Running by time instead of miles...

How old are you? What's your athletic background? How long have you been running? What's been your routine to date?

If you're a complete newbie you'd get better advice on forums elsewhere. It will be about 4 minutes before someone suggests you run 100 mpw.

I won't comment on your particular training plan as I don't know enough about you.

However, your idea of running by time instead of miles absolutely works and is often better than an arbitrary mileage.

Most scientific studies into aerobic capacity and development of aerobic ability analyse time spent exercising and intensity (HR); miles mean nothing by themselves.

You'll find that in those times you will also cover miles. Why do people think the two are different?

It's a miracle wrote:

You'll find that in those times you will also cover miles. Why do people think the two are different?

If he ran 6:30/mile - that's 60 mpw

If he ran 9:00/mile - that's 42 mpw

Those are different.

So much depends on your goal race distance and your running experience.

If you are training for the 5000 and under, this may be a sufficient aerobic base for you to start adding in some fartleks, hills, and tempo work.

If you are going to focus on the 10000 and up, I would recommend extending the long run as well the mid-week runs.

It's a miracle wrote:

You'll find that in those times you will also cover miles. Why do people think the two are different?

Actually, when you run by time you cover a distance known as kilometers. Its a different measurement. To cover miles, you need to measure your courses, or possibly time yourself with a gps watch. Its only with a mileage measurer that tracks like Stanford and Washington were found to be short. By measuring the mileage, we can assess the kilometers covered in a time perceived by a watch or clock. Things work a bit differently at altitude though, so we can't say for sure if St George should count for Boston qualifying.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

It's a miracle wrote:

You'll find that in those times you will also cover miles. Why do people think the two are different?

If he ran 6:30/mile - that's 60 mpw

If he ran 9:00/mile - that's 42 mpw

Those are different.

So much depends on your goal race distance and your running experience.

If you are training for the 5000 and under, this may be a sufficient aerobic base for you to start adding in some fartleks, hills, and tempo work.

If you are going to focus on the 10000 and up, I would recommend extending the long run as well the mid-week runs.

Aaaand it still translates to miles as well.

Agreed. There is a difference between Farah running 100 mpw and a 16:30 guy doing the same.

There is a difference between an 18:30 person running 50 mpw and a 25:00 guy doing the same.

I think the emphasis on mileage rather than times can lead to overtraining.

Guys, guys, guys.

Run by time.

Think about it.

When I was 15 and running my easy miles at 8:00 pace, eight hours of easy running totaled 60 miles.

Now that I am 17, not only am I running my miles faster, I have better endurance. Eight hours of easy running at 7:00 pace is about 70 miles.

See how it works?

I understand the IOC is going to replace the 5000m with a 13 minute run in Rio.

It's a miracle wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

If he ran 6:30/mile - that's 60 mpw

If he ran 9:00/mile - that's 42 mpw

Those are different.

So much depends on your goal race distance and your running experience.

If you are training for the 5000 and under, this may be a sufficient aerobic base for you to start adding in some fartleks, hills, and tempo work.

If you are going to focus on the 10000 and up, I would recommend extending the long run as well the mid-week runs.

Aaaand it still translates to miles as well.

Dear gawd how can you not get this?

Let's assume two runners have 10 hours a week training for a 5k. Let's assume one runs faster than the other.

If they ask for training plans, and they are told to do X mpw, then it could mean that the fast runner doesn't run the full 10 hours (not fulfilling their potential) or that it will take the slower runner more than 10 hours to do the mileage (exceeding their available time). They both want to run 10 hours a week.

It would be better they were told to run a certain amount of time at certain intensities, since the same intensity for each would correspond to different paces.

Time with intensity gives more information than just miles.

HenryIV wrote:

M 20 min

T am 30 min, pm 45 min

W 45 min

TH am 30 min, pm 45 min

F 20 min

S 60 min

S 90 min

All easy on hilly trails except Saturday is a tempo run or track workout.

solid or squalid?

Total new looking for an aerobic house.

I don't like it, there is no incentive to run a faster pace.

Also, Jim Spivey one said during a talk I attended that in order to make good gains in endurance you have to run past the 45min mark. I've found this to be pretty true, that the largest gains occur after 45 mins.

Blahbaba wrote:

HenryIV wrote:

M 20 min

T am 30 min, pm 45 min

W 45 min

TH am 30 min, pm 45 min

F 20 min

S 60 min

S 90 min

All easy on hilly trails except Saturday is a tempo run or track workout.

solid or squalid?

Total new looking for an aerobic house.

I don't like it, there is no incentive to run a faster pace.

Also, Jim Spivey one said during a talk I attended that in order to make good gains in endurance you have to run past the 45min mark. I've found this to be pretty true, that the largest gains occur after 45 mins.

Whether Spivey is correct or not, not every day is about gaining endurance. Sometimes the goal for the day is solely to stretch the muscles and deliver more blood and oxygen to them to aid recovery.

You're then able to get more out of the days when the goal is to induce stress, which leads to adaption.

...exactly.

Running for 45 mins, not 8 miles or 9 or 10. 45 minutes. You are supporting the running by time theory.

The problem with using mileage is that as you improve, the mileage you need to run to get the same exercise stimulus increases. If you used to run 5 miles comfortably in 35 minutes and now run it comfortably in 30 minutes, you are no longer getting the same amount of aerobic exercise.

Everyone needs to face the facts that exercising at different intensities for different times is what causes metabolic adaptations. The human body does not care about the mileage covered. Just time and intensity.

Metric Miler wrote:

I won't comment on your particular training plan as I don't know enough about you.

However, your idea of running by time instead of miles absolutely works and is often better than an arbitrary mileage.

Most scientific studies into aerobic capacity and development of aerobic ability analyse time spent exercising and intensity (HR); miles mean nothing by themselves.

Yes, because an arbitrary time works so much better than arbitrary miles.

When training, neither time nor miles mean anything by themselves. Pace and/or effort take both into account.

ADSLKFJAS;DLF wrote:

It's a miracle wrote:

Aaaand it still translates to miles as well.

Dear gawd how can you not get this?

Let's assume two runners have 10 hours a week training for a 5k. Let's assume one runs faster than the other.

If they ask for training plans, and they are told to do X mpw, then it could mean that the fast runner doesn't run the full 10 hours (not fulfilling their potential) or that it will take the slower runner more than 10 hours to do the mileage (exceeding their available time). They both want to run 10 hours a week.

It would be better they were told to run a certain amount of time at certain intensities, since the same intensity for each would correspond to different paces.

Time with intensity gives more information than just miles.

You can rephrase it all you want but it all boils down to the same thing. You're just playing mind games with yourself.

really?

So, will I get the same adaptation out of running 100mpw at a 12:00 pace as if I did it at a 6:00 pace?

I mean, 100mpw is 100mpw, right?

I'm a supporter of time over miles. Running for a set amount of time can teach you to do out and back runs and evenly distribute your effort throughout the run. You can achieve incentive to run at a decent pace by doing just that, trying to come back quicker than you went out. How much faster you come back depends on the purpose of the day. Great way to practice letting the run come to you as opposed to trying to hit a pace on mile 1.

And I thought 20 minutes was 20 minutes. Do I get the same adaptations from 2.5 miles easy as 3 miles hard tempo...or do I have to run 20 minutes hard tempo and 4 miles easy.

I'm so confused...training is too hard. I'm headed to hobby jogger land where its easy.

ADSLKFJAS;DLF wrote:

really?

So, will I get the same adaptation out of running 100mpw at a 12:00 pace as if I did it at a 6:00 pace?

I mean, 100mpw is 100mpw, right?

No, you would get injured with the second option.