Galloway Pace Group

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by David Stracener, Aug 12, 2004.

  1. I ran the Marine Corps Marathon last year and was impressed with the
    Galloway groups (even though in the early miles I thought they were a
    menace). They were passing me easily in miles 20-23. I'm hoping to
    run faster than 3:30 this year and am interested to hear your thoughts
    on the Galloway method of pacing/finishing the marathon.
    TIA

    --
     
    Tags:


  2. marathoner52

    marathoner52 Guest

    the only positive thing i can say about the galloway training method is that
    at least he stresses long runs of marathon distance or greater. other than
    that his program is another scam as he attempts to suck in the gullible at a
    cost of anywhere between $99-$149. now i remember attending one of his
    seminars about 4 years ago where he gleefully told the story about this
    woman who never did a stitch of exercise in her life. then she decided to
    join his program and after 6 months she was running a marathon. yeah sure
    she was. i wonder how long it took her in days to run the marathon distance.
    "David Stracener" <stracener@nospamdotnetpci.com> wrote in message
    news:120820042039493084%stracener@nospamdotnetpci.com...
    > I ran the Marine Corps Marathon last year and was impressed with the
    > Galloway groups (even though in the early miles I thought they were a
    > menace). They were passing me easily in miles 20-23. I'm hoping to
    > run faster than 3:30 this year and am interested to hear your thoughts
    > on the Galloway method of pacing/finishing the marathon.
    > TIA
    >
    > --
     
  3. bj

    bj Guest

    I'm not a marathoner, or a Galloway-er, but even in 5k races I've passed
    "swifties" who dashed past me early on (as if they had lined up too far
    back). I pass by them in the last k or so. I once trundled by a couple of
    youngish guys (who had sped past me at around 1mi) at about the 4mi point
    (while they were on a walk-break, looking rather beat, too) in a 5mi race
    and finished ahead of them by nearly a minute. I think seeing the old
    lady they had passed so easily 3 miles back not only catch up with but pass
    them spurred them on to "finish well"!

    Early speed isn't everything at any distance!
    bj

    "David Stracener" <stracener@nospamdotnetpci.com> wrote in message
    news:120820042039493084%stracener@nospamdotnetpci.com...
    > I ran the Marine Corps Marathon last year and was impressed with the
    > Galloway groups (even though in the early miles I thought they were a
    > menace). They were passing me easily in miles 20-23. I'm hoping to
    > run faster than 3:30 this year and am interested to hear your thoughts
    > on the Galloway method of pacing/finishing the marathon.
    > TIA
    >
    > --
     
  4. Colm

    Colm Guest

    "marathoner52" <marathoner52@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:55ydnUlKjtnuv4HcRVn-rg@comcast.com...
    > the only positive thing i can say about the galloway training method is

    that
    > at least he stresses long runs of marathon distance or greater. other than
    > that his program is another scam as he attempts to suck in the gullible at

    a
    > cost of anywhere between $99-$149. now i remember attending one of his
    > seminars about 4 years ago where he gleefully told the story about this
    > woman who never did a stitch of exercise in her life. then she decided to
    > join his program and after 6 months she was running a marathon. yeah sure
    > she was. i wonder how long it took her in days to run the marathon

    distance.

    I did a 4:06 marathon within 6 months of starting to run (age 36, sedentary
    lifestyle). It's not as wild a claim as you seem to think.

    --
    Colm
     
  5. Sam

    Sam Guest

    Not sure where to go. For one thing I worked for Jeff for a bit as a coach
    for his "veteran" runners.

    The people I was around seemed very pleased with the program and many came
    back for subsequent training groups. The people liked that they were able
    to train in a group and the long runs were well supported.

    I have trained people to finish a marathon where they went from 0 to the
    marathon in 6 months. It is not all that hard and Jeff has tons of these
    stories.

    For the record, I do not think that is the best way to go, but that is a
    recent philosophical decision.


    "marathoner52" <marathoner52@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:55ydnUlKjtnuv4HcRVn-rg@comcast.com...
    > the only positive thing i can say about the galloway training method is

    that
    > at least he stresses long runs of marathon distance or greater. other than
    > that his program is another scam as he attempts to suck in the gullible at

    a
    > cost of anywhere between $99-$149. now i remember attending one of his
    > seminars about 4 years ago where he gleefully told the story about this
    > woman who never did a stitch of exercise in her life. then she decided to
    > join his program and after 6 months she was running a marathon. yeah sure
    > she was. i wonder how long it took her in days to run the marathon

    distance.
    > "David Stracener" <stracener@nospamdotnetpci.com> wrote in message
    > news:120820042039493084%stracener@nospamdotnetpci.com...
    > > I ran the Marine Corps Marathon last year and was impressed with the
    > > Galloway groups (even though in the early miles I thought they were a
    > > menace). They were passing me easily in miles 20-23. I'm hoping to
    > > run faster than 3:30 this year and am interested to hear your thoughts
    > > on the Galloway method of pacing/finishing the marathon.
    > > TIA
    > >
    > > --

    >
    >
     
  6. Edward

    Edward Guest

    "marathoner52" <marathoner52@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<55ydnUlKjtnuv4HcRVn-rg@comcast.com>...
    > the only positive thing i can say about the galloway training method is that
    > at least he stresses long runs of marathon distance or greater. other than
    > that his program is another scam as he attempts to suck in the gullible at a
    > cost of anywhere between $99-$149. now i remember attending one of his
    > seminars about 4 years ago where he gleefully told the story about this
    > woman who never did a stitch of exercise in her life. then she decided to
    > join his program and after 6 months she was running a marathon. yeah sure
    > she was. i wonder how long it took her in days to run the marathon distance.


    In six months (October 1982 to April 1983) I went from > 40 cigarettes
    a day, absolutely no exercise whatsoever apart from opening beer
    bottles, to running the London Marathon in 2h 58m. I didn't follow
    the "Galloway Training Method" whatever that is.

    Edward
    --
    The reading group's reading group:
    http://www.bookgroup.org.uk
     
  7. Tony

    Tony Guest

    I don't know the Galloway marathon method specifically, but I was interested
    in Galloway because he experimented with different combinations of frequency
    / duration / intensity in the past. I looked at "Galloway's Book on
    Running" 2nd ed., and I liked the philosophy and training programs in there,
    though in that book he end a 1/2 marathon program. It's very similiar to
    how I usually break up my week, with cross training or rest on mon / wed /
    fri, and runs on tues / thurs / sat (long), with rest on sat.

    The other thing he talks alot about is walking breaks for long runs in
    particular, and for races as well. To me this makes a great deal of sense
    when you don't feel particularly strong or over difficult terrain when
    continuous running would make the overall effort level too high. Also, it
    would have a general interval effect, allowing the body some recovery and
    over time adaptation to being on the feet longer. For those interested in
    serious competition Galloway's ideas may or may not work. For me some of
    these ideas suit my training style and help my ability to complete long runs
    under control. At the very least I think many recreational runners I see
    huffing and puffing around the lake here would be wise to do some walking
    breaks. For ultra distances walking breaks are a proven technique, if not
    for the recent speedy champions like Scott Jurek, for most others, and for
    past distance champions of the 6-day races.

    - Tony

    David Stracener wrote in message
    <120820042039493084%stracener@nospamdotnetpci.com>...
    >I ran the Marine Corps Marathon last year and was impressed with the
    >Galloway groups (even though in the early miles I thought they were a
    >menace). They were passing me easily in miles 20-23. I'm hoping to
    >run faster than 3:30 this year and am interested to hear your thoughts
    >on the Galloway method of pacing/finishing the marathon.
    >TIA
    >
    >--
     
  8. gym gravity

    gym gravity Guest

    David Stracener wrote:
    > I ran the Marine Corps Marathon last year and was impressed with the
    > Galloway groups (even though in the early miles I thought they were a
    > menace). They were passing me easily in miles 20-23. I'm hoping to
    > run faster than 3:30 this year and am interested to hear your thoughts
    > on the Galloway method of pacing/finishing the marathon.
    > TIA
    >
    > --


    I hope they stay single file if they are all going to gallowalk as a
    group. They should probably have a pace keeper in the back of the line
    wearing a vest or a flag or both, kind of like a "wide load" sign, for
    safety.
     
  9. I think the Galloway programs are very dependent on the leader of the
    program that you're involved with. I was enrolled in a program in 2000 here
    in SE VA--and was quite unhappy with the program I was involved with, and
    made my complaints known to the Atlanta headquarters, and got my money back.

    I found that the team leader was quite supportive to the 4 hour marathoners,
    who were most of the group. I was a *second time marathoner* and a 5 hour
    marathoner at that--and I and another woman who was slightly faster than me
    got the short end of the stick and were left largely on our own on the
    longer runs. Things improved slightly when a woman who had attended one of
    Jeff Galloway's running camps out West came on to assist with the group--but
    it still ended up that I was left in the dust on the 2 longer runs (16 and
    18 miles) I finished before leaving the group. I did the last 10K of each
    of those runs totally on my own.

    There's a different team leader for the Galloway group in Virginia Beach
    now, and hopefully there's more success with the program now. I think the
    team leader when I was involved was asked to leave the program later that
    fall. In any case, there is a different group leader down there now.

    Folks who can start from nothing and successfully complete a marathon in 5
    hours (and especially closer to 4 hours) or less I think are individuals who
    are somewhat athletically and genetically gifted in the first place--they
    are biomechanically efficient (generally *neutral* runners with only slight
    pronation) and probably have a better than average VO2 Max and lactate
    threshold. They also are more likely thinner rather than larger boned, or
    even overweight. Even though I had done previous running and was coming to
    the program with being able to run 60 minutes at a 10: 30 to 11:00 pace, the
    weekly increase in mileage was too much for me and I didn't do the Richmond
    Marathon that fall as I wanted to.

    The *rest* of the population who fall outside the optimal parameters ( like
    me) will have more problems with Galloway's or *any* marathon training
    program that purports to advertise *completing a marathon* in 6 months or
    so. Being less than efficient in form, body type or cardiovascular ability
    serves to put undue stress on the body, eventually causing nagging
    injuries--like what happened with me. I aborted the program in 2000, and
    trained mostly on my own the next year, and completed the Chicago Marathon
    in 2001 in 5:24:39. I went ahead and did that race even though I was unable
    to complete the very long runs--I only did four 14 to 15 mile runs before
    that race, in addition to the rest of my weekly running. I felt that I
    was probably close to the best shape I could realistically hope to be in,
    and that time and age were working against me (I'm in my late 40's). I also
    made *second running career* PR's in 5K and 8K that year, and haven't come
    close to those times since.

    5:24:39 is my *marathon PR*--my 2 other completions (Boston in 1996 and NYC
    in 2002) are even slower. Many of you would sneer at a 5:24 PR marathon
    time, but most likely that will remain my PR. Since then I've had many
    injuries and a weight gain--and I'm back to square one as far as my running
    is concerned. My marathon days are probably over, and I'll be very happy to
    work back to running my local 5K and 10K races, and doing the Rock n' Roll
    1/2 Marathon in Virginia Beach every September. Being on my feet for over 5
    hours for a marathon is too much wear and tear on my body!

    If running and completing a marathon were so easy, everyone would be doing
    it!

    My two cents on this issue--

    YMMV--

    Jean in VA

    "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:qG3Tc.1$ZY3.0@trndny08...
    > I don't know the Galloway marathon method specifically, but I was

    interested
    > in Galloway because he experimented with different combinations of

    frequency
    > / duration / intensity in the past. I looked at "Galloway's Book on
    > Running" 2nd ed., and I liked the philosophy and training programs in

    there,
    > though in that book he end a 1/2 marathon program. It's very similiar to
    > how I usually break up my week, with cross training or rest on mon / wed /
    > fri, and runs on tues / thurs / sat (long), with rest on sat.
    >
    > The other thing he talks alot about is walking breaks for long runs in
    > particular, and for races as well. To me this makes a great deal of sense
    > when you don't feel particularly strong or over difficult terrain when
    > continuous running would make the overall effort level too high. Also, it
    > would have a general interval effect, allowing the body some recovery and
    > over time adaptation to being on the feet longer. For those interested in
    > serious competition Galloway's ideas may or may not work. For me some of
    > these ideas suit my training style and help my ability to complete long

    runs
    > under control. At the very least I think many recreational runners I see
    > huffing and puffing around the lake here would be wise to do some walking
    > breaks. For ultra distances walking breaks are a proven technique, if not
    > for the recent speedy champions like Scott Jurek, for most others, and for
    > past distance champions of the 6-day races.
    >
    > - Tony
    >
    > David Stracener wrote in message
    > <120820042039493084%stracener@nospamdotnetpci.com>...
    > >I ran the Marine Corps Marathon last year and was impressed with the
    > >Galloway groups (even though in the early miles I thought they were a
    > >menace). They were passing me easily in miles 20-23. I'm hoping to
    > >run faster than 3:30 this year and am interested to hear your thoughts
    > >on the Galloway method of pacing/finishing the marathon.
    > >TIA
    > >
    > >--

    >
    >
     
  10. Dot

    Dot Guest

    Tony wrote:
    >
    > The other thing he talks alot about is walking breaks for long runs in
    > particular, and for races as well. To me this makes a great deal of sense
    > when you don't feel particularly strong or over difficult terrain when
    > continuous running would make the overall effort level too high. Also, it
    > would have a general interval effect, allowing the body some recovery and
    > over time adaptation to being on the feet longer. For those interested in
    > serious competition Galloway's ideas may or may not work.



    I'm not sure where the run 10 min, walk 1 min came from, but another
    approach for flat courses, which Karl King describes in a chapter in A
    Step Beyond is 25 min run, 5 min walk for a 24-hr race US national
    championships.

    The basic idea is that most people don't train specifically for running
    24 hr, so their most economical pace/effort (usually on tracks) may be
    too fast/hard (relatively speaking) to last 24 hr - or for digestion
    (he's talking about national championship). So he looked at maximizing
    the amt of time spent running at economical effort (25 min) and
    minimizing the recovery time (walk for 5 min) to maximize distance
    covered in 24 hr. The run/walker beat the run-only person, but it was
    close. Both set PR's.

    I think the 25 min (20-30 min) and 5 min (4-5 min) were based on prior
    studies that weren't directly relevant (perhaps marathon distance rather
    than 24 hr), but the best approximation that could be found. That is,
    they took existing knowledge to make a best guesstimate at duration and
    ratio of the intervals.

    While that's for flat 24-hr race for elites, a marathon for a beginner
    might be similar, although a beginner for that distance might have
    trouble with the 25 min so the 10 min was used? Dunno - just
    speculating. It may vary among runners, also.

    Terrain usually dictates my run/walk strategy. If I'm on a flat stretch
    and walk to loosen a muscle, it's usually 1 min or less.

    Dot
     
  11. SwStudio

    SwStudio Guest

    "marathoner52" <marathoner52@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > now i remember attending one of his
    > seminars about 4 years ago where he gleefully told the story about this
    > woman who never did a stitch of exercise in her life. then she decided to
    > join his program and after 6 months she was running a marathon. yeah sure
    > she was. i wonder how long it took her in days to run the marathon

    distance.


    I ran 3:42 a little less than five months after starting to run. Five
    months after that first attempt I ran a 3:10.

    Prior to that, I smoked at least a pack a day for 17 years and
    didn't exercise at all. I don't think this is very out of the ordinary;
    I know many people who ran a decent marathon within 6 months
    to a year of starting up.

    cheers,
    --
    David (in Hamilton, ON)
    www.allfalldown.org
    www.absolutelyaccurate.com
     
  12. marathoner52

    marathoner52 Guest

    i quite frankly find that to be a bit unbelievable that u can run a marathon
    in 3:42 within 5 months without doing any exercise plus u were smoking
    moderately to heavy for 17 years. now were u active as a youth and how
    overweight were u prior to taking up running?
    "SwStudio" <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Iy8Tc.3257$0c.1184@read1.cgocable.net...
    > "marathoner52" <marathoner52@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > now i remember attending one of his
    > > seminars about 4 years ago where he gleefully told the story about this
    > > woman who never did a stitch of exercise in her life. then she decided

    to
    > > join his program and after 6 months she was running a marathon. yeah

    sure
    > > she was. i wonder how long it took her in days to run the marathon

    > distance.
    >
    >
    > I ran 3:42 a little less than five months after starting to run. Five
    > months after that first attempt I ran a 3:10.
    >
    > Prior to that, I smoked at least a pack a day for 17 years and
    > didn't exercise at all. I don't think this is very out of the ordinary;
    > I know many people who ran a decent marathon within 6 months
    > to a year of starting up.
    >
    > cheers,
    > --
    > David (in Hamilton, ON)
    > www.allfalldown.org
    > www.absolutelyaccurate.com
    >
    >
     
  13. Tony

    Tony Guest

    Dot wrote in message ...
    >Tony wrote:
    >>
    >> The other thing he talks alot about is walking breaks for long runs in
    >> particular, and for races as well. To me this makes a great deal of

    sense
    >> when you don't feel particularly strong or over difficult terrain when
    >> continuous running would make the overall effort level too high. Also,

    it
    >> would have a general interval effect, allowing the body some recovery and
    >> over time adaptation to being on the feet longer. For those interested

    in
    >> serious competition Galloway's ideas may or may not work.

    >
    >
    >I'm not sure where the run 10 min, walk 1 min came from, but another
    >approach for flat courses, which Karl King describes in a chapter in A
    >Step Beyond is 25 min run, 5 min walk for a 24-hr race US national
    >championships.
    >
    >The basic idea is that most people don't train specifically for running
    >24 hr, so their most economical pace/effort (usually on tracks) may be
    >too fast/hard (relatively speaking) to last 24 hr - or for digestion
    >(he's talking about national championship). So he looked at maximizing
    >the amt of time spent running at economical effort (25 min) and
    >minimizing the recovery time (walk for 5 min) to maximize distance
    >covered in 24 hr. The run/walker beat the run-only person, but it was
    >close. Both set PR's.
    >
    >I think the 25 min (20-30 min) and 5 min (4-5 min) were based on prior
    >studies that weren't directly relevant (perhaps marathon distance rather
    >than 24 hr), but the best approximation that could be found. That is,
    >they took existing knowledge to make a best guesstimate at duration and
    >ratio of the intervals.
    >
    >While that's for flat 24-hr race for elites, a marathon for a beginner
    >might be similar, although a beginner for that distance might have
    >trouble with the 25 min so the 10 min was used? Dunno - just
    >speculating. It may vary among runners, also.
    >
    >Terrain usually dictates my run/walk strategy. If I'm on a flat stretch
    >and walk to loosen a muscle, it's usually 1 min or less.
    >
    >Dot
    >

    The 10 min method seems to prevent stress from building up, the heat to
    dissipate some, and the HR to drop. I too allow terrain to dictate my
    run/walk strategy unless I feel off on the day of my long run or its very
    hot and its just too much to keep running even at a moderate pace.

    I think it's a very refreshing approach, and even if one plans to race
    without walking breaks, it can be a very useful tool in training,
    particularly ultra training over difficult terrain. On my last long run
    approaching 4 1/2 hours, it was so hot that the walking breaks saved the
    run. I would walk for 2 mins of every 10. It would have been far too
    stressful had I forced myself to run continuously that day. Had it been a
    race I could have run, but the idea in training is not to waste yourself
    completely, but to stress and supercompensate.

    The whole concept of walk breaks gives me new ideas for doing long
    wilderness runs where I can do them in between running and hiking. Normally
    before I was either running or hiking and thought it was a wimp out to walk
    during runs. Now I think its great and it will make the post-race season
    casual long runs much more enjoyable - more like those LSD bike rides where
    I just soak up the scenery and relax.

    - Tony
     
  14. Dot

    Dot Guest

    Tony wrote:

    >
    > The whole concept of walk breaks gives me new ideas for doing long
    > wilderness runs where I can do them in between running and hiking.


    After watching one of the local mountain races a couple weeks ago, I'm
    totally at peace with the concept of walk breaks even for shorter
    distances. I've always been able to accept the concept for long
    distances, but I was a little obstinate (ok, I was being downright
    stubborn for awhile) about walking hills in longer runs if I could run
    them in shorter runs - esp. after all the hill work I did last year.

    Every racer - including winners and former alternate to US mtn running
    team - walked the part I was watching. But amidst all the uphill walkers
    came one runner running up that section but she was only running to the
    top of the first hill to watch (3k ft in 2mi, not the full 9k ft in 14
    mi), not actually racing.

    Long story short, IMHO, everyone has their limit (moveable with
    training) in combination of distance and steepness where they will have
    to walk. Shorten the distance and they might be able to run the hill,
    but not be able to run the hill when part of a longer race (or at least
    not smart strategy). The World Mtn Running Trophy last year flattened a
    normal mtn running course to reduce the slope to something runnable over
    that distance.


    > Normally
    > before I was either running or hiking and thought it was a wimp out
    >to walk during runs.


    I think Doug advocates not mixing walking and running in the same
    training run, just so you don't get in habit of walking at first sign of
    steep hill or whatever. For now, I'm mixing and probably always will for
    at least some runs. I needed the experience at learning how to adjust my
    effort level for the duration of a race. After watching a couple mtn
    races, I have no mental hangups anymore with walking. If the elites do
    it, it's good enough for me ;)

    Similar to you, my long runs are now essentially replacing some of the
    hikes I used to do - run when I can, walk when I must, and keep working
    at it until I can run a larger percentage of the distance. It's also
    reduced a lot of the frustrations I'd had for a year or so.

    Dot
     
  15. Sam

    Sam Guest

    "Jean S. Barto" <jsbarto1@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:tU5Tc.24307$Bb.15007@lakeread08...
    > I think the Galloway programs are very dependent on the leader of the
    > program that you're involved with. I was enrolled in a program in 2000

    here
    > in SE VA--and was quite unhappy with the program I was involved with, and
    > made my complaints known to the Atlanta headquarters, and got my money

    back.
    >
    > I found that the team leader was quite supportive to the 4 hour

    marathoners,
    > who were most of the group. I was a *second time marathoner* and a 5 hour
    > marathoner at that--and I and another woman who was slightly faster than

    me
    > got the short end of the stick and were left largely on our own on the
    > longer runs. Things improved slightly when a woman who had attended one

    of
    > Jeff Galloway's running camps out West came on to assist with the

    group--but
    > it still ended up that I was left in the dust on the 2 longer runs (16 and
    > 18 miles) I finished before leaving the group. I did the last 10K of each
    > of those runs totally on my own.

    This is a problem in all groups I have worked with including the ones I
    have organized. Some people are just going to be slower and there might be
    only one of them. Creating some way to accommodate is hard to do. It is
    not fair to ask others to slow down and impede their training either.
    This is one of the reason I will only do groups with a narrow range of
    abilities if I ever do a group again.




    >
    > There's a different team leader for the Galloway group in Virginia Beach
    > now, and hopefully there's more success with the program now. I think the
    > team leader when I was involved was asked to leave the program later that
    > fall. In any case, there is a different group leader down there now.
    >
    > Folks who can start from nothing and successfully complete a marathon in 5
    > hours (and especially closer to 4 hours) or less I think are individuals

    who
    > are somewhat athletically and genetically gifted in the first place--they
    > are biomechanically efficient (generally *neutral* runners with only

    slight
    > pronation) and probably have a better than average VO2 Max and lactate
    > threshold. They also are more likely thinner rather than larger boned, or
    > even overweight. Even though I had done previous running and was coming

    to
    > the program with being able to run 60 minutes at a 10: 30 to 11:00 pace,

    the
    > weekly increase in mileage was too much for me and I didn't do the

    Richmond
    > Marathon that fall as I wanted to.



    > The *rest* of the population who fall outside the optimal parameters (

    like
    > me) will have more problems with Galloway's or *any* marathon training
    > program that purports to advertise *completing a marathon* in 6 months or
    > so. Being less than efficient in form, body type or cardiovascular

    ability
    > serves to put undue stress on the body, eventually causing nagging
    > injuries--like what happened with me. I aborted the program in 2000, and
    > trained mostly on my own the next year, and completed the Chicago Marathon
    > in 2001 in 5:24:39. I went ahead and did that race even though I was

    unable
    > to complete the very long runs--I only did four 14 to 15 mile runs before
    > that race, in addition to the rest of my weekly running. I felt that I
    > was probably close to the best shape I could realistically hope to be in,
    > and that time and age were working against me (I'm in my late 40's). I

    also
    > made *second running career* PR's in 5K and 8K that year, and haven't come
    > close to those times since.


    I think you hit on a key point here. I think that more programs
    should be "We'll take you from the couch to a marathon, but it might take a
    while." One runner in a group I led signed up for the group and after some
    discussions, she decided that she would stay with the marathon group, but
    not do a marathon until later. So she trained at a slower rate of mileage
    increase and the following year did her first (of what became several)
    marathon. It took her 2 "programs" but she got there. In fact, I wish more
    people would take this approach.



    >
    > 5:24:39 is my *marathon PR*--my 2 other completions (Boston in 1996 and

    NYC
    > in 2002) are even slower. Many of you would sneer at a 5:24 PR marathon
    > time, but most likely that will remain my PR. Since then I've had many
    > injuries and a weight gain--and I'm back to square one as far as my

    running
    > is concerned. My marathon days are probably over, and I'll be very happy

    to
    > work back to running my local 5K and 10K races, and doing the Rock n'

    Roll
    > 1/2 Marathon in Virginia Beach every September. Being on my feet for over

    5
    > hours for a marathon is too much wear and tear on my body!


    Some people will sneer, but I am willing to bet that most people here
    will acknowledge your accomplishment in a positive manner. The marathon is
    not for everyone. Body type, the ability (and interest) to train for the
    mileage, etc all are factors.

    Also, I am not sure a person who once was a runner is ever really
    starting from square one. Yes, detraining occurs---sorry but I am an ex
    phys person--- but at the same time, you once had a higher level of fitness
    and know how to approach the training better so you have that knowledge to
    build on.

    Being over 5 hours does not sound like fun. I did 2 marathons in right
    around 4 hours and found them to be far worse experiences that the sub 3:10
    marathons I have run.

    Good luck with a return to running.


    >
    > If running and completing a marathon were so easy, everyone would be doing
    > it!
    >
    > My two cents on this issue--
    >
    > YMMV--
    >
    > Jean in VA
    >
    > "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:qG3Tc.1$ZY3.0@trndny08...
    > > I don't know the Galloway marathon method specifically, but I was

    > interested
    > > in Galloway because he experimented with different combinations of

    > frequency
    > > / duration / intensity in the past. I looked at "Galloway's Book on
    > > Running" 2nd ed., and I liked the philosophy and training programs in

    > there,
    > > though in that book he end a 1/2 marathon program. It's very similiar

    to
    > > how I usually break up my week, with cross training or rest on mon / wed

    /
    > > fri, and runs on tues / thurs / sat (long), with rest on sat.
    > >
    > > The other thing he talks alot about is walking breaks for long runs in
    > > particular, and for races as well. To me this makes a great deal of

    sense
    > > when you don't feel particularly strong or over difficult terrain when
    > > continuous running would make the overall effort level too high. Also,

    it
    > > would have a general interval effect, allowing the body some recovery

    and
    > > over time adaptation to being on the feet longer. For those interested

    in
    > > serious competition Galloway's ideas may or may not work. For me some

    of
    > > these ideas suit my training style and help my ability to complete long

    > runs
    > > under control. At the very least I think many recreational runners I

    see
    > > huffing and puffing around the lake here would be wise to do some

    walking
    > > breaks. For ultra distances walking breaks are a proven technique, if

    not
    > > for the recent speedy champions like Scott Jurek, for most others, and

    for
    > > past distance champions of the 6-day races.
    > >
    > > - Tony
    > >
    > > David Stracener wrote in message
    > > <120820042039493084%stracener@nospamdotnetpci.com>...
    > > >I ran the Marine Corps Marathon last year and was impressed with the
    > > >Galloway groups (even though in the early miles I thought they were a
    > > >menace). They were passing me easily in miles 20-23. I'm hoping to
    > > >run faster than 3:30 this year and am interested to hear your thoughts
    > > >on the Galloway method of pacing/finishing the marathon.
    > > >TIA
    > > >
    > > >--

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
  16. Sam

    Sam Guest

    David, I am not sure I knew this about you. Man, I am even more impressed
    in you.


    "SwStudio" <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Iy8Tc.3257$0c.1184@read1.cgocable.net...
    > "marathoner52" <marathoner52@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > now i remember attending one of his
    > > seminars about 4 years ago where he gleefully told the story about this
    > > woman who never did a stitch of exercise in her life. then she decided

    to
    > > join his program and after 6 months she was running a marathon. yeah

    sure
    > > she was. i wonder how long it took her in days to run the marathon

    > distance.
    >
    >
    > I ran 3:42 a little less than five months after starting to run. Five
    > months after that first attempt I ran a 3:10.
    >
    > Prior to that, I smoked at least a pack a day for 17 years and
    > didn't exercise at all. I don't think this is very out of the ordinary;
    > I know many people who ran a decent marathon within 6 months
    > to a year of starting up.
    >
    > cheers,
    > --
    > David (in Hamilton, ON)
    > www.allfalldown.org
    > www.absolutelyaccurate.com
    >
    >
     
  17. SwStudio

    SwStudio Guest

    "marathoner52" <marathoner52@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > i quite frankly find that to be a bit unbelievable that u can run a

    marathon
    > in 3:42 within 5 months without doing any exercise plus u were smoking
    > moderately to heavy for 17 years.


    I quite frankly find it a bit unbelievable that something as
    mundane as going from sedentary smoker to middle-of-the
    pack marathon finisher in 5 months is something you'd find
    hard to believe. Welcome to the real world.

    I also find it hard to believe that typing "u" instead of "you"
    saves you enough time to be deal with fact that it makes
    you appear to be 12-year old girl at the keyboard.



    > now were u active as a youth and how
    > overweight were u prior to taking up running?


    As a child I was average-to below-average in activity levels.
    I certainly didn't excel or try to excel at any sport. I've never
    been overweight.

    cheers,
    --
    David (in Hamilton, ON)
    www.allfalldown.org
    www.absolutelyaccurate.com
     
  18. SwStudio

    SwStudio Guest

    "Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    > David, I am not sure I knew this about you. Man, I am even more impressed
    > in you.


    What, that I ran 1 3:42?? Thanks, but I must be missing someone
    here. I'm pretty sure I could pull anyone off the street and guide
    them to a 3:42 within 5 months. It's a midpack time, more or less.

    My friend Jeff was a smoker for a long time and I talked him into
    a half marathon on no training other than a couple weeks of very
    irregular jogs. He ran a 1:34:10. I find this more impressive.


    cheers,
    --
    David (in Hamilton, ON)
    www.allfalldown.org
    www.absolutelyaccurate.com
     
  19. Sam

    Sam Guest

    The 3:42 is nice, but I was referring to the smoking cessation and then the
    running part.

    Some people will just have the "talent" to do something well and merely need
    to be shown that they can do it.

    I am not sure about pulling "anyone" off the street, but there are a lot of
    people out there who could run that time and just have no inclination to do
    it. (Talking men here for that time).


    "SwStudio" <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:sZPTc.3438$0c.2016@read1.cgocable.net...
    > "Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    > > David, I am not sure I knew this about you. Man, I am even more

    impressed
    > > in you.

    >
    > What, that I ran 1 3:42?? Thanks, but I must be missing someone
    > here. I'm pretty sure I could pull anyone off the street and guide
    > them to a 3:42 within 5 months. It's a midpack time, more or less.
    >
    > My friend Jeff was a smoker for a long time and I talked him into
    > a half marathon on no training other than a couple weeks of very
    > irregular jogs. He ran a 1:34:10. I find this more impressive.
    >
    >
    > cheers,
    > --
    > David (in Hamilton, ON)
    > www.allfalldown.org
    > www.absolutelyaccurate.com
    >
    >
     
  20. bj

    bj Guest

    "SwStudio" <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:sZPTc.3438$0c.2016@read1.cgocable.net...
    >
    > What, that I ran 1 3:42?? Thanks, but I must be missing someone
    > here. I'm pretty sure I could pull anyone off the street and guide
    > them to a 3:42 within 5 months. It's a midpack time, more or less.
    >


    Anyone?

    3:42 is already a good 10% faster than my *5k* best pace.
    But then I'm an older lady, not a young (or even youngish) man.
    bj
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...