Runners who don't record mileage...tell me when you stopped and why

I've never recorded my mileage. I only run by time. It feels less regimented this way, FWIW.

I don't record miles, I record minutes. I write down 60 minutes, not X miles. It's freeing because I'm not tied to a known route - I run whichever direction I feel like.

It also frees me from feeling I have to hit specific times on specific routes. If I'm tired I go slower, if I feel good I go faster. You can't run an hour in any less than an hour, so I'm free to run whatever pace feels right.

I've been doing this for years.

Bob Sacamano wrote:

I don't record miles, I record minutes. I write down 60 minutes, not X miles. It's freeing because I'm not tied to a known route - I run whichever direction I feel like.

It also frees me from feeling I have to hit specific times on specific routes. If I'm tired I go slower, if I feel good I go faster. You can't run an hour in any less than an hour, so I'm free to run whatever pace feels right.

I've been doing this for years.

This. I'm old enough that I will never get another PR and never win another race, so I don't worry about training any more. In fact, I don't really train anymore - I just run.

I stopped when I stopped competitive running (aka after college).

I don't have a planned distance when I leave the house. I just run. I know roughly how far Ive gone when I finish, but I never time it and I never add up how many I did in a particular week.

I stopped because I needed to get back to enjoying running as opposed to having it be a chore.

I log distance on a spreadsheet when I am training for something, the rest of the time no log.

Ditto to what the other guys said, but I actually think that my fitness has improved now that I do not log my miles. Similarly, I don't set out training plans further than a couple weeks out. I know that I will run 2-3 "workouts" a week, but the specifics depend on how my body is feeling and any recent performances either in workouts or races.

I think a lot of people, rather than say "I feel like I can run X for a 10K", they say "I have run 100 mpw for 10 weeks, so that means I can run X for a 10K"

I don't need to know my exact mpw to know if I am ready to roll.

I track most of the time, though there's something very pure/fundamental about just going for a run without a predetermined route, foreplanning, watch or other items beyond shoes and shorts. A similar feeling to removing clutter from other areas of your life.

I have never recorded miles or time spent running. You're only going to do what you're going to do and writing it down or measuring it won't change anything. It is what it is.

I do have a few measured courses for time trials or reps but when they are done they are done.

All that matters is duration. I still record miles, but I give more weight to how long I'm running rather than how far, and structure all my runs by duration. The way I see it is that if an elite is covering 20 miles in a little over two hours at an aerobic intensity, then why should hobby-jogger me be running more than 2 hours for a long run? If I run by mileage and go the full 20, it'll take me aprox 3:30 to cover the distance at an aerobic intensity. I'll probably make nearly twice as many footfalls. The body feels the impact of time on your feet, not the distance.

Which brings up a related point. An elite marathoner runs a marathon in a smidgeon over two hours, and my friend runs a marathon in 4 hours. There not really running the same race. One is running a 2-hour race at best effort, and cover 26.2 miles, and the other is running a 4-hour race at best effort and is covering 26.2 miles. Some people take 5-6 hours. Bigger impact on the slower runners.

Imagine a world in which all races that allow different levels of ability to participate are defined by duration instead of distance. Instead of a 26.2 mile marathon. The race is a 2-hour race. You go as far as you can in 2 hours. In terms of impact on the body, everyone is running the same race, approximately. Of course, this is just a fantasy as for many of the established marathons, this would be a logistical nightmare to stop the race at 2-hours. Fun to think about.

I stopped recording volume when I realized that the quality of training, i.e. the degree of intensity and allowance for adequate recovery, are far more important than the number of miles run or the amount of time spent running.

time_to_floss wrote:

Which brings up a related point. An elite marathoner runs a marathon in a smidgeon over two hours, and my friend runs a marathon in 4 hours. There not really running the same race. One is running a 2-hour race at best effort, and cover 26.2 miles, and the other is running a 4-hour race at best effort and is covering 26.2 miles. Some people take 5-6 hours. Bigger impact on the slower runners.

No.

The stride rate is lower, the distance covered per stride is much lower, and the distance covered per time is only 1/3 to 1/3.

The challenge to slower runners is much less.

Time to think wrote:

time_to_floss wrote:

Which brings up a related point. An elite marathoner runs a marathon in a smidgeon over two hours, and my friend runs a marathon in 4 hours. There not really running the same race. One is running a 2-hour race at best effort, and cover 26.2 miles, and the other is running a 4-hour race at best effort and is covering 26.2 miles. Some people take 5-6 hours. Bigger impact on the slower runners.

No.

The stride rate is lower, the distance covered per stride is much lower, and the distance covered per time is only 1/3 to 1/3.

The challenge to slower runners is much less.

Let's do some math. Let's say an elite has a stride rate of 190 for 2:10:00 or 130 minutes. 190x130=24700 footfalls

A slow amateur has a low rate of 150 for 5 hours or 300 minutes

150x300=45,000 footfalls

Plus many amateurs weigh more than the elite and don't recover as well from their training.

Time to think wrote:

the distance covered per stride is much lower, and the distance covered per time is only 1/3 to 1/3.

Yup, flying through the air really beats you up.

conventional wisdom is wrong wrote:

I stopped recording volume when I realized that the quality of training, i.e. the degree of intensity and allowance for adequate recovery, are far more important than the number of miles run or the amount of time spent running.

This sums it up. Miles is a length of distance and when you train the main priority is fitness. Some people get fit faster by resting. Some people get fit faster by hard interval training or some by long slow days or a combo of all. Basically, of you are getting a stimulus and a recovery as often as you can and eat and sleep well it will be more important for miles. Or at least for me. I do however log down if it was a hard effort, an easy effort or a recovery (sub easy or sore effort). I look back at these efforts and maybe the amount of repeats or duration of the run and compare to recent time trials.

Whatever, none of this matters. Just run.

Most all good answers by others here. "Slave to my watch" sums up why I stopped wearing the Garmin in late 2011. Still PR'd in the marathon in 2013.

Not to the point of the question but I record a few bits of info in a spreadsheet. Pace,distance, ave heart rate along with any notes about how I felt or conditions.

These few simple and quick inputs from each run allow me to get useful insights about my training using graphs and other formulas i have set up that summarize the daily, weekly, monthly results in a number of ways.

This doesn't mean I get hung up on the paces I run or anything. It's just that I log it.

I measure myself against other runners by my height.

I started recording time/effort in high school, even then I thought that it was stupid to log 9.7 miles, or whatever close approximation. Back in the old days there weren't mapping tools available like there are today. I ran a lot of dirt roads, single track trails, etc. I measured courses with my car sometimes, which was probably about as accurate as I could get. I was never anal enough to buy a wheel. If I needed accuracy, I went to a track. Also, I lived in a rural area and everything was laid out on a 1 mile grid, and it was easy to lay out very accurate courses if needed.

At some point, time/effort/sense became the best guide. 60 minutes easy, 30 minutes tempo, etc. All that matters is fitness based on the balance between stress and recovery.