Do you train using time or distance?
Options
Replies
-
Me personally, I go by miles. But I will also pay attention on how long I do a run. I have a few times in marathon training break the Jack Daniels 2-1/2 hour rule when I was doing 20 miles and a couple 22 miles.
I am not sure if I will do that again this time around. We will see.
It is extremely difficult to get 20 miles in on a training run in under 2.5 hours, that is 7:15 avg. pace the whole way. Most people are not (and should not) doing their long runs that fast.
0 -
Pfitzinger & Douglas suggest pacing your 22 mile run progressively from MP +20% to MP + 10% such that it ends up taking the same amount of time as it will take you to run the marathon, which for most people is more than 2.5 hours. Though I've never been that precise about it when following their plans and just run somewhere in that range.0
-
DavidMartinez2 wrote: »Me personally, I go by miles. But I will also pay attention on how long I do a run. I have a few times in marathon training break the Jack Daniels 2-1/2 hour rule when I was doing 20 miles and a couple 22 miles.
I am not sure if I will do that again this time around. We will see.
It is extremely difficult to get 20 miles in on a training run in under 2.5 hours, that is 7:15 avg. pace the whole way. Most people are not (and should not) doing their long runs that fast.
That's why Daniels says the LESSER of 2.5 hours or 25% of your weekly mileage.
Not only is running a 20 miler under 2.5 hours tough, but running 80 miles a week is tough too.
Now we are talking elite level on both the 7:15 pace and 80 mile weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO1hQ_kplgo
0 -
DavidMartinez2 wrote: »Me personally, I go by miles. But I will also pay attention on how long I do a run. I have a few times in marathon training break the Jack Daniels 2-1/2 hour rule when I was doing 20 miles and a couple 22 miles.
I am not sure if I will do that again this time around. We will see.
It is extremely difficult to get 20 miles in on a training run in under 2.5 hours, that is 7:15 avg. pace the whole way. Most people are not (and should not) doing their long runs that fast.
And I wouldn't be attempting to run that 20 miles in 2.5 hours. More like 3 hours and some change.
Like I said, we will see when it comes down to that what I decide how far to do my longest long run at.
0 -
CarsonRuns wrote: »I write plans by distance. I feel like giving an athlete a plan that says "run x minutes" gives them the opportunity to say "well, if I just run a little faster, I can do it y miles in that time". Then they end up running easy runs too fast and the workouts suffer along with the overall training. If I say run y miles, that removes that incentive.I think the opposite way, Carson - I was much more likely to think 'x miles, that should take me y minutes!' whereas when the plan is written in minutes I just think 'oh well, I'm taking it pretty easy today, I'll just go a shorter way home for my 90 minutes'. It's all mind games...
My coach gives me HR zones as well as the time goal to go by which eliminates either of those issues.0 -
That's why Daniels says the LESSER of 2.5 hours or 25% of your weekly mileage.
Not only is running a 20 miler under 2.5 hours tough, but running 80 miles a week is tough too.
Now we are talking elite level on both the 7:15 pace and 80 mile weeks.
I understand what LESSER means. My point was almost every marathon plan on the planet includes at least one run of 20 miles or longer but using the 2.5 hour metric most marathoners will not get that using the JD plan. I am a sub 3 hour marathoner and I am barely able to complete a 20 mile run in under 2.5 hours. The Jack Daniels marathon plans are really not appropriate for recreational runners. The tables he has for identifying training paces are extremely useful. I just don't think sending an 11:00/mile runner out for a 4.5+ hour race when their longest run was 2 hours less than that is a good idea.
0 -
DavidMartinez2 wrote: »
That's why Daniels says the LESSER of 2.5 hours or 25% of your weekly mileage.
Not only is running a 20 miler under 2.5 hours tough, but running 80 miles a week is tough too.
Now we are talking elite level on both the 7:15 pace and 80 mile weeks.
I understand what LESSER means. My point was almost every marathon plan on the planet includes at least one run of 20 miles or longer but using the 2.5 hour metric most marathoners will not get that using the JD plan. I am a sub 3 hour marathoner and I am barely able to complete a 20 mile run in under 2.5 hours. The Jack Daniels marathon plans are really not appropriate for recreational runners. The tables he has for identifying training paces are extremely useful. I just don't think sending an 11:00/mile runner out for a 4.5+ hour race when their longest run was 2 hours less than that is a good idea.
I definitely agree!0 -
DavidMartinez2 wrote: »
That's why Daniels says the LESSER of 2.5 hours or 25% of your weekly mileage.
Not only is running a 20 miler under 2.5 hours tough, but running 80 miles a week is tough too.
Now we are talking elite level on both the 7:15 pace and 80 mile weeks.
I understand what LESSER means. My point was almost every marathon plan on the planet includes at least one run of 20 miles or longer but using the 2.5 hour metric most marathoners will not get that using the JD plan. I am a sub 3 hour marathoner and I am barely able to complete a 20 mile run in under 2.5 hours. The Jack Daniels marathon plans are really not appropriate for recreational runners. The tables he has for identifying training paces are extremely useful. I just don't think sending an 11:00/mile runner out for a 4.5+ hour race when their longest run was 2 hours less than that is a good idea.
Got ya. Yeah. That is probably why a lot of folks believe you have no business training for a marathon until you have at least a couple of years running experience under your belt (at least a couple of years).
You either have to break a lot of "rules" to smart running to complete one of these plans, or just make due with what you have.
Jack would rather have you get hurt running the race than get hurt training for it and not even make the starting line.
I personally feel that if it takes you 6 hours to run a marathon then maybe you should try and be a better half marathoner first before you sign up for a full. It's a huge commitment and I wouldn't want to run for 6 hours.
And nobody try and convince me to run an ultra. ;-) ....well not yet at least.0 -
kristinegift wrote: »I go by distance. Especially for long runs, when I know the second half is longer than the first half. I'm very data driven, so going by time seems like an impossible task. I gotta have my even mileage!
I'm the same way. I'm too OCD to go by time. I've tried, but I can't stop at 6 if I can go 6.2, or 12.8 if I can go 13.1... But different strokes for different folks.0
