According to former Olympian Jeff Galloway, running fast is not fun

It was the first edition, which was fairly Lydiardesque. I did use walking breaks to build up my long runs quickly. To me it was a logical extension of the interval principle. I never ran farther than a 1/2 marathon off it though, and actually transitioned to a successful 40+ career in the 800/1500.

---

not an age thing, IMO wrote:

---

Muscletoe wrote:

His original book on training helped me get back into running, and the training was plenty fast. I ran 1:18 in my masters debut to win a road race outright my one and only time (20 years ago). Good dude, seems to be making a good living. If people want to run faster they will find other resources (I'm not sure what his current program endorses).

---

Exactly!

which edition? I assume you mean original to be the first edition of the same name.

I found the second edition to be rubbish. That's just my opinion, however.

---

---

areusure? wrote:

---

kartelite wrote:

Next thing you know there will be something called "Gallowalking."

---

There is already!

---

---

kartelite wrote:

---

areusure? wrote:

---

kartelite wrote:

Next thing you know there will be something called "Gallowalking."

---

There is already!

---

I know - it's called irony. Around 2002 or so you couldn't come to LetsRun without seeing a thread about it. That, debating the benefits of LSD, and ripping on RunnersWorld were pretty much the pastimes of the board.

---

---

The Donger wrote:

It's not fun. It freaking hurts.

I love the feeling of being fit. I enjoy working hard. But no, it's not fun.

---

2003 called... It wants its message board topic back.

Dam liberals next thing you know running fast will be called racist

Just to note, the quote is a bit out of context. It pertains more to running/training the least amount of Miles to finish a marathon is more enjoyable.

A lot of this is a semantic argument. What is "enjoyable" and "fun"? Is "goal setting" and "PRs" purely "fun"?

In a certain way, there is a point. While most runners thrive on challenges, goals, and PRs, the day-to-day training to run fast and be competitive is a slog. Psychologically, unless you are hard-wired for competition, it can burn you out. The switch can't be "on" all the time.

And in the context of a marathon, probably most runners would be happier running a BQ of 3:09 running 50 miles a week as opposed to running a 2:55 off of 70-80 mpw. Everyone says they want the 2:55, but 20 weeks of higher mileage could make you miserable when dealing with work and family and all the other stuff of life.

Merely running 45-60 minutes a day is more enjoyable than faster training. And I mean this more in the sense of stress relief, clearing the mind, enjoying your surroundings, and enjoying a conversation with a running partner. Rocking a hard workout is more of a sense of accomplishment, but the actual workout is not "fun". Pushing paces, doing tempos and progression runs, doing long runs, etc., are more about callousing yourself. It is more about the acceptance of the work that needs to be done to achieve certain goals as opposed to simply having it be fun and enjoyable. Psycholigically, it is a different buy-in.

---

kvothe wrote:

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/21584_10153291217287322_8719309421247450991_n.jpg?oh=d7cc4fcc8d1a166c68fc47aae5b7c3e4&oe=5708BB66

He says that its more enjoyable to run the least you can to finish a given distance than to train to run it as fast as you can.

Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

Personally, I find slogging along rather boring and like the lung searing feeling you get finishing a workout all out.

---

Differently wired here. It's the faster and challenging stuff I like. And running sub effort in a race, e.g., tempo for a 5K or 10K might have its place, going harder is actually more fun.