I would just add 5 minutes per day most days of the week. And then the next week add 5 more minutes to some of them as well as the couple days you didn't add to already from the previous week. This would basically increase the mileage 2-3 miles per week assuming you're running every day and in the 7-9 minute pace range
I do this with early base building and highly recommend it. Start with a weekly time goal i.e. 7 hours. Break that into daily time goals, for example 1 hour per day, or 75 min one day then 45 min next, etc. Each week add 30 minutes. So if I'm running 7 hours one week, I might run 60 min singles each day. The next week schedule 7:30 total, adding a 30 minute double on one day. The next week 8:00, add another double, etc. After I get to covering the total time desired per week, I start to focus on pace of runs.
I train by time as well. The only time I know real distances is when I workout on a track or a measured loop. Normally, I just add another 5min to each run as I build up to 70 minutes a day. Once I get to 70min for easy runs or recovery runs, I may add a double of 20 minutes in the evening after a workout in the morning. Last week, without adding in the workouts, I did four 60min runs and a 90min long run. This week, I'll add 5 minutes to each of those runs and that will basically add another 25 minutes. With the workouts being a little longer, it is closer to 35-40 minutes extra this week compared to last week. In short, just add an additional 25 minutes or so a week until you feel you are where you want to be.
TimeInsteadOfMilesExperiment wrote:
Basically the title. Always trained by distance for volume, but as it's winter and the surfaces are unpredictable and I am coming off a small break, I figured forcing a specific mileage wasn't a great idea. Curious if this is reasonable, if others do it, and if so, how they go about building their volume.
The rule of thumb is to not increase your daily or weekly milage by more than 10%. Hope this helps.
The problem is that if you start running your miles with the same intensity on a much slower surface then you will train harder because you run for a longer time. The body only knows time and intensity, not how many miles you run.
well,,,, wrote:
The problem is that if you start running your miles with the same intensity on a much slower surface then you will train harder because you run for a longer time. The body only knows time and intensity, not how many miles you run.
You adjust, you just run less. It's more difficult to run 8M on a technical trail than a paved bike path, so just run 6M.
Same thing goes for HR training vs pace. Just another way to measure the same thing.
I prefer miles and pace because on race day I will be counting down the miles, and looking at my average pace. I completely get why others prefer the different method, you body doesn't know a mile from a meter, your HR is going to vary on a hot day vs cool, but then so should your av. pace.
to each his own.
I really appreciate your question. It is more subtle than it seems. I coach largely following a Lydiard-informed methodology. This sounds nice but really it just means emphasizing the aerobic condition, sequential development, and running time-based.
Here is a sample week during base building:
Monday, off
Tuesday, 90mins 1/4 effort w/ 6 strtides
Wednesday, 45min recovery fartlek
Thursday, 90mins 1/4 effort w/ 6 strides
Friday, 45min jog
Saturday, Out & Back Run | 31mins Out 1/4 effort + 29mins Back 1/2 effort
Sunday, 2hrs 1/4 effort w/ 8 strides
If you are respecting this polarized, time-based model, what is going to happen over 10-12 weeks? Your aerobic condition will improve. As a result, so will your moving speeds. Let's say week 1 of the Aerobic Conditioning Phase, you follow this sample week to the letter and come out with 50 mpw. After 4 weeks, you should be seeing that you are logging 50.5 miles, or 51 miles, or 54 miles (it depends on your history, talent, and how diligent you are at hitting the correct training intensities over weeks and months), yet your heart rate, or felt-sense of vitality, has remained static. Does this make sense? Weekly duration should remain the same while mileage increases. If you are not seeing your mileage increase as a natural byproduct of aerobic training, there is an underlying health issue or its simply time for you to nudge the pace up manually. Aerobic advancement does not happen automatically. You want to be building a clear channel of communication between you and your body. You want to ask yourself if, after your typical Tuesday medium-long run, you will be fully recovered by Thursday's medium-long run. If you are very well recovered, then it is time to ask yourself what it would feel like to quicken the pace very slightly, and generate an additional recovery cost but one that is still absorbable so as to never need down weeks (unless for illness or low excitement level).
30 min a week for 3 weeks then 1 week maintain. Repeat
TimeInsteadOfMilesExperiment wrote:
I don't think you read my post right. I'm asking about increasing weekly volume, I understand the concept of time....
Well if I ran an hour today, I run an hour and 10 minutes tomorrow.
Keep your volume high all year round just reduce effort/pace/distance
Base:Run 10 minute miles for an hour
Speed:Run 6 minute miles for an hour
Volume is the key to long term development
5 min per day of running . 5 days of running , increase total by 25 min distributed however you want, but definitely divide it up
You could just stop trying to trick yourself - and rather, be sensible about increasing your volume through mileage.
If you know that you're not in great shape and the paths are icy - run a bit slower (a lot slower if you have to).
Experienced runners should intuitively know what the right intensity is, it's only ego and insecurity that force the wrong pace.
Stagger your increased minutes
20-30-25-35-30-40-35-45 etc.