CL210K - W1R2 - 7Km in 35mins - Tick

After just missing my 35 minute target for 7km at my 1st attempt 2 days ago when I did 9 mins run + 1 min walk intervals and felt totally knackered at the end I adjusted my intervals today and set out to do 5x 6mins run + 1 min walk, though naturally I sprinted (sort-of) the last 1 minute instead of walking. Result was 7km in 34:56 - hooray!

As I wasted a few seconds in a cul-de-sac last time I am not sure that this shorter run/walk interval was really any quicker but I certainly felt a whole lot better at the end and recovered much more quickly even though I felt rougher starting out today (I was out last night). I think the shorter, faster runs and the extra minute of walk-rest makes for a more comfortable, easier & hopefully less damaging run.

One more 7km run left to do now before moving on to 8km. I may reduce the run interval even more to see what happens...

Good luck to everyone doing the London marathon tomorrow !

Last edited by

8 Replies

  • You are doing really well Chrisl -- what is your ultimate goal? 10K's?

  • Thanks Bazza. We progress together. Current goal is to build up from the 6k I did in 30 mins on W9 of C25K to doing 10k in 50 mins - ie whilst maintaining 5 minute kms.

  • Chris - I did your walk run 7K Special Idea this morning! I set my TIT (timex ironman triathlon watch) to 9 minutes and set off. Then a 1 minute walk. Then another 9. etc etc...until the 7K were up. The strange this is that it wasn't as fast as yours, but it WAS roughly the same as I do it WITHOUT walking intervals??? It came in at 41'48 which is about 10 seconds faster than I normally do a 7.

    I wasn't too knackered though because 7K is very comfortable for me, now I've mentally got the 10K under my belt (now THAT is had!).

    Did I do this right do you think? I didn't push myself at all. Still, fascinating stuff innit?!

  • Interesting Dan. Thanks for trying it. It sounds as if had you pushed yourself a bit harder you would have achieved a PB for 7k. I think even shorter runs and more time spent walking may be even quicker and even less arduous.

  • Just saw you did 10k only 2 days ago Dan. Makes me wonder if you would have been even quicker today if you were fully rested.

  • Agreed. I should have taken two days rest. live and learn eh?!

  • Trouble is -- with these running theories ( eg run/walk is faster than non-stop running) - my unanswered questions is : Does the theory apply to all levels of muscular fitness, cardio fitness and length of the run?? Galloway is a big proponent of run/walk -- BUT his main emphasis is upon long distance running. Maffetone proposes very low heart rates ( and thus very low paces) for long distance training runs - but common sense tells me that you would not apply this to shorter distance training - eg for 5/10 k. .

    I have read that a 5 K race is run mainly (95%) anaerobically while marathons are run 99% aerobically -- but does that apply equally to plodders (like me) and to much faster elite runners. I suspect not. The runners who get around my local Parkrun 5K in 15-17 minutes would certainly be running anaerobically most of the way - with heart rates approaching 90% of their maximum or even higher-- but if I tried that I wouldn't get past 1 klm :)

    I guess all we can do is experiment and see what suits us as individuals best. One size shoe doesn't fit all!! :)

  • well done....bang on target, aiming high as usual...enjoy yourself...

You may also like...