Question: I noticed that one of the staff at Runner's World used the Run / walk
method to complete a marathon in 2:57 recently. (I'm not sure if this
was (6 minutes run and 1 minute walk) by 25 / 26).
Has anyone out there had any experience of using this method to complete
a marathon? I would be interested to see how the eventual overall pace
would correlate with their expected performance in a run only marathon.
Answer:
Makes no sense. It must have been a pretty short marathon. Like half of the
real one. In running 3 hr marathon there you're no longer jogging you're
getting close to serious running. Can't done with a run/walk method because
you have to run pretty fast to make up for the walks. If you walk some in
the last couple of miles you can't call it run/walk method either. The
proper term for it is deathmarch.
Quick math: say you run 9 and walk 1 for a total of 10 min per segment. In 3
hours there would be 18 such segments equal to 18' walk and 162' running. 18
minutes fast walking =1.25 miles. Which leaves 24.93 miles to cover in 162
minutes which comes to 6.5 minutes per mile. If you can run that well why
walk? Why do this giant interval session?
I have not formally done this (I often walk thru water stops just to
make sure I get more in me than on me), but Jeff Galloway uses this method for
the marathoners with great success. For most, it probably improves the chances
of completing the marathon; for some, it has even improved their times, but
this could be a factor of a normal improvement with increased training.
Actually, I know a guy who run/walks marathons. Out of necessity though, not by
choice.
He runs till he feels a bit of pressure in his chest due cardiac insufficiency.
After 5 to 10 minutes rest he picks it up again alternating 2 to 4 mile runs with
5 to 10 min breaks. When running he goes at around 8:00/mile. Refuses to plod
along at 10:00+/mile. Says that at the 8 min pace he feels like he is running and
that at 10 min he feels like he is tripping over his feet.
Actually, if you read the email again you will see that I was looking
for data from people who had tried the method not the opinions of those
who hadn't.
Are you sure the marathon was completed in 2:57 with this method? I know one
of the staff completed one in in 3:57 recently, and led a group with a time
goal of 4:00 at the Wineglass Marathon in October.
That's sounds more likely. The 2:57 may have been a misprint in the
article that I read.
All the same, I would be interested in more details of how the 3:57 was
achieved if you can locate them.
I tried it one year in the Fletcher marathon, Rotorua, NZ. I had some
knee pain from a fall some months before and couldn't manage more than
about 20 min of running. I was about to leave NZ, so wanted to do the
marathon one last time (they have nice t shirts), but also didn't want to
aggravate the knee (it was coming right and i had some orienteering events
lined up for later). So i decided on a run 20 min, walk until recovered
routine. I made several long walks (2-3 hrs) in the week beforehand to
strengthen the legs - the muscles are slightly different.
On the day it went a bit different. After 10 min of walking after the
start (to show i wasn't serious) the guy with one leg, swinging along on
crutches, was way out of sight, so i ran for 14 min to get past him. Then
25min walking and 8 min running, then 18 min walking and 6 running, then 16
min walking and 14 min running. Then around halfway it gets fairly hilly,
and scenic, so i walked for 1hr 28. I also had quite a bit of food and
drink weighing me down, and i wanted to make use of that. Then from 30km
it is the home straight and i did 38 min of six short intervals of
running/walking, then 17 min of walking (a small hill) and 23 min of 5
alternating intervals to the finish. The times are approximate - it should
add to 4hr 41min. If i haven't bored you too much already i can send the
pulserate file - it looks weird. Around 185 bpm for the running sections
(10km race pace) and 120 rising to 150 bpm for the walking sections.
