Could ‘Jeffing' be the secret to running faster? — I tried it, and here's what happened
A couple of weeks ago, I told you how I'd discovered Jeffing for the first time, despite running and writing about health and fitness for the past decade. I was inundated with messages from readers, some telling me how they'd 'Jeffed' all of their PR's, others asking for more advice. And I decided my dalliance with this run/walk method was far from over.
With no races on the calendar for the foreseeable future (I'm still returning to fitness following the birth of my son, and have little time to think about training for a race right now), I decided to put the method to the test.
One week I ran 10K, the next week, I 'Jeffed' the same route, and the results really surprised me — read on to find out more.
As a reminder, for those who are new to the idea, Jeffing is a run, walk technique developed by US Olympian Jeff Galloway. In simple terms, you run for a bit, then you walk, allowing you to keep going for longer. 'By alternating running and walking from the start, runners stay strong, recover faster and finish feeling good,' says Galloway.
As long as there's some form of walking interval from the offset, you're Jeffing.
Instead of setting out for a run, and continuing at the same pace, Jeffing involves running for between 10-60 seconds, then walking for 30 seconds, from the beginning of the workout.
The intervals are flexible — if you're a more experienced runner, you might want to increase the running element, or decrease the amount of time spent walking. As long as there's some form of walking interval from the offset, you're Jeffing.
As mentioned above, I set out and ran a 10K on Monday, June 9. I ran without looking at my pace, and followed my regular route along the river. According to my Garmin Forerunner 570, I ran 6.5 miles, with an average pace of 8:09 minute miles.
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
My average heart rate was 159 beats per minute (bpm), and my max heart rate was 178 bpm.
A week later, I set out on the same run, but this time, I added walking intervals to see what Jeffing would do to my overall performance. I set up the run on the Garmin Connect app beforehand, programming five minutes of running, followed by a 30-second walk.
Sure, these are slightly longer intervals than some run/walk plans, but as mentioned above, I'm an experienced runner. If you're new to running, I'd recommend a minute or two of running, followed by a walking break.
The surprising thing was, when Jeffing a 10K on Monday, June 16, I ran 6.74 miles (to finish my final five-minute interval), at an average pace of 8:09 minute miles. My average heart rate was 163 bpm, and my max heart rate was 180 bpm.
As well as keeping my pace and heart rate pretty much the same, I actually burned more calories while Jeffing, compared to running at a steady pace for the entire time — 606 calories, compared to 563 calories the week before. My splits were also more consistent. As I ran at a steady pace, I slowed down as I neared the end of my run and fatigued, whereas this wasn't the case while Jeffing.
Split times and calories burned aside, I really enjoyed the Jeffing workout. The way I'd set it up on my Garmin beforehand meant I could only see what was happening in that segment of the workout.
I didn't focus on my average pace; instead, I ran each five minutes to feel, and ended up consistently running a 7:45-7:50 minute pace throughout the workout. The 30-second walks felt a lot shorter than I thought they'd be as I set up the workout — it was barely long enough to catch my breath, and I was moving again. However, these little walking breaks allowed me to stop, breathe, and mentally reset for the next five minutes.
I hadn't believed the hype when I started this Jeffing journey, but I've been humbled. Perhaps I'll join fellow Jeffers at my next major race!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tom's Guide
2 days ago
- Tom's Guide
I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570 — here's the winner
The Garmin Forerunner 570 is one of Garmin's newest AMOLED-screen sporting smartwatches aimed at runners. It boasts loads of training tools, Garmin's best heart rate sensors and a small smattering of smart features. Meanwhile, the Apple Watch Series 10 is perhaps the best full-featured smartwatch on the market today. It's also no slouch when it comes to fitness and wellness tracking. While the Garmin Forerunner 570 is a tad pricier than the Apple Watch Series 10, both are well equipped to keep tabs on your daily workout efforts, whether you're a runner, walker, hiker or prefer the gym. Each watch sports an onboard GPS and the best holistic tech offered by Apple and Garmin, respectively. The question is, which one is more accurate when it comes to tracking a basic workout? I decided to find out. The Apple Watch Series 10 is my favorite full-featured smartwatch in 2025, sporting a thin and attractive design, gorgeous screen, endless apps and loads of useful onboard features. It's also a mighty reliable fitness and sleep tracker. The Garmin Forerunner 570 is one of the brand's latest smartwatches aimed squarely at runners and outdoor athletes, boasting Garmin's best holistic tech, excellent training and recovery tools, a bright AMOLED screen and a fun, colorful case design. For this walk test, I wore the Apple Watch Series 10 on my left wrist and the Garmin Forerunner 570 on my right wrist before setting out on my manually-counted jaunt around Seattle, Washington, on the longest day of the year. To keep track of my steps, I clicked an old-school tally counter every time my count hit 100 before starting over again at one. With my left foot taking only odd-numbered steps and my right foot only making even-numbered ones, I trekked three miles before ending tracking and examining the results. In addition to the manual count, I also recorded my walk using Strava as a control for distance, elevation and pace data. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. See all the results below: Apple Watch 10 Garmin Forerunner 570 Control Step count 5,568 steps 5,542 steps 5,500 steps (manual count) Distance 2.99 miles 2.98 miles 3.00 miles (Strava) Elevation gain 216 feet 207 feet 212 feet (Strava) Average pace 18 mins 23 secs per mile 18 mins 28 secs per mile 18 mins 6 secs per mile (Strava) Average heart rate 128 bpm 128 bpm n/a Max heart rate 163 bpm 164 bpm n/a Calories burned 437 calories 375 calories n/a Device battery usage 12% 6% n/a Both the Garmin and Apple Watch were within 100 steps of my manually-counted total, an impressive showing for sure! However, while the Series 10 overcounted by 68 steps, the Forerunner 570 only overcounted by 42. Strava, meanwhile, calculated my total steps at 5,548. All three devices measured roughly the same total distance covered and fairly similar elevation gain metrics. Assuming Strava is correct here, both watches are within five feet of the actual total. Pace data also matches up nicely across the board. It's worth noting that both Garmin and Strava offer two average pace figures, including a moving average and an elapsed average, the latter of which is reported above. Garmin's average moving pace for my walk was 16 minutes and 4 seconds per mile and Strava's was 16 minutes and 48 seconds per mile. Despite the Apple Watch being worn on my right wrist and the Garmin adorning my left, heart rate data is a near match between the two, though Apple calculated slightly more calories burned during my roughly 50-minute walk. Finally, the Series 10 burned roughly twice as much battery using its onboard GPS to track my trek compared to the Forerunner 570. Before acknowledging our winner, it's worth pointing out that both the Garmin Forerunner 570 and Apple Watch Series 10 did extremely well in this walk test, and I'd gladly reach for either before recording my next adventure. However, the Garmin Forerunner 570 officially takes the belt in this bout against the Apple Watch Series 10. The margin may be razor thin, but a win's a win. Which smartwatches or fitness trackers would you like to see me test head-to-head in a future walk test? Let me know in the comments below. Until then, get those steps in!
Engadget
4 days ago
- Engadget
Garmin's new sleep tracker offers a week of battery life
Sleep tracking is nothing new in Garmin's fitness watches, but the company's latest wearable is a dedicated smart sleep band. The Index Sleep Monitor offers week-long battery life with continuous pulse ox tracking for monitoring your blood oxygen saturation while you sleep. Garmin's tracker is worn on the upper arm — which should hopefully make it more comfortable — where it tracks a variety of metrics: skin temperature; light, deep and REM sleep stages; and variations in your heart rate and breathing. The data is then combined to provide an overall personalized daily sleep score that can be viewed in the Garmin Connect app. If you already use a Garmin smartwatch but don't sleep with it on your wrist, the Index Sleep Monitor is designed to add the missing metrics to the insights you're already getting from the watch. Skin temperature tracking gives you a better idea of how your sleep environment affects the quality of your sleep, while flagging potential illnesses indicated by temperature changes. This metric also extends to menstrual health tracking, with skin temperature changes useful for tracking cycles, past ovulation estimates and offering what Garmin describes as 'improved period predictions.' Garmin's Index Sleep Monitor will also monitor your energy levels, providing you with its 'Body Battery' measurements that advise you to take more rest when the reading is coming in low. Again, these insights should be more accurate and reliable when combined with a compatible smartwatch worn during the day. The sleep band will also track your stress throughout the night, and features a smart alarm that attempts to wake you gently during lighter sleep stages so you'll feel less tired. The Index Sleep Monitor is available in S-M and L-XL sizes and costs $170.
Tom's Guide
6 days ago
- Tom's Guide
Could ‘Jeffing' be the secret to running faster? — I tried it, and here's what happened
A couple of weeks ago, I told you how I'd discovered Jeffing for the first time, despite running and writing about health and fitness for the past decade. I was inundated with messages from readers, some telling me how they'd 'Jeffed' all of their PR's, others asking for more advice. And I decided my dalliance with this run/walk method was far from over. With no races on the calendar for the foreseeable future (I'm still returning to fitness following the birth of my son, and have little time to think about training for a race right now), I decided to put the method to the test. One week I ran 10K, the next week, I 'Jeffed' the same route, and the results really surprised me — read on to find out more. As a reminder, for those who are new to the idea, Jeffing is a run, walk technique developed by US Olympian Jeff Galloway. In simple terms, you run for a bit, then you walk, allowing you to keep going for longer. 'By alternating running and walking from the start, runners stay strong, recover faster and finish feeling good,' says Galloway. As long as there's some form of walking interval from the offset, you're Jeffing. Instead of setting out for a run, and continuing at the same pace, Jeffing involves running for between 10-60 seconds, then walking for 30 seconds, from the beginning of the workout. The intervals are flexible — if you're a more experienced runner, you might want to increase the running element, or decrease the amount of time spent walking. As long as there's some form of walking interval from the offset, you're Jeffing. As mentioned above, I set out and ran a 10K on Monday, June 9. I ran without looking at my pace, and followed my regular route along the river. According to my Garmin Forerunner 570, I ran 6.5 miles, with an average pace of 8:09 minute miles. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. My average heart rate was 159 beats per minute (bpm), and my max heart rate was 178 bpm. A week later, I set out on the same run, but this time, I added walking intervals to see what Jeffing would do to my overall performance. I set up the run on the Garmin Connect app beforehand, programming five minutes of running, followed by a 30-second walk. Sure, these are slightly longer intervals than some run/walk plans, but as mentioned above, I'm an experienced runner. If you're new to running, I'd recommend a minute or two of running, followed by a walking break. The surprising thing was, when Jeffing a 10K on Monday, June 16, I ran 6.74 miles (to finish my final five-minute interval), at an average pace of 8:09 minute miles. My average heart rate was 163 bpm, and my max heart rate was 180 bpm. As well as keeping my pace and heart rate pretty much the same, I actually burned more calories while Jeffing, compared to running at a steady pace for the entire time — 606 calories, compared to 563 calories the week before. My splits were also more consistent. As I ran at a steady pace, I slowed down as I neared the end of my run and fatigued, whereas this wasn't the case while Jeffing. Split times and calories burned aside, I really enjoyed the Jeffing workout. The way I'd set it up on my Garmin beforehand meant I could only see what was happening in that segment of the workout. I didn't focus on my average pace; instead, I ran each five minutes to feel, and ended up consistently running a 7:45-7:50 minute pace throughout the workout. The 30-second walks felt a lot shorter than I thought they'd be as I set up the workout — it was barely long enough to catch my breath, and I was moving again. However, these little walking breaks allowed me to stop, breathe, and mentally reset for the next five minutes. I hadn't believed the hype when I started this Jeffing journey, but I've been humbled. Perhaps I'll join fellow Jeffers at my next major race!
