Why is walking always viewed so negatively on letsrun when many of the experts promote it?

Certainly false Machismo, and maybe other things not related in any way to facts. I don't know that folks on LetsRun care about regular strollers, but they sure don't care for racewalking. It's a shame because racewalking is a good alternative for runners that have suffered from joint and connective tissue injuries. It puts much less stress on the frame and still works the cardiovascular systems as effectively as running. Not that you can't get hurt racewalking, but the injuries tend to be muscular rather than joints and tendons. And racewalking as an event is good fun. You can be a big fish in a very small pond, with all the perks of any other event. If you want to make the national team and get some nice trips to the big leagues, it's worth a try!

As for the "I never walk in a marathon" thing, that's just machismo. I've run 45 or so marathons and I have walked in every one. Not long, just a few seconds at aid stations so that I can get a good drink without sending Gatorade up my nose. But those short moments of walking always leave me feeling just a bit rested. And I always more than make up any lost time within a minute or so. And with a PR of 2:25, I am happy with the results. * Disclaimer... that PR was from 35 years ago. But I'm still trying :-)

Dane McDean El Camino wrote:

Letsrunners:

Let's talk. Day in, day out, I see a lot of attacks on walking in any way, shape, form or speed on letsrun.

Yes, I get it, it's not letswalk.com

However, in training, there are a lot of factors (and possibly efficiency) that are helped because of walking.

In marathons, some people use walking as a "break" to get the body back on track.

In fact, and I know this has no scientific backing, but I will say it anyway:

If someone runs a continuous six miles and stops, and someone runs 4 and walks 4, then I would almost assess that the work output, calorie count, and efficiency are practically equal.

So besides false machismo, which has no place here because none of us are all that, so stop fronting...what is the real problem here?

Insecurity?

I think you are oversimplifying the issue.

As for the run 6 and run4/walk4 you are right in that the energy expenditure are pretty much equal depending on the intensity. But you need to define "efficiency". Running 6 miles is going to take less time than 4/4 (most likely). If "efficiency" involves time to expend energy then I would say the former is more "efficient".

Alas, the training effects would likely be different.

I have been on this forum for a long time. I see letsrun folks making fun of racewalkers although elite racewalkers often can complete a marathon faster than many (most?) letsrun folks can.

I have also seen the irritation with Gallowalking. Although I take the approach that if the goal is to cover the distance as fast as you can and walk breaks make that happen (and anecdotally it works for some) then do it.

racewalking requires a judge to monitor your foot plant and a judge cannot monitor your foot plant for your whole race

racewalking should not be a sport.

I walk 8 miles a day delivering post. I run 15-20 miles a week. Ran 16:05 for 5k last year. Walking is no joke.

But of course if it wasn't for my job I wouldn't walk a f*cking step! Running is better.

Why would anyone walk in a marathon unless they were out of shape or went out too fast? This website isn't for weight watchers, racewalkwers, or gallowalkers. This behavior deserves to be shamed and if you don't like it, leave!

45yrold wrote:

racewalking requires a judge to monitor your foot plant and a judge cannot monitor your foot plant for your whole race

racewalking should not be a sport.

Plus, it simply looks hideous.

HardLoper wrote:

Why would anyone walk in a marathon unless they were out of shape or went out too fast? This website isn't for weight watchers, racewalkwers, or gallowalkers. This behavior deserves to be shamed and if you don't like it, leave!

Amen

Outside of my running miles I walk 3-5 miles about once a week but on that walk I carry 80lbs with me. If you are already fatigued from a long run the day before you can really benefit from doing something like that. You can lunge, straighten your back and work on a weight assisted body twist.

If it makes you feel better, I walk for 5-10 minutes as a warm up for the warm-up of running.

Truth is that all those walking attackers here have serious ego and self confidence problems, that's why they try to lift themselves up by degrading others. "Oh look at me, I run and you walk. I'm an alpha man". I run for a few reasons: health, fun, and I like the feeling of improvement. Walking doesn't get my heart rate high enough (unless on uphills). Nevertheless, I think the human body isn't made for long distance running. Maybe only for sprints in order to survive, but why would any human in ancient savage times would run for long distances??? If they wanted to move long distances they would either walk or ride some animal. We are not those wildebeests herds that run in the savanna. Walking is way way healthier.

From Hal Higdon:

"Walking is a perfectly acceptable strategy in trying to finish a marathon. It works during training runs too. While some coaches recommend walking 1 minute out of every 10, or even alternating running and walking as frequently as every 30 seconds, I teach runners to walk when they come to an aid station. This serves a double function: 1) you can drink more easily while walking as opposed to running, and 2) since many other runners slow or walk through aid stations, you'll be less likely to block those behind. It's a good idea to follow this strategy in training as well. You will lose less time walking than you think. I once ran a 2:29 marathon, walking through every aid station. My son Kevin ran 2:18 and qualified for the Olympic Trials employing a similar strategy. And Bill Rodgers took four brief breaks (tying a shoe on one of them) while running 2:09 and winning the 1975 Boston Marathon. Walking gives your body a chance to rest, and you'll be able to continue running more comfortably. It's best to walk when you want to, not when your (fatigued) body forces you to."

I know 2:29 and 2:18 are hobby jogging by letsrun standards, but Bill Rodgers' 2:09? Should he have been DQed because he walked?

Dane McDean El Camino wrote:

Letsrunners:

Let's talk. Day in, day out, I see a lot of attacks on walking in any way, shape, form or speed on letsrun.

Yes, I get it, it's not letswalk.com

However, in training, there are a lot of factors (and possibly efficiency) that are helped because of walking.

In marathons, some people use walking as a "break" to get the body back on track.

In fact, and I know this has no scientific backing, but I will say it anyway:

If someone runs a continuous six miles and stops, and someone runs 4 and walks 4, then I would almost assess that the work output, calorie count, and efficiency are practically equal.

So besides false machismo, which has no place here because none of us are all that, so stop fronting...what is the real problem here?

Insecurity?

Methinks you are trolling.

1) If you have to walk in a marathon, then either you became injured or are having another medical issue during the race or you weren't prepared.

2) Calorie count per mile is almost identical whether you walk a mile or run a mile (walking takes longer, so calories lost per minute is more with running). the only difference is that with running you actually bound up and off the ground a tad, so in effect you are traveling a little further with running, so you will but a FEW extra calories per mile (100 vs. 104 perhaps as an example). BUT, this is a site for athletic performance and discussion of such. It is not called "Letsloseweight.com" or "Letsburncalories.com".

3) No false machismo. Discussion walking in the positive would be like going to a Chevy forum and wanting them all to talk positively about Fords.

I bet most walking attackers here are heelstrikers. And heelstriking is not running, it's something in between walking and running.

hobby jogger:

http://community.runnersworld.com/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/125858395819692389/filePointer/127688041817910036/fodoid/127688041817910026/imageType/LARGE/inlineImage/true/blobid0.png

Walking has its place if you're getting back in shape. When I was just getting back into running, I found that I could run a bit more mileage and improve my fitness a lot faster if I took a break when I started to feel rough. For example, I might have been able to run for 15 minutes if I took a break half way through, but I might have only been able to run for 10 minutes without a break.

But if you're actually in shape, there's no reason to walk unless you're doing repeats with planned rest intervals.

Aren't Japanese marathoners big on walking as supplemental, low-stress training?

Why would you walk when you could bike, swim or elliptical though? You can hammer intervals and get much more bang for your buck with little stress on the body.

tinman. wrote:

Why would you walk when you could bike, swim or elliptical though? You can hammer intervals and get much more bang for your buck with little stress on the body.

Because it is more similar to running than those other activities- so you get more benefit for running performance. People don't realize that they could get their HR into an easy training zone by walking fast (not necessary to use racewalking technique, although that is great x training also) - it becomes possible with repetition and practice. Walking sub 11 or even sub 10 minute miles isn't that hard and is a low stress way to train when you aren't able to run more miles. Walking like this is good x training for old (50+) runners avoiding injury.

As a coach being around beginners a lot of the time, I see walking as a kind of epidemic right now. They want to improve and get faster but they're locked into this mentality that they can't run continuous. It's psychological. A lot of them struggle to get past the 3-1 or 5-1 scheme.

Old but still battling wrote:

tinman. wrote:

Why would you walk when you could bike, swim or elliptical though? You can hammer intervals and get much more bang for your buck with little stress on the body.

you get more benefit for running performance..

I don't think so. Swim and bike are vastly superior and less time consuming.