Should slower runners train by time instead of distance?

Distance isn't something your body perceives. It's not a stimulus. You increased your effort level and ran further in that same amount of time. It never makes sense to run based on distance. Recording the distance you made it in those minutes is useful information. Basing your goal of the run upon that distance isn't useful. It causes people to either run too fast or run too many minutes trying to get the set amount of "miles" in

Not only are they using the same energy systems, the slower runner has to do it for longer. If we're both racing 100% we are in the same situation. They just deal with it a lot more efficiently and finish a lot quicker

They really aren't.

The 30 minuter is running at a much higher percentage of vo2 max, and the the 55 minuter is likely outside LT2 (if he/she runs it evenly).

It makes sense to run based on distance (some of the time), because races are organised based on distance.

As another poster said, if you're trying to target a specific energy system (vo2 max, LT2, etc) then it makes sense to focus on 'time at said intensity'. However, if you're focussing on race paced intervals, and you want to give a stimulus that is 80% of the total race duration; then 4 x 2k @ 10k pace is going to be that whether you're a 30 minute runner or a 55 minute runner.

To your other point, I found that when I used to run based on time, I would run much faster on my easy days, because that way I could get more miles in for the week. When I decided to run based on distance, I slowed down, because I knew I was getting in 8 miles (for example), whether I ran at 7:30 pace or 8:30 pace. So, running to time had the opposite effect of what you've argued.

No. Imagine a 13 minute 5k guy does 3x mile in 4:10. A 26 minute guy doing 3 x 4:10 covers only 1/2 mile on each rep.

I made this Youtube video last week that addressed this exact topic (more or less).

My point is this: The body does recognize Distance because it is part of your overall work output (displacement that you have to move your body weight).

The Work for most people to run 18-20 miles "hard" means that they will start "running low" on glycogen stores and probably "hit the wall" if they are running all-out and not taking in any exogenous carbs. It doesn't matter how much Time it takes them to run that Distance (2 hours or 4 hours)...."the wall" is fairly consistent for all Marathon runners at that Distance.....

Now if we factor in Time in relation to Work: (Work/Time)... we have a basic Power equation:

Relative power matters because depending on experience level, metabolism, genetics etc it will change our RER (respiratory exchange ratio). In Marathons this is significant because it changes our "glycogen burn rate". Slower runners by default are generally not operating at the same intensity as a Kipchoge. All of a sudden the Marathon is either a 2 hour race or a 5 hour race. But Kipchoge is likely pulling around 90% max HR and much higher relative Power compared to the 5-hour marathoner who is probably more at like 78% of Max HR. Even though Kipchoge is likely a lighter person and has better Running Economy (efficiency). Kipchoge is sipping carb heavy Maurten evey 14-min. Whereas the 5-hour marathoner probably should not be taking a gel every 14-min though (they'd have to carry a lot of gels!). But because their whole RER is different because the slower runner can actually burn more fat for fuel during the event. Think of power like a cyclist in watts/kg.

So energy systems and therefore training stimulus change based on relative Power (or effort) put forth. Same thing goes with relative lactate values and relative Vo2max in shorter events below the Half Marathon:

Slower runners are not always "using the same energy systems" as faster runners so things don't always scale very well "by Time" imo:

If you're training for a Marathon would you just stop everyone's Long Run at 2 hours?

The faster runner might be able to knock out a 20-miler in that time (good stimulus), whereas a slower runner might only do 10-miles. I'd probably tell the slower runner to do a "16-mile Long Run" instead regardless of how Long it takes them...because they still need to do the work of a Long Run (and the Marathon is a set distance of 26.2 miles so they better be ready for that!).

This makes no sense. If person A's 5k PB is 15 minutes and person B's 5k PB is 20 minutes, then person A's vo2max is much higher than person B's vo2max.

So, the 3:00 runner will be training at the same % of their vo2max as the 4:00 runner is of their respective vo2max.

The only difference will be that person B will be running for longer.

You’re right on the first point. The second point can’t be right though, or at least needs to be qualified. If we make the example more stark, you’ll see that it can’t be the same percentage of vo2max.

Runner A runs the 5km at world record pace. World record pace for the 5km is more or less the ideal length for a vo2max test, so let’s say it’s 100% vo2max for a 12:35.

Runner B runs the 5km in 40min (he‘s trying his best!). A 40min race is going to be more like 90% of vo2max.

If Runner A does 1km repeats at 5km race pace, he is doing 100% vo2max pace intervals for 2:31.

If Runner B does 1km repeats at 5km race pace, he is doing 90% vo2max pace intervals for 8:00.

Runner A is doing 100% vo2max intervals; Runner B is doing something more akin to threshold intervals (and probably inadvisably long at that…).

Saying it again doesn't make it true. When that world record holder gets old, his Vo2 max drops. But you seem to want to compare his training pace at age 60 to his PR and Vo2 max at age 25.

Not even close to true. I've had girls who run 17 minute 5ks and 28 minute 5ks on the same team. The 28 minute 5k girls basically run at a threshold effort. They aren't intentionally going easy, but you can't go a lot harder than threshold effort for 28 minutes, and they develop a conservative pacing strategy after going out too hard and having to walk.

One of the things I had to learn about coaching kids at that level is that their "threshold" intervals can be at race pace. My first few years, the slower girls were basically jogging their intervals if they followed my guidelines. We do a mix of 1k and 2k threshold intervals. My faster girls do mostly 2ks while the slower girls do mostly 1ks. I calculate paces for the faster group by doing 105-110% of a recent 5k performance (depends on the course). As we get into the mid 20s, I start moving the paces closer to race time, and by the high 20s, they're just running race pace.

I'm not saying this is the best method, but it's really clear watching their efforts that a 5k is not physiologically the same at sub-6 pace and 9-min+ pace.

One other method I've used to train very different groups simultaneously is assigning intervals for a certain amount of time. For example, run 1000s at 5k effort with 200 meter jog recovery for 20 mins. I do that most commonly with hill repeats early season, and I still have to assign different durations to different groups, but it eliminates some guesswork.

Overall yes because some slow runners see that an elite is running 100 miles a week and decide they need to run 100 miles a week too to reach their potential. But the elite is doing this in 12-14 hours lets say, and it is taking them 20 hours. At some point there has to be a cap on time. Same way how Daniels recommends capping the longest long runs at 2 hours and 30 minutes.

Why? The slower runner races proportionately longer time wise.

i personally think we go about it backwards, that you should run track with the shorter distances, then move up to cross with the 5k. "walk before you run," so to speak. most of us started out, go run around that softball backstop and back here, in PE. then we run a 600 or something. then a mile. then a 2400. and eventually out to 5k in HS.

we then for reasons unclear to me make cross country more welcoming to newcomers, then say, ok, run 40 miles a week cold. and a 5k every week for a meet.

that's nuts.

the normal solid advice to adults just starting is actually run to a clock, because we have no idea if they can even do a 200 in faster than sundial time. so it's run 30s walk 1m repeats. idea being they try to run those 30s with some effort. and then steadily build that out.

hopefully a new kid is not that slow but it shouldn't be dramatically different. if we're running mile intervals, maybe they should start with 200s or quarters. then build up. maybe you're decent by the end of the season and able to do full workouts. then hand them off to track and see if they can push them further along.

i am sure the darwinian jerks are like, are you kidding with those workouts, or the kid shouldn't be on the team, but at my HS the "team" might be down to 10 kids end of some seasons because it made little dispensation for multisport athletes, who tended to quit in droves, and asked serious runner workloads from some new runner realities.

one interesting way of doing this would be you set up an interval but everyone stops and walks back in when the fast one finishes. "distance" for the fastest, "work rate for time" for the more modest or busy. there might be some value to completing a distance on long run days, but to me for slower runners, if the overall plan is too much, then every segment turns into a long slow jog as they are out of their depth.

that or literally have them doing windsprints or sprinter work at first. which is so short it's not that much different than run 30s and stop repeats.

this is kind of like the older i get i think there is more payoff in team sports from working on skills and scoring than the hard running work most coaches focus on. eg hoops coaches love to run their players, and you do need some of it, but you win by scoring more. i have seen teams like grinnell do ok by teaching the mediocre kids they can get to shoot endless 3s, and then shift change the kids off the court to deal with fitness limits. particularly in a JV-type situation, that seems like more of the "long term" play than just running them hard and relying on work rate to try and win games actually decided by isolated technical efforts. i get your JV soccer team may suck year 1 they show up but if they can't ball better but just run hard as seniors, you wasted 4 years of time to teach them how to play.

anyhow, pitch count the multisport, and work the noobs up to the level rather than demand the immediate endgame. the coaching is meant for their best runners, and then when i hear crap like double-T for most kids, not even them at many schools.

I just wanted to add that there's no reason why slower runners can't simply adjust the distance. If a workout is 4xmile for a faster runner, make it 4x1200m. I know that seems like a distinction without a difference to time adjustments. But a lot of inexperienced runners still like to be able to compare times over the same distance as their fitness improves. And this is a way to accommodate that while still making proper adjustments for their overall speed, or lack there of.

personally my experience in soccer was the most competitive team i was on was select, even though i played HS and went on to d3. at select our ethos was practice 75-90 minutes, hard, a few times a week. get in, run hard, go home. we had limits, no slide tackling teammates, because hurting teammates in practice is stupid. and the way we got speed and fitness was we signed up kids with track speed or cross ability. ie pick talent.

for some reason at college in a lot of sports the idea seems to become endless practices and high workload. my college team had a far worse injury attrition problem, plus people quitting sick of the coach (which i sometimes see as a symptom of being overcooked), and while on paper the concept was to outwork teams, in reality what happened was we'd maybe sneak up on someone the first weekend on being more fit -- peak early -- but be cooked by midseason, and play to a bunch of hard working but meh 0-0 double OT ties. the burst to change a game seemed to be lacking. ironically my select that trained much less harder, was better, and i think that basically came down to talent and that those kids included natural distance runners.

in HS track sprinting we don't run some massive multiple of the race distance every day just to do a 100 or 400 on saturday. again, like select soccer, we come in, we have some work to do, but it takes maybe an hour tops, get in, get out. we might actually view what you do as running our legs off. i think the "taper" is a tacit acknowledgement you're overcooking people. in what other sport does the idea seem to be that only one game will matter. in sprinting we aren't writing off whole swathes of the season as almost like a workout. even in the first meets when we're still knocking rust off and part of the effect is fitness, no one is like, this is just a workout at 90%.

sorry i don't buy any of this is necessary until college when you have folks running 8k or 10k. my experience i was better running 2/3 of practices than full ones.

That can work both ways.

Either way, if you're training yourself, you should instinctively find the number where you belong.

i think we are converging same place different directions. as a new XC person who had before done sprinting and played a team sport, my first year they had me on 2/3 of the workout. i improved minutes to the 5-7 type varsity spots.

they then upped me to the full workout and i blew up anemic since i was also doing my team sport. times got worse.

same diff for noob runners. you do not need full distance 100% throttle work to do the meets on saturday. a fraction of the work gets you a non-walking 5k finisher. and to me the game is to steadily build them up over the season where they have the speed and passion and fitness to do it with some pace.

to me you make it into an ordeal and if the noobs or multisport stay, they are reduced to slow joggers to finish it all.

so i like either modified distance or run to time. give me a solid effort for this increment.

i still think the answer is JV/freshman track. even if they want to run distance, if they are new and struggling, ok, this week you run a 200. a quarter. a half mile. some of the distances folks get put in for HS, do not even exist for elementary or junior high kids when the quicker kids are first starting. even though in some ways the noob is a baby to running.

Yes, his vo2max drops. That still doesn’t mean that a runner with a lower vo2max is magically able to run at maximal oxygen intake regardless of how long his 5km race takes. Think about the implications of what you‘re saying: A runner that requires over an hour to run a 5km race isn’t doing 100% vo2max, unless his maximal oxygen uptake pace is somehow slower than his lactate threshold pace…

I don’t know how to put it any other way than this: pace at vo2max is not determined by the distance 5km. It is determined by the pace someone can hold at their maximum oxygen uptake before failure/exhaustion. For most people, irrespective of genetics, exact current fitness level, and weight, that exhaustion/failure point comes somewhere between 12-15min. If their pace at vo2max doesn’t allow them to complete 5km in that time, that doesn’t they can just keep going until they reach 5km.

If you can’t grasp this point with multiple explanations, I’m not sure how to help you. This is the fundamental point behind why most people should train around time rather than distance, or at least orient their distances based on times at paces realistic for them.

You seem to think the faster runners' workouts are some magical formula that can then be used to extrapolate to time for a slower runner. That is your first mistake. I was a college coach for 25 years. I had teams at nationals several times so thanks for explaining it to me.

Train by time or distance during different runs. Time for volume and distance for tracking progression or preparing for a fixed distance race.