Run Faster

Another well-respected runner has come out as a defender of Galloway’s run-walk-run method - 1957 Boston Marathon Winner and current Executive Editor of Runner’s World, Amby Burfoot (source: Wikipedia).

In a recent article in Runner’s World, Amby Burfoot talks about how he has successfully used the run-walk-run method to run four marathons, with times from 3:45 to 4:30. Quite a bit off from his personal best marathon time of 2:14:28.8, but nonetheless, quite impressive, especially considering his age (currently 61) and that he says he was only doing what he describes as ‘modest training’, about 20 to 30 miles/week.

Burfoot goes on to describe what he sees as the benefits of the run-walk-run method:

• Running farther, easier - which allows you to build endurance, but, as Burfoot admits, comes at the cost of a reduced training effect compared with running along.

  My comment: agreed.

• Increased variety.

  My comment: debatable. While it’s true, as Burfoot says, that many runners “do the same workout at the same pace every time they run” there’s no reason this has to be the case, whether you’re running or run-walking.

• Better speedwork. Burfoot gives an example of an interval workout he does: jog for 1 minute, run hard for 2 minutes and jog for 1 minute. Then do the 1-minute walk. Repeat this eight times.

  My comment: sounds like a decent workout, but wouldn’t you get even more benefits from doing a more traditional interval workout, with fast running segments alternated with a jog recovery?

• Fewer injuries - Burfoot admits that he can’t prove that run-walking results in fewer injuries, but believes that alternating running and walking allows you do use different muscle groups.

  My comment: agreed - this does seem to make sense, at least intuitively.

• More effective recovery days.

  My comment: again, I’d have to say this is debatable. I think that if you need to recover after a hard workout, you should probably either take a rest day, or you should do some cross-training such as swimming, biking or workout out on an elliptical trainer. Any of those workouts will give you some great endurance benefits while giving your body a break from running.

• Faster comebacks when recovering from injury or illness.

  My comment: probably agree. If you plan to start back from a lapse in training by alternating run/walk segments, you probably are less likely to overwork yourself and relapse.

So what’s my take on run-walking, after considering Burfoot’s article? Maybe I’m just being stubborn, but I’m going to stick to my original opinion. I believe that run-walking can be beneficial, especially for new runners and people that want to run a race distance that they might not otherwise be fit enough to run, but for those of us that are serious about our time goals, it probably isn’t the way to go.

Ironically, I think what persuaded me the most was the following chart from Burfoot’s article, which he was using to make the point that your overall pace will be slower if you run/walk, it might not be as slow as you’d think:

If you run a mile in… (Col. A) and then walk 60 seconds, your overall pace will be…(Col. B)

6:00		6:40
7:00		7:37
8:00		8:34
9:00		9:31
10:00		10:29
11:00		11:26
12:00		12:23

To me, it’s just easier, physically and psychologically, to run at a fairly even pace than it is to rotate running at a faster pace than I would otherwise go with walking.

So, what do you think? Are you a proponent of run-walking? Why or why not?

Related Posts:

• Run-Walk-Run: The Key to Running Faster?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In a recent(?) article on Active.com, Jeff Galloway again discusses his controversial run-walk-run advice for long runs, known in some circles as the “Gallowalking” method. He says:

According to numerous surveys, you’ll also run faster–13 minutes faster in a marathon with walk breaks than in a continuously run event.

My problem with this claim is two-fold. First, I don’t recall ever seeing any actual scientific support for these claims of such dramatic improvement, only anecdotal evidence. The problem with that is that it doesn’t necessarily take into account the different things someone might have done in training between the non-walking race and the run-walking race. For example, did the runner train using the same training plan for both races? Did he follow the plan consistently? Was his general health the same?

Second, as others have pointed out, to get such a dramatic improvement, or even to run the same overall time in a run-walking race as compared to a run-only race, you would have to run significantly faster during your running segments than you would if you were just running. For example, if you wanted to run a 3:30 marathon and were planning on walking for a minute every mile, your running segments would have to be at about a 7:34 pace as compared to about an 8:01 running-only pace. Quite a difference.

Don’t get me wrong…I do think that there can be benefits from taking some walking breaks. As Galloway says, you do use your muscles differently when walking than running, so it makes sense that talking some walking breaks will reduce fatigue, as well as allowing you to recover more quickly. And, certainly, for someone that loves to run but finds that they get injured often, the Galloway run-walk-run method may very well be the perfect solution. But for me, I think I’ll just stick to running my races.

If you want to learn more about Jeff Galloway or his training recommendations, take a look at these resources:

• http://www.jeffgalloway.com
• http://galloway.runnersworld.com/
• Marathon: You Can Do It!
• Half-Marathon: You Can Do It

Related Posts:

• Run-Walk-Run Revisited

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!