I want to be good; so please help.

... and if Galloway said jumping off cliffs is good speedwork, would you do it?

I have read most of this thread and I really don't get why you started it. Your subject is "I want to be good so please help", and then when people (in my opinion most of your replies have been non attacking) try to give good advice you attack them with comments reflecting you don't want help. If you wanted to start a "is Galloway's theory a good idea" thread that would be fine. This whole "help me I don't know what I am doing"....then screw you if someone gives you advice really helps tear down the board

Nice message--I do want help, but I need to be convinced of why it is better to run from point A to point B when you can get there faster if you mix in walking with your running. To respond to comments made by others saying that our sport is about running, I say not true. The sport is about getting to the finish line as fast as you can on your feet (no cars, no bikes, etc). Like running the hurdles...that event isn't about clearing the hurdles or being pretty, it is about getting to the finish as fast as possible, even if you knock over every single hurdle along the way.

Whatever wrote:

I have read most of this thread and I really don't get why you started it. Your subject is "I want to be good so please help", and then when people (in my opinion most of your replies have been non attacking) try to give good advice you attack them with comments reflecting you don't want help. If you wanted to start a "is Galloway's theory a good idea" thread that would be fine. This whole "help me I don't know what I am doing"....then screw you if someone gives you advice really helps tear down the board

You go mix in some walking with your running and come back and tell us about your sub 2:30 marathon. I can't wait to read all about it.

Serious,

I thought we gave you some sound advice. Rather you choose to take it is up to you. I have logged over 60,000 miles and 500 races and dozens of marathons in the 2:30's, none were walked. Under 3:00 and walked some, yes. You are not going to be able to run hard enough to make up for the walking time to ave. 5:44 and go under 2:30. But, good luck!

Come on man, give it up. Sure, you hooked me on your first cast, and you've done a nice job of playing a bunch of us for a day or two. I should have seen the mockery in the first bit. My bad. This has been entertaining, anyway, so thanks for breathing some fresh air into things. The board had been getting stale the last while.

As I said before, although nobody here believe's Galloway's method will work at 2:30, no-one has tried it either. So give it your best. We will all be pulling for you. Remember to pull out the hand lettered sign and the pained look at the end. Who are you again, so we can collectively root for you?

[quote]SeriousRunnerof2003 wrote:

Nice message--I do want help, but I need to be convinced of why it is better to run from point A to point B when you can get there faster if you mix in walking with your running.

To respond to comments made by others saying that our sport is about running, I say not true. The sport is about getting to the finish line as fast as you can on your feet (no cars, no bikes, etc). Like running the hurdles...that event isn\'t about clearing the hurdles or being pretty, it is about getting to the finish as fast as possible, even if you knock over every single hurdle along the way.

If this does not convince you why it is faster to run from point A to point B, you cannot be convinced.

Galloway: ?When you walk fast for a minute, most runners will lose about 15 seconds over running at their regular pace. But if you walk slowly, you\'ll have lost only about 20 seconds.?

Beck: Leaving aside any grammatical ambiguities and mismatched clauses here (does my walking really make others lose time? I suppose it does if I get in their way), let\'s assume someone traveling along at eight-minute pace fits into the \"most runners\" category. In a minute, this runner covers just over 200 meters. According to Galloway, the same runner will \"lose about 15 seconds\" by walking fast during that minute, so he?s claiming that this runner will walk 200 meters in 1:15 - ten-minute pace. That\'s a hell of a fast walk, especially considering that many of the walk breaks he advises runners take are designed to coincide with drinking and refueling at aid stations.

Galloway advises runners with goals as lofty as 2:50:00 to try walking. That\'s 6:28 pace; in a minute, runners moving at such a clip cover about 250 meters. In order to \"lose 20 seconds\" in this minute by walking \"slowly,\" such travelers would have to maintain a walking speed of (250m/80 sec) or just under 8:35 per mile; to lose only 15 seconds requires a walking speed of (250m/75 sec) or right around 8:00 per mile. So now our average runner is moving no faster than a fast walker and barely faster than a slow walker.

No wonder this program works: magic!

There is more evidence of Galloway\'s intellectual dishonesty at the link below.

Miles,

Still and all, Galloway's got a lot more people off the couch. Regardless of how precise his claims may be, I don't think he's an idiot (although I'm prepared to defend your right to think so). You don't necessarily have to believe him or agree with him to have at least some measure of respect for what he's accomplished - first as a competitor, and more recently as someone who's moved the masses toward better fitness. Whether he deserves to be slammed for making iffy claims regarding high level runners and walking - maybe so - but in the grand scheme, I think any license he's taken can be forgiven on the merits of what he has achieved. My 2 cents.

Now as far as cracking 2:30 AND getting to walk at the same time - sign me up! I'm ALL for that. I'm looking forward to seeing SeriousRunner's training logs so I can follow in his footsteps.

Well, I was thinking about taking up the marathon, but since I heard of this walk method I have lost all desire.

Excellent. Phase 1 complete.

There is only one reason for taking those walking breaks,

and that is to allow ample time to digest the twinkies and

donuts.

All great marathon courses have properly marked donut

shops at 5k intervals. Ask Mr. Gallomunchy.

[quote]SeriousRunnerof2003 wrote:

Runners World is well-respected in the running circles. quote]

if by running circles you mean the masses of "joggers" that think that completing a marathon in 3:45 is an accomplishment, or that finishing makes everyone a winner. Runner's world is ridiculed in most "Serious" running circles, but Back to the question at hand....

If you want to break 2:30, train hard, and don't walk during the race. its as simple as that. Before you said you can run intervals faster after a rest? well no $hit sherlock, of course you can. But the point that you have missed is that your overall time over the course of the workout is much more than it would have been had you run the whole thing at once. Pacing is the issue, if you are in shape, and go out at the correct pace for your shape, then there should not be a reason to walk. i guarantee you that if you choose gallowalker's style during a race, you will not break 2:30.

go out to your track and try it... run an all out 5k one week, then try besting the overall time with walking breaks the next week... It won't happen.

Coach Butler, 60,000+ miles and Timmy Smith still owned you at every distance over 5 miles. But your advice here is correct.

The truth will set you free and walking will make you faster. There can be no doubt that when you line up next to a runner in a race of serious distance that walking will carry you to victory over that runner. The reason the tortoise will be the rabbit is that the rabbit will hit the wall and die. The patient and smarter walker will beat the over-confident runner 9 out of 10 times. This is the truth; this is a fact and it is proven (I know this because Galloway tells us so, and he is a respected former, Olympic Athlete who didn't walk any of his Olympic Marathon, including the trials from which he qualified therefor).OF COURSE I WAS NOT SERIOUS. How in the world can walking a distance get you to the finish line faster than if you were to run the same distance? Logical extreme....come on...the logical extreme is that if you pace yourself correctly while running the marathon, you'll destroy any time you would have "run" had you incorporated walking breaks. There can be no other reality than that which was implicit in my sarcasm.Galloway is a sellout. He has destroyed the image of our sport while lining his pockets with green. Is this genius? Maybe it was a good business move but to say it was genius...no. Our sport has the image of being one for housewives, Oprah's, fat folks, Big Berthas, and anyone else who can walk the entire distance. It is not about how hard you trained, how hard you ran the "race", what place you finished, or about giving it your all. The marathon now, to many "fans", is about simply finishing...whether by walking, jogging, combination of the two, or by running. There is no distinction drawn between the circus freak who trains daily and runs a respectable time (to those of us who are "real runners") and the Big Bertha who eats donuts along the way. Anyone who argues the contrary is arguing with their eyes closed to reality.On a separate but similar note, what has happened to racing in this country and elsewhere? Racing is simply trying to beat the other competitors to the finish line. There is strategy involved....it is not merely about running a PR every single time or setting a world record every time out. Racing is about taking your opponent, who has a tremendous kick, out super fast--and thus draining him of any energy, hopefully, to unleash such kick. Racing is about beating--not about setting PRs. Word.

Pete wrote:

Come on man, give it up. Sure, you hooked me on your first cast, and you've done a nice job of playing a bunch of us for a day or two. I should have seen the mockery in the first bit. My bad. This has been entertaining, anyway, so thanks for breathing some fresh air into things. The board had been getting stale the last while.

As I said before, although nobody here believe's Galloway's method will work at 2:30, no-one has tried it either. So give it your best. We will all be pulling for you. Remember to pull out the hand lettered sign and the pained look at the end. Who are you again, so we can collectively root for you?

You have me stumped on this one. WHo is Timmy Smith? I think you have me confused for someone fast. I never ran that great. 14:52 5k, 30:50 10k, 1:06 half, 2:25 full. Alot of people owned me : )

My apologies.......I have you cofused wiht another Coach Butler. Your PR's are much faster than him. You're also being too modest (which is rare on these boards); those times you ran are impressive.

I mean no offense to Butler, but he is not being too modest, unless of course he was also working 80 hours a week. For a competitive runner, those times are on the slow to average side. Mid 14's will place you in the average range---and you can see where I'm going. I was an average runner, kinda like Butler...so I am not trying to be offensive.

Dr. Blackjack wrote:

My apologies.......I have you cofused wiht another Coach Butler. Your PR's are much faster than him. You're also being too modest (which is rare on these boards); those times you ran are impressive.

Dr.,

Thank you,

Serious,

Yes I do work full time. I did not start running until the age of 21 in the Air Force. Those times all came while working full time as a technician for Boeing at Kennedy Space Center. I also have a wife of 16 years and two teenage sons and put myself thru college full time while working and raising a family. So while those times are not great, I am happy to have achieved them with a full life as well. Check out our team at geocities.com/htcrosscountry

Thanks

Well, then, I am impressed.