Weekly mileage equivalence

There is no "conversion". Log it as over hills or over flat terrain. It's the same thing as trying to convert swimming miles or biking miles to running miles.

Kind of. I count all my mileage at 7 minute pace. If im running on a flat road its probably morel ike 6:30 and if on really hilly trails probably morel ike 7;30.

So going by time, and going by effort are the only way to "convert" it. But don't think just because you ran a 15 mile run over hills makes it at 18 mile flat run.

but I'm gonna go with 50.

oh man you are so off base. You run what you run. 50 miles on the hills is 50 miles.

If you are "running for the log" just fill in what make you feel good about yourself. Do you want to record 65 miles? Go ahead, type in log and smile with glee.

hmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

Kind of. I count all my mileage at 7 minute pace. If im running on a flat road its probably morel ike 6:30 and if on really hilly trails probably morel ike 7;30.

So going by time, and going by effort are the only way to "convert" it. But don't think just because you ran a 15 mile run over hills makes it at 18 mile flat run.

Why record your mileage at a pace that might not be the pace you ran? Record your mileage at the actual pace you actually ran rather than some arbitrary number.

Since you know the distance (or could certainly figure it out with any web mapping distance measuring tool, and since a watch will tell you the time and pace, that's all the "conversion" you need.

I am trying to decrease my training just a bit due to recent injuries and advancing age. I know from experience that, living in a foothill region, I am getting more training out of 70 mpw than I would living by the sea shore, just as someone running 100 mpw at sea level might decrease mileage at altitude.

In the past, when I ran less, a 50 minute run at my relatives' in Ohio felt like a 35 minute run on western PA hills.

Fifty ain't fifty anywhere, as if the terrain does not matter, just as a 15 mile run at M pace is not the same as 15 at E pace. Intensity is as important as distance or else we would run all our mileage as hill sprints or pylometrics.

I am interested in how other runners might have credited or converted the mileage going from one type of terrain to another.

I am starting to understand that doing almost all my mileage on significant hills which was unavoidable was a big factor in my injuries.

The wear and tear from my 70 mpw was greater than 70 mpw would have been on flat or gently rolling terrain. I want to feel confident that I am running enough volume for a marathon. Is that 50 mpw, 60 mpw? I don't know and am interested in how others gauge the intensity of hill running.

A simple question would be; If you were coaching a runner who had been running 50 mpw on hills for years and the training was moved to flats, how much would you increase his mileage to maintain the same workload?

You mentioned how it is like running a run at MP instead of easy pace. Log it the same. When you run a 10 Miler at MP do you call it 13 miles? No, you just note how it is more intense. I fail to see how this is any different...

Trying to "convert" hilly miles to flat miles is what we officially define as "crazy talk." The difference is in effort, not volume. If I were training in an area without hills, I would increase the proportion of higher intensity work in my overall volume. e.g. check your heart rate on your hill efforts and then, when you train in a flat area run at the effort level you need to match the heart rates from your hill training.

Hills vs. Flats wrote:

A simple question would be; If you were coaching a runner who had been running 50 mpw on hills for years and the training was moved to flats, how much would you increase his mileage to maintain the same workload?

I guess I would say run for the same amount of TIME.

Record accurate distance and time and the difference in pace will give you the information you need about how much harder one is than the other.

converter wrote:

Hills vs. Flats wrote:

A simple question would be; If you were coaching a runner who had been running 50 mpw on hills for years and the training was moved to flats, how much would you increase his mileage to maintain the same workload?

I guess I would say run for the same amount of TIME.

Record accurate distance and time and the difference in pace will give you the information you need about how much harder one is than the other.

You win the award for the only adult poster since I last posted on this thread.

Hills vs. Flats wrote:

converter wrote:

I guess I would say run for the same amount of TIME.

Record accurate distance and time and the difference in pace will give you the information you need about how much harder one is than the other.

You win the award for the only adult poster since I last posted on this thread.

Oh please! You asked one of the dumbest questions ever on letsrun. 50 miles=50 miles. Believe me, regardless of what you write down in your running log, your body will know that you cheated it when it comes race time.

No, I think the main difference actually is volume and NOT effort. If I was to run 50 miles in a hilly area at an easy pace this might take me a total of 375 minutes whereas if I ran 50 miles on the flat this might take me 315 minutes. What's the difference? Well, running in the hills I would have run a total of 60 minutes more at an easy effort than on the flat. Training is more about the amount of time you spend at a certain effort than it is about distance covered. This is why I run by minutes rather than miles. If I have a 60 minute easy run scheduled I go out the door and run 60 minutes, no matter what the terrain. Then if somebody asks me how far I went, I give the best approximation I can, knowing of course that the mileage says less about my workout than the time I spent doing.

This said, on specific workouts (say, when I'm running 10k pace) I will often run on distance (E.g. 6 x 1600m) because I am training to run a specific distance in a race. However, when I record my general volume at the end of the week I add up my time spent running (E.g. 6 x 4:30 = 27 minutes at 10k effort) instead of my mileage.

Jerry

I hate to be Captain Obvious wrote:

Oh please! You asked one of the dumbest questions ever on letsrun. 50 miles=50 miles. Believe me, regardless of what you write down in your running log, your body will know that you cheated it when it comes race time.

He doesn't WANT to cheat so he wants to know how much extra to do when he's running on the flats. It is a perfectly reasonable question. It can be done without attempting to "convert" one run into another.

That makes good sense.

I hate to be Captain Obvious wrote:

Hills vs. Flats wrote:

You win the award for the only adult poster since I last posted on this thread.

Oh please! You asked one of the dumbest questions ever on letsrun. 50 miles=50 miles. Believe me, regardless of what you write down in your running log, your body will know that you cheated it when it comes race time.

Captain,

You would be committing coaching malpractice if you did not take into account the terrain you schedule for your team.