The latest from Galloway/RW

Ok, I am going to reply to my own thread. He then uses himself as example, after twenty years of running he does not need to do as much mileage to "prepare" for a marathon, duh, that is because you ran 20 miles a day for 20 years. Can letsrun somehow get a rebuttle to this?

He doesn?t want to use common sense. He wants finishing a marathon to be an attainable goal for a regular out of shape Joe. He will say WHATEVER it takes to keep lazy people to be turned off from his program. That?s the whole genius of his program. He knows his program is a bunch of bull. He doesn't care. All he cares about is lining his pockets with money. Hey, I got to hand it to the guy. I wish I thought a way to get some of these masses into marathon running.

The guy has been an Olympic marathoner. He knows his "run walk" program isn't the fastest way to finish a marathon. He also knows that his "run walk" program IS the fastest way to fold papers. While we are all at work, he probably at home ironing hundred dollar bills.

I don't think JG is *evil* as some folks do, I just think that he's misleading people. He's talking about folks running 2:30 marathons and improving by walking. Gee, imagine what KK, Tergat, or Geb could do if they started walking! Why, sub 2:00's just around the corner! The icing on the cake is his claim that folks who don't go for the walking bit are just jealous because the run/walkers aren't out there puking or feeling bad. I defy anyone to tell me that they put their body on the edge for over two hours and they felt just great the whole time. Sorry, but pushing the envelope hurts. It's that simple. Having said that, I think it's perfectly OK for someone to run a marathon (or any race distance for that matter) at less than 10/10ths effort (so long as you're not part of a competitive team). That's a personal choice.

I think the real telling part of it all is his quote concerning how difficult his program can be: "These are largely people who had been very sedentary before getting involved in the program." Right. He's dealing with people that aren't UNDER trained, he's dealing with people that are UN trained. Walking makes perfect sense for them. I think, however, that it is foolish and short-sighted to put untrained people on a MARATHON program. If you're really interested in getting folks off the couch and helping them get into a healthy lifestyle, then get them motivated to run CONSISTENTLY first. The consistent application of a modest running program in these folks lives is what will make all the difference in the long term. Eventually, they can work up to the marathon distance, and do so in a safe and effective manner. These crash marathon programs remind me too much of the "check off the box" lifestyle: Went to Paris, check; Saw the great wall of China, check; Ran a marathon, check.... You know, we always hear about all of the people who "made it" through their marathon. I wonder how many of these folks stick with running over the years, how many folks suffered needless injury, and how many folks-in spite of their "success"- would've been better served and happier with a non-marathon run/walk program.

My final thought on this run/walk topic: At what point can you no longer say that you "ran" a marathon? Suppose I took a helicopter up to a 20,000 foot base camp on Everest, acclimated, and then did the final push to the summit over the course of several weeks. Is that sufficient to say "I climbed Everest" vs. starting at Katmandu? For that matter, what if I was dropped off at 25,000 feet or 27,000 feet? Certainly you could say that I stood on the top of Everest, but just as certainly the journey would've been altogether different.

Oh brother, this is such horseshit. This guy is a charlatan.

"They've had to hurt and puke and sometimes get divorces to run fast and they resent the new generation that enjoys finishing the marathon without spending so much time preparing for it."

"Another man told he improved his best from 2:33 to 2:28 by walking about 12 to 15 steps every mile. The bottom line is that there is a macho group who train really hard and never walk who are getting beaten by people who do. And they hate it!"

So when he decided to permit Becheler beat him to make the US Olympic team, did JG break into a run and tell Bacheler to start walking?

Galloway is such a f'n idiot. He's the biggest sellout ever.

As I posted on another forum, if only Frankie Fredericks had known to walk every 10th meter of the Atlanta 200m final, it would be HIS name and not MJ's that was mentioned when people debate the greatest track performances of all time!

Seriously, though, walking occasionally during a long race done at a slow to moderately slow overall pace can help people feel stronger in the latter stages. For the novice marathoner who's not trained to produce a "maximum" performance, having regular walk breaks every few miles CAN conserve energy and make the normally agonizing last few miles feel a lot better. But the closer you get to your potential BEST marathon pace, the ideal strategy is to aim for a STEADY pace (with perhaps a sight negative split). The energy cost of speeding up to a faster-than-average pace after a walk break becomes detrimental if you're trying to run your best possible race. Imagine KK, Tergat or Geb taking 5 minutes worth of walk breaks (covering about 0.35 miles in those 5 min.) and having to run about 4:40 pace for the remaining 25.87 miles in order to go sub-2:06! A rhythm of steady 4:48s is a much more efficient way to approach the thing. 4:40s (even with a minute break every 5 or so miles and even for those guys) would be hard enough to cause extreme discomfort long before the 20M point was reached; in other words, they'd be out of their steady state (or equilibrium) and their precious racing rhythm would be irreparably disrupted. Furthermore, they'd be tapping deeper into the "glycogen tank" at the 4:40 pace, which would cause them to get in trouble fairly early from a fuel depletion standpoint.

Can a 3:00 runner benefit from walk breaks? That's a good question. I would have to say no IF 3:00 is right at that runner's ultimate potential as a marathoner. The same principle of being in a comfortable racing rhythm applies to this runner. For someone who is trying to extract the best possible race out of himself, the difference in effort bewteen 6:50 pace and 6:40 pace is HUGE - suicidal, in fact. And the 3:00 guy would have to run about 6:40 pace during his running segments if he was taking one minute walk breaks every 5-ish miles. Even with the brief rests, that pace would mean trouble. Of course, if this guy was potentially CAPABLE of a 2:50 marathon, he'd be able to use the run/walk method and still get under 3:00 with no trouble. In fact, since 6:40s wouldn't feel too bad for him during the running segments, he might feel BETTER with the walk breaks (i.e., stronger at the end) and would be led to believe that the run/walk method produced better performances. But if he trained and raced up to his full potential, the story would be different.

Another Galloway thread!!! But heck, theyre fun to read to a point.

If the talk is about whether walking helps, I cant imagine getting into a groove at lets say a 6:05 pace and then stopping every freakin mile. I think I'm like most people here and start a marathon at a reasonable pace, working out the kinks etc and then settle into a cruising faster pace that will stay constant till about mile 23-24 and then have to really dig deep to maintain or only slightly slow down the last few miles. Stopping every mile to rest would only make me tighten up and get me out of my mojo and focus.