopping/walking wastes time
- not stopping, just to say I ran it all, is fine for the ego but is a lousy race strategy for
maintaining highest overall pace
- makes no difference either way

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is why Galloway's method is NEVER the optimal way for a conditioned athlete to run, no
exceptions (a big statement but I stand by it).

Quoted message said:

I'll definitely do the Mont Saint Michel marathon, running all the way. We'll see what happens
(BTW, my marathon pace corresponded nicely to the sports department's evaluation of : 161-165bpm.

---Good luck, that is indeed a good correlation to that heartrate. Andy Hass