Thursday, May 14, 2009

TRAINING QUESTION

In my training, the hardest thing for me to grasp is running by time not distance. In my training plan, tomorrow a beginner would run 30 minutes and an intermediate would run 60 minutes. I have been going closer to the intermediate because of how slow that I run. I wonder though because I am so slow what should my mileage be. Here is my question:


If you were told to go on a 30 minute run(ZONE 2)--how far would you go??

My answer: 3 miles Although it takes 35-40 min

Waddling and wondering.............

15 comments:

RBR said...

I do the same thing. I would run 3 miles as well.

I am not a 10 min/mile runner, but 1. I WANT to be a 10 min/mile runner and 2. I think that is what they think of as slow.

Stef said...

For me mileage is irrelevant when running for time.

Typically my workouts will say run XX minutes in HR zone(s)x.

So, whatever mileage I end up with is the mileage. Often I don't even measure my mileage. :-)

Rachel said...

My short runs are just listed as time too. I go ahead and run 3 (which takes me like 34 minutes) when the plan tells me to run 30 minutes —it's more satisfying than entering 2.83729 miles in MapMyRun :P

ShirleyPerly said...

I've not done much official training by time but would think it would depend on the type of run you were to do. Say, for an easy paced run or brick run, I'd expect to run about 3 miles in 30 min. But for a tempo run, closer to 4 miles. If not specified, they I'd go easy :-)

Lisa Slow-n-Steady said...

if i were told to run 30 mins, i'd run 30 mins. it would depend on whether i was told to run 30mins easy or whatever. shrug.

and i would run LESS THAN 3 miles because I never run 10 min miles in training. always slower than that

Calyx Meredith said...

I am with RBR for her very reasons. While, I'd LOVE to be a 10 min/mile person, I'm not. I'm a 12+ min/mile kinda girl and I don't think plans actually expect that. Maybe if I were working with a coach and there was a reason for 30 and EXACTLY 30 minutes, I'd follow it that closely. I am a rule follower but sometimes I "interpret" the rules.

IM Able said...

I, like Stef (cause we share the Elf's love), am a XX minutes in X zone kinda gal. I also happen to be slower than dirt on a hot day.

The way I worry less about how far I'm going is to remember that in base training (especially for our distance this year!) it's about building endurance, not distance. Running is the hardest of all three sports on your body and requires the most recovery time. I'd rather run three times a week at modest distances than two times at higher distances, but require more recovery and risk injury.

Don't know if that is helpful...

IM Able said...

Oh, and to answer your question, my 30 minutes is actually less than 3 miles. Not much less, but I'm definitely NOT a 10 minute gal.

My shorter runs tend to be around the 35-45 minute marks now.

SWTrigal said...

30 minutes at zone 2, I would be running 12 min/miles so what is that? 2.5 miles? I have been running by time/zone for quite awhile now. When I did Mark Allen, 30 min. "fat burning" zone would be about 2 miles. Did IMCDA on that plan..

Irene said...

This is such a great topic.

Now you have me thinking about this one... My times have been so varied lately. My guess would be just a little over 3 miles if I stayed in the 9:50 m/m range. I'll have to try that out at the gym next week, just to see what it would be. Hmmmm...

Sunshine said...

This morning after reading your post, I opened the newly-delivered June issue of "Running Times" to see this article: "Training by Time... Don't worry about mileage, just look at your watch."
The author says it's the duration of effort that represents the amount of training stress.

Thanks for the discussion!!

Vickie said...

When I first started, I did 30 minutes, knowing that I was not doing even 3 miles. As I became more conditioned, I went for 35, then 40 and now 45. Because, like you, I feel I am much slower than probably any training program takes into account. I need to feel confident I can cover a distance, so feel it is necessary to add time, so I am working on a slow, slow buildup.

Iron "GeekGirl" Misty said...

This is why I run by distance, not time. If I were to be assigned time rather than distance, I know myself: I would take my last step at 29:59. Running by distance at least encourages me to be able to do whatever distance is prescribed in an upcoming race.

TRIHARDCHIK said...

This is also my dilemma. I usually tend to run a little longer, because I'm also a slow runner. Depending on what I was doing before the run (swim or bike or nothing!), I would plan to cover between 3 and 4 miles. But then, I also tend to do a little more than the plan calls for. Hope all these great posts help!
In fact, I'm sitting here getting ready to ride for 2.5 hours (maybe a little longer, depending). Then I'm supposed to run for 20 minutes. I'll do between 2 & 3 miles, if my body cooperates!
Hope you had a great ride today!

Mary Sunshine said...

I struggled with that concept, too, and was told repeatedly that running "beats you up" and should be limited during IM training. Coming from a marathon background, like you are, I found this tough to accept...but it ended up being very good advice.

I now believe in the time rather than miles approach. When I run, now, I seldom even know how far I went. It's nice.

>