Miles or Minutes

:)

I do seconds.

I've switched to minutes, it's actually a lot less mental strain, especially after work. I find I'm not racing every workout, and I'm allowing myself to actually warm up some instead of trying to blast from the first few steps out of the driveway.

I've started running off-road on some trails which aren't measured, too. This is adding a whole new dimension to things.

I also just read "Long Slow Distance: The Humane Way To Train" by Joe Henderson.

Interesting.

Minutes...relax and just run for time. Better for your soul!

Play it safe and record both.

Lydiard used to make fun of Henderson to his face for his idea of Long Slow Distance. He thought Henderson was doing a huge disservice to runners.

well then why did Lydiard change his own program to minutes?

I run by miles but I coach by minutes. I am ocd and like to know how far I have gone. For the athletes that I coach I try and keep it as simples and free of stress as I can so just have them run by minutes.

I would have to say if you invest in a garmin gps watch, you should have no problem. I train by minutes, but then I can also jot down how many miles I have run since I kinda like to know what I'm doing. Before I used to guestimate and divide my total minutes by 7. Though, if you don't feel like spending the money, mapmyrun.com is good, which others have already stated on here.

All my Ez running(recovery runs, ez runs, warm&cooldowns) I base on 7 min pace. For ex: 49min=7miles. All other workouts I use a measured distance(track workouts, tempos, fartleks). I figure Im within 5 miles or less within the precise distance i run each week. Plus basing it on minutes does not make you feel like you have to run a certain pace, so you run at a proper pace for the run rather than hammering just to get done quicker.

I've figured through years of training that my average pace is generally around 7:30/mi (I'm a chick, so none of this "that's so slow", so I run for minutes and figure miles from that. I find it a lot more convenient--I can make up my own routes at will and not worry whether it will be a certain distance. Running by minutes also comes in handy when it's snowy out--of course the snow will slow a person down. So even if an hour a running through 6" snow might only get me ~7 miles, effort wise, I consider it 8.

FW wrote:

So even if an hour a running through 6" snow might only get me ~7 miles, effort wise, I consider it 8.

That's rounding up and doesn't do anything for your training. I'd rather run the extra mile to call it 8.

With that said its easy to deduce that I run for miles, not minutes. My easy pace is 7min/miles like almost everyone else, but there's always good days when I'm going faster than that and feel the same effort as a 7 min/mile. So following your logic if I average 6:40 pace for 10 miles, but figure it on 7:00 pace, I'm adding extra mileage that I didn't actually run while lying to myself and my weekly log.

I run by time but map my runs because i dont run under much trees in traily areas so its easy to map.. justa suggestion.

OK. Who am I without first checking the email to see if you're right? I count all my miles as 7:45's. Even over measured distances. (Hint: I once ran 21.7 mile marathon)

oh definitely minutes right now as I am not fast. But when I finally get fast I will probably start reporting in miles obviously.

Minutes are the way to go. If you just go by mileage you actually give yourself less work as you get faster. By using time you allow yourself to maintain the same amount of quality and effort. Plus I believe that the amount of time you run is more important than the amount of distance you run.

Minutes. It's good enough for Ed Whitlock, right?

Minutes or hours. Not mileage, that\'s so 1960\'s.

Use Time, it's a constant.

I go by how many songs I have loaded on my ipod. I pick 20 songs before each run and then run until the first song repeats.