[canalrunner]

__________________________________________________ ______________<br><a href="http://www.kickrunners.com/forum/member.php?u=2172" target="_blank">dragonsrouges</a> <img alt="" src="http://www.kickrunners.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif" style="border:0px solid;"><br>
5K Runner<br>
Join Date: Dec 2007<br>
Posts: 98<br><br><br><img alt="" src="http://www.kickrunners.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif" style="border:0px solid;"><br>
There are ways to do 10 and 1s and get faster than some of (you) people who never do it... It must be some mental barrier or ego thing that prevents people from doing it but strictly in a exercise physiological point of view, you CAN do 10 and 1s and get quite fast, faster than some/a lot of those who run slow and straight without walking.<br><br>
In fact, I think I will do 10 and 1s for the next 6 months just to experiment.<br>
__________________________________________________ ______________<br><br>
In the US, Galloway promotes a great variety of run-walk ratios with the promise of greater success and better times. In Canada, the Running Room has standardized the run to 10 minutes and the walk to 1 minute. What are peoples views? Is it a good system? Does it work? Is there a limit?

 

[roly]

<img alt="huh.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/huh.gif">

 

[LeftRightRepeat]

I think if running "10 and 1s" helps you get it done, go for it. I used similar strategies to boost confidence when stretching distance for my first marathon. Personally, I consider it a superior accomplishment to keep on running and I've abandoned the walk/run approach.

 

[Mr Lambchops]

<i>There are ways to do 10 and 1s and get faster than some of (you) people who never do it...</i><br>
Not sure about the second part of that sentence starting with than... Are you implying that over 10k, TurtleB (sorry..) might be faster doing 10 & 1 than Sally (sorry..) not doing 10 & 1 ? Truism

 

[dragonsrouges]

No (sorry), I am talking about 2 people of similar physical fitness and I don't mean doing 10 and 1s in a racing situation. I'm talking about training. Think about middle distance runners (400 - 1500m). I know a guy who ran for (a Montreal University) who went to T&F Nationals and didn't run his "long" distance runs. He was a 400-800m runner. He could still race 10 in 37 minutes...<br><br>
So while he wasnt' doing 10 and 1s, he was doing interval training (well isn't that what 10 and 1s are?).<br><br>
I really really think that the whole idea surrounding this method of training is put down because people don't want to be caught dead walking during a run.<br>
There are so many training methods out there and not all conventional but if it works for you and if it provides the results, then why not.<br><br>
Think about it... gymnasts don't lift weights but pound per pound they are much stronger than many other athletes. But most people would suggest hitting the weight room to build muscular strength.<br><br>
This is a very long topic, you could go on and on about it... Unfortunately, there's a shepards pie waiting for me in the oven that I just can't ignore... so more later.<br><br>
DR

 

[canalrunner]

The Galloway and RR 10:1 methods promote using the run-walk in races, and especially Galloway are suggesting that the finishing times can be better. I have pace bunnied marathons at 4:30 using 10:1 and there is a certain benefit of giving people the 'reward' of a walk every ten minutes and perhaps a delay in the end of a marathon exhaustion. The dilemna is that as you move the finishing time up to 3:30 the speed during the run portion has to be upped a lot from a 3:30 steady pace to compensate for the 1 minute run. Has anyone tried to do 10:1 at faster paces?

 

[dragonsrouges]

I don't know about the Galloway method nor did I know exactly what 10 and 1s were till a few days ago. I'm not trying to say that 10 and 1s will turn you into a superstar, all I'm saying is that you CAN use 10 and 1s appropriately to gain some speed (I never suggested either that you had to do it all the time). I think people over look it because it's what is suggested to novices or people who are not comfortably able to run a minimum sized block of time (say 30 minutes) without walking... I was just suggesting that you can do "10 and 1s" in your training and still get fast... ie: as a fartlek run-walk... as say 4-5 sets of 10 minute faster than tempo repeats... which would turn out to exactly that, 10 minutes of (just sub-race-pace) running followed by 1 minute walk recovery.<br><br>
The speed at which you do the so-called 10 and 1s is relative to each person's ability. All I was trying to say is that it has such a bad reputation but a lot of middle distance track runners do some form of it it inadvertantly in their training so it is not only for novice runners or for people who have not yet "evolved" to continuous running.

 

[dragonsrouges]

From the other posts, it seems like a lot of runners of different levels actually do 10 and 1s. No one says that you have to run the 10 minutes at crawling speed, it just means that after 10 minutes of running (whatever pace your workout calls for) you walk for 1 minute. Jeez. Anyone who's ever done track has done "10 and 1s". Jeez.

 

[bcc594]

DR: I see your point, but feel the need to point one thing out. While your friend's 400-800m times may have been great, his 10k time is not overly fast. Here in Germany, a 37 min 10k probably wouldn't place in any of the younger age-groups. Heck, I'm no national-class runner, am my 10k time is 38:06. If he were trying to run 10k times that were equivalent to his 800m times (i.e. among the top in the country), then he would have to chop more than 10 mins from his time.<br><br>
Yes, intervals training follows the same theory as the 10-1s, but they accomplish two wildly different things. The point behind intervals is to get yourself really amped up, going fast, then rest, and the repeat. They're designed to increase your LT, your Anaerobic threshold, your max-speed, etc. 10-1s are designed to help people feel better while running at an even, Marathon-pace, by taking a quick break every 10 minutes. I think the main benefit of 10-1s comes in pushing back the point where you really start to hurt in a marathon. But, 10-1s are in no way equivalent to interval training.

 

[markc7]

In "Lore of Running" Noakes points out how walk breaks are used in ultramarathoning. Anyone who can run the entire distance of a marathon, he says, could complete a 50 miler without any additional training provided he took regular walk breaks from the start. Simply put, taking walk breaks allows you to stay on your feet longer, and that has a training benefit.<br><br>
Surely this is part of the appeal of using 10:1's in training, especially with a group like the RR that is geared towards beginner runners. I have group led, instructed clinics, and been the pace bunny at the Ottawa marathon, and the majority of runners who train with the Running Room are towards the beginning of their running career. Without doing the 10:1's alot of the clinic members simply would not be able to complete the training and make it to race day. So if it helps them, then they should go for it.<br><br>
My only reservations about the 10:1's are: 1) Many RR fans that I know are very sanctimonious about 10:1s and will criticize anyone who <i>doesn't</i> do them. 2) Assclowns who come to a dead stop in the middle of the course during a race as soon as their watch tells them it's time for a walk break.

 

[Mr Lambchops]

Right. Little semantic mistake. Reminds me of a discussion we had on CR about marathon training differences between europeans (more emphasis on faster, shorter) and north-americans (more emphasis on longer, slower).

 

[dragonsrouges]

Chops: you are probably right, it comes down to semantics. But even then... technically speaking, they are not doing any different that others that do interval training, I mean Geb could argue that us joe blows walk or crawl compared to him...<br><br>
Point is that what they are doing is not to be put down, we do much of the same thing just faster as we gain more endurance and speed.<br><br>
The same way beginner swimmers swim one length at a time when first learning how to swim... Competitive swimmers swim intervals the same way, only theirs are slightly longer, or sometimes the same, the only difference being intensity.<br><br>
I agree that religiously following the 10 and 1 (halting to a stop) is not necessary... and that varying your training routine is a good idea.

 

[dragonsrouges]

<br>
As I mentioned before, I don't know much about "10 and 1s" but 10 minutes of running per 1 minute of walking (no intensity specified) sounds alright to me...<br><br>
Which brings in another point, why are novices training for marathons?

 

[bcc594]

I'll have to see if I can go back and find that thread. As a Canadian who has done a fair bit of living (and a ton of running) in Germany, I can tell you that the difference in running cultures is enormous. John Stanton would be chased out of town - well, he'd probably get caught, because he would stop to walk - for proposing his 10-1 scheme to German runners.

 

[bcc594]

Yes, they are doing something different than while training with intervals. Speed <i>per se</i> has nothing to do with it. The point of intervals is to get faster; the point of 10-1s is to be able to run further with a given fitness base. As Mark said - if you can run a marathon, you can cover 50 miles with walk breaks. Where Stanton and Co make money is getting the folks from their 20 mile/week base to the marathon in the space of a single clinic. That requires a way to overcome the lack of base - thus 10-1s.<br><br>
As for your second question about why novices train for marathons, personally I often wonder why people in Toronto drive Hummers, and why there's always one gun-control fan on an NRA message board. Some things we're just not meant to understand.

 

[Mr Lambchops]

Heu... I'll go for premature ejaculation.

 

[CIAU80]

If you want to use 10:1 just to finish a marathon by all means use it.<br>
Both Galloway and Stanton advocate using it, but if you have goals<br>
of running a fast marathon I wouldn't use it. I'm not a big fan of either programs but it gets people out there. I still think novice/beginners to running should get a good solid 1 1/2 to 2 years of running in before they<br>
attempt the marathon it makes it a lot easier to run. For the record I've<br>
talked to both Galloway and Stanton.

 

[Silly Sally]

I had a boyfriend who did the RR program and he finished Chicago with something like 3:45. When we ran together (not often), he didn't use it, and frankly didn't need it (cause my pace is so slow). He's used it for other marathons too when we weren't running it together.<br><br>
Funny, while passing a runner during the Barbados marathon, we and the other runner joked about his earlier 10:1 tactic which had now become a 5:2 tactic with the heat and humidity, and we hadn't even hit the half-way mark. That race was pure hell.<br><br>
I am not ashamed to say I take walk breaks during marathons. I've learned to walk quickly through water stops and find it relaxes the quads. Sometimes though when I'm feeling really bad, I'll even let myself walk a little farther past the last aid station table (i.e. until that tree or lampost, etc.) And when I feel like I'm absolutely dying, like during the Barbados marathon or the last leg of my IM, heck, I'll walk even more than just at aid stations, feeling not one ounce of remorse!<br><br>
But I guess, in a way, depending on how far apart the aid stations are placed, it might be similar to a 10:1 tactic, though I'm sure that most of the time, I'm only walking for 10-25 sec. and perhaps have run more than 10 min.<br><br>
I personally have no interest in using the 10:1 method. It would drive me absolutely nuts to have to follow the clock so closely. I'd rather listen to my body and just enjoy the race.<br><br>
I'm not opposed though to this type of training and if it encourages someone to get to the start line to consequently get to the finish line, then all the power to that runner who's using this method, even the newbie runner.<br><br>
By the way, what's wrong with newbie runners doing a marathon? I was one ... I only had about 7 months running under my belt when I ran my first marathon, and those months were split into two 3 1/2 month periods due to a 4 month sprained ankle hiatus. (mind you, I had some muscle memory due to some running when I was younger)<br><br>
But even as a newbie, I still don't think I would have done a 10:1 program.<br><br>
Sally

 

[grommit]

if you need the running room.... fine by me, though totally over priced<br>
if walking every now & then makes for a better race.... let the faster folk pass you.... let's face it marathon running is a huge, highly commercialized industry that is marketed to have mass appeal...... I'm guessing the elite don't worry too much about the minions behind them that are popularizing the event....<br><br>
any ratio of walking is OK with me <img alt="wink.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/wink.gif"><br><br>
....... I walked the last 22% of my last event ... and still liked my result, plus I got to take in all that wonderful scenery....<br><br>
hardly a debate....<img alt="roll_eyes.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/roll_eyes.gif"><br><br>
G.... crawling out from under the work <<<< insert groan here>>>>

 

[canalrunner]

Is the Gallowalking sub 3 hr marathoner doing actual 10 minutes of running then 1 minute of walking from start to finish, a different ratio, or just simply walking quickly through the water stations?<br><br>
And who said there wasn't anything to debate!