So for competitive running either for college or high school. Which is more beneficia, running for time or distance or is there a difference. I've seen both, and the really good runners I've seen run for time but I've seen good ones that run for distance. Is one or the other any more beneficial
Time on your feet is what matters.
Distance is more beneficial: with long-distance runners, the more the mileage the better!
and also with time everyone is different on their paces, it won't everyone the same amount of time to run the same distance
It's kinda like the HR vs Pace argument. It's two ways to measure the same thing.
Some people will obsess over weekly mileage to the point that a coach might tell them to just run for time, to keep them from OCDing themselves into the dirt. Same thing with HR training, it's a good way to make sure you aren't running too fast on your easy days, and if you are someone that tends to over do it, using HR might help keep yourself in check.
I almost always do recovery runs for time.
I think time is better for base building.
Big fan of time. Keeps me from going too fast on non-interval days.
Good question. Running by distance means that your run is measured in distance. Running by minutes means that your run is measured in time.
/thread.
What I’ve found from personal experience is that it changes my approach to the run. If I’m doing a long run based on distance, I can get it done faster or slower depending on how fast I choose to run. when you run by time, it doesn’t matter how fast you run unless you try to aim for a certain distance. When I run by time I tend to pace myself more if it’s a long run
I tried this but it didn't work - substituted my Sun 15 miler for 15 mins, Mon 6 miler for 6 mins, etc.
After a few weeks I'd put on a ton of weight and felt garbage. I'd never do that again - stick with distance.
We race by distance so this should be obvious.