Distance vs. Time
Options
Duck_Puddle
Posts: 3,224 Member
My plan is primarily time-based with mileage listed to simplify things and as a basic guide for approximate distance that should be getting covered. I'm supposed to have been doing 3 runs do approx 60/45/75 min from which I'm now to build to 75/60/90 min (then add in a 4th day then build to 90/60/75/120). That's where I'm supposed to landing in July-ish (at the 90/60/75/120).
By some unforeseen miracle, I've gotten marginally faster in the last month and my 60/45/75 is more like 50/40/65 (about 25 min short of the total time goal). Adding the distance/time called for over the next 6 weeks is going to put me closer to where I'm supposed to be already.
I am training for a half in early October and the plan calls for 4-5 long runs that are supposed to be 2:30-3:00 (as it's expected to take me that long to run the half and I have serious confidence issues). But at the rate I'm going, they won't be anywhere near that long. Which I guess is ok since they still cover the necessary distance and all the better if it's not going to take me as long to finish.
Anyway, my question is: is it harmful to switch to going by mileage? Or should I be working on building to those times regardless of the number of miles specifically covered (assuming it's more and not less than planned)? And if I need to do the time, how do I go about adding the time back in without overdoing it and ending up injured (I'm old, slow, and running 12-13-ish miles/week)?
By some unforeseen miracle, I've gotten marginally faster in the last month and my 60/45/75 is more like 50/40/65 (about 25 min short of the total time goal). Adding the distance/time called for over the next 6 weeks is going to put me closer to where I'm supposed to be already.
I am training for a half in early October and the plan calls for 4-5 long runs that are supposed to be 2:30-3:00 (as it's expected to take me that long to run the half and I have serious confidence issues). But at the rate I'm going, they won't be anywhere near that long. Which I guess is ok since they still cover the necessary distance and all the better if it's not going to take me as long to finish.
Anyway, my question is: is it harmful to switch to going by mileage? Or should I be working on building to those times regardless of the number of miles specifically covered (assuming it's more and not less than planned)? And if I need to do the time, how do I go about adding the time back in without overdoing it and ending up injured (I'm old, slow, and running 12-13-ish miles/week)?
0
Replies
-
I would stick with the time based approach. More time on your feet is going to benefit you the most.0
-
Running based on miles will sometimes cause you to run faster than you wanted to on easy days so you can hit "X" miles for the week. I've switched between the two. It won't make a huge difference either way. Whatever you decide will be good! Just don't get caught up on the numbers0
-
I would stick with the time based approach. More time on your feet is going to benefit you the most.
So how would I add back in the 25 missing minutes? On top of the time I'm supposed to adding anyway? Or instead? I haven't really added more than 10, maybe 15 min total per week.0 -
Split it up over all the runs. Just run the minutes on the schedule. If it means you exceed the mileage number, Super!0
-
Ok. You haven't steered me wrong yet, I'll believe you this time too. But you know I'm terrified of getting hurt. Next week is a cutback week-I think I'll add most of the missing time back and see how that goes. At least that won't be adding on top of an increase-it'll just be less cutting.0
-
Ok. You haven't steered me wrong yet, I'll believe you this time too. But you know I'm terrified of getting hurt. Next week is a cutback week-I think I'll add most of the missing time back and see how that goes. At least that won't be adding on top of an increase-it'll just be less cutting.
A solid plan.0
