"Long run facts
Thirteen miles with walk breaks equals 13 miles continuously's at any speed, Twenty miles with walk breaks equals 20 miles run continuously's at any speed (but you recover faster with walk breaks). "
That's from Galloway's website. Anyone want to chime in. I thought I read an interview with Lydiard saying after 20 seconds of non-running, you lose the full benefits you would have received had you continuously run.
Thanks a lot for pushing my buttons.
I'll put it this way-- based on my marathon results and spectating, when I see the majority of sub-3:30 marathoners using walk breaks, I'll believe in them.
Perhaps there is a grain of truth / good advice in advocating no-faster-than-necessary pace for long runs.
A 20-mile long run????? lolololol!
Lydiard and Galloway are both interesting because they basically have developed their theories the same way. Both have arrived at their conclusions through trial and error, experiment and observation. While both are good students of the science of running, neither has invested that heavily in the scientific method or tried to substantiate their findings with citation to research.
My thought is that for a runner who finds a 9 min mi pace to be challenging, Galloway may be the way to go. For a runner who finds a 6:30 min mi pace to be challenging, Lydiard is probably on point. Or, put another way, there is a big difference between the kind of runner that is trying to break 2:50 and the kind of runner trying to break 4:00. To train the two the same way is probably a big mistake.
Anybody who's ever tried this can tell you that he's right about the "you recover faster with walk breaks" bit. As for "the benefits being the same", you'd have to be able to quantify and measure "benefits" to say one way or the other. For Galloway's core audience, that is, slower runners looking to complete a marathon on relatively modest training, it may well be true enough. For elites, probably not so much. There's a lot of coaching theories out there. If you don't buy into this one, then just move along to something you believe in.
My personal opinion is that novice runners building mileage and experienced runners coming back from a layoff would do well to consider Galloway's approach to long runs. Well conditioned runners probably not, though there's little harm in slowing down to take a drink now and then.
Not really. I know a guy who went from over 4:00 to close to 2:50 by just running a lot and gradually doing it faster. Lydiard, not Gallowank.
Galloway is a great way to remain slow and steady if that's your goal.
Since recovery and lack of damage seems to be his main selling point then not actually running seems to be an even more advanced method.
Are there any published training logs of Galloways'? He made an Olympic team. It would be interesting to see if he took walk breaks.
It's been a while since I've seen a Galloway thread here and I'm shocked that the responses have been thoughtful rather than the usual bashing of Gallowalkers.
SMJO wrote:
Not really. I know a guy who went from over 4:00 to close to 2:50 by just running a lot and gradually doing it faster. . . . Since recovery and lack of damage seems to be his main selling point then not actually running seems to be an even more advanced method.
Just as a counterpoint, aren't "just running a lot" and "recovery and lack of damage" kind of closely related? It's not exactly the program Galloway is selling, but if one could in fact get "the same benefit" from long runs with walk breaks and incur less recovery, then one could run more and thus gain more net benefit for the total program, no? It's essentially an extension of the philosophy of not hammering the long runs which is pretty widely accepted as "truth".
SMJO wrote:
Not really. I know a guy who went from over 4:00 to close to 2:50 by just running a lot and gradually doing it faster. Lydiard, not Gallowank.
Galloway is a great way to remain slow and steady if that's your goal.
Since recovery and lack of damage seems to be his main selling point then not actually running seems to be an even more advanced method.
Obviously, if you have the ability to run 2:50, but do not have the training for it, Lydiard will get you there, Galloway will not. But for those who do not have the ability to run 2:50, Galloway may be the way to best enjoy the sport by minimizing injuries and maximizing recover.
I can run 20 mi and get up the next day and feel great on the next run. Other people I know are sore and can barely slog through a recovery run after 20 mi. People who are made to run 2:50 will have success with Lydiard. People who are not made to run 2:50 can do better with Galloway.
Creed wrote:
after 20 seconds of non-running, you lose the full benefits you would have received had you continuously run.
Obviously that isn't true, if it was, then interval training wouldn't work. You can apply the interval training concept to your long runs also. You don't have to run them continuously. Long fast runs are a different thing altogether. You should do them also.
SpeedyGonzalez wrote:
Are there any published training logs of Galloways'? He made an Olympic team. It would be interesting to see if he took walk breaks.
What Jeff himself did is irrelevant. The point is the walking breaks are for aspiring marathoners who are trying the distance for the first time. And it's known that walking breaks allow you to both cover the longer distances successfully as you move up, and better recover afterwards. And we all know walking breaks help any runner with intervals.
If the 2:50 guy I know had bought the Galloway philosophy he'd still be running around 4:00.
Most of the people he started running with are.
My girlfriend started doing Marathons with the Galloway philosophy and stagnated at 4:20.
Switched to just running and did 3:55.
As I recall, like most running gurus, Jeff has plans for beginners, intermediates, and advanced runners. And running marathons does tend to take a few cracks before you break through, so it will typically take a few years to reach your potential.
I would say that for any distance and speed, running continuously will increase the training benefit of the run, but also increase the price you must pay in terms of recovery and time needed to adapt to the training.
For an easy long run, the additional benefit of running continuously likely exceeds the lowered cost of recovering faster due to walking.
For interval training at fast paces, the additional benefit of running continuously would easily be outweighed in many cases by turning the workout into a race, or in some cases make the workout impossible; turning 10x400 at mile pace into 4k at mile pace continuously isn't exactly feasible.
So I would say both of you are right, and Galloway is definitely wrong in a lot of what he says.
I just don't get the anti Galloway bravado here. So 93% of letsrunners can beat 4 hours? Who cares?
If he was just marketing this stuff towards >3:30 marathoners and soccer mom types, I doubt anyone would care too much. I've seen him claim that even runners doing under 2:50 for a marathon would run faster by taking walk breaks DURING the race. I think he perpetuates a generally lazy attitude towards running and racing.
That being said, when my older co-workers ask me how to get into running, I do tell them to take walk breaks if needed in the beginning. It's not bad advice if you're planning on running for 4+ hours, or are really overweight.
I have never understood how anyone can run up to 29 miles on Sunday while taking 3 days off or doing cross training and only short runs on the other days, (between 25 to 65 mins). There simply isnt the base during the week to support a long haul run or even running a 5K race on Sunday.
That's what puzzles me. People will claim that there is no way they could run 3 miles every day(and possibly increase that gradually so that they can run between 3 and 9 miles every day) and yet they can somehow safely put together a weeks worth of three mile runs into one day.
SpeedyGonzalez wrote:
Are there any published training logs of Galloways'? He made an Olympic team. It would be interesting to see if he took walk breaks.
Galloway ran 140 miles per week. Did the typical interval work of the time and also long steady runs in the 20 plus mile range.
His current training ideas came together long after he finished topline running. They seem to be based on a program used to train runners to complete the Honolulu Marathon back in the 80s.
caveman wrote:
I have never understood how anyone can run up to 29 miles on Sunday while taking 3 days off or doing cross training and only short runs on the other days, (between 25 to 65 mins). There simply isnt the base during the week to support a long haul run or even running a 5K race on Sunday.
Yeah, I have to agree. I've known lots of new runners who try to do this sort of thing then wonder why they break down. Same with the FIRST program.