login
IM Run - Measure training by time or distance?
-
No new posts
|
 2009-08-12 2:39 PM |
Member 18 |  Subject: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance?I'm in the process of interviewing coaches to help me train for my first full IM, CDA 2010. I've spoken with two coaches who measure training runs based on time rather than distance. Both coaches have said they want their athletes run no more than 2.5 hours for any pre-IM training run, regardless of their pace. I'm a fairly slow runner--10-11 minute miles during a typical marathon--so for me, a 2.5 hour run will only get me 15 or 16 miles. I'm hoping to find a training program where I can really trust the training and be confident that the prescribed training is enough, but I'm having a lot of trouble believing I'll be well-prepared to complete a 26-mile run with a maximum training run of 16 miles. Does anyone have experience with time-based run training that they'd be willing to share? Will the mental training be enough to get me through the last 10 miles? Thanks for your thoughts! |
| 2009-08-12 2:50 PM in reply to: #2344451 |
Champion 10471    Dallas, TX | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? My coach was time based not distance based... and I was even slower than you... a 12-13 minute mile! But he only had me do 16 miles in training. I personally wish I would have gone to 18-20 miles- as I'm sure I could have handled it with my walk/run combo that I was doing. But I am prone to running injuries so he wanted to keep the miles down. After training for a stand alone marathon (after my IM) I realized that there is a difference for me... going from 16 miles to 18 miles. Anyways... while I was well trained, my Achilles started hurting so bad on mile 80 on the bike, there was no way I was running any portion of the marathon. I tried to do my walk/run, but it was so painful- I knew if I didn't walk I probably wouldn't finish. I will say that the last 13 miles was hard. REALLY, REALLY HARD. It was "dig deep because you are in serious pain" kind of hard. The last 3 miles were a just a torture fest. So much pain. All over body pain, not just one area pain. Yeah. I sat down 3 times. The last time I got up quickly because my muscles started to seize up on me. And you know, now that I type all of that... I DOUBT running 18 or 20 miles in training would have fixed that problem. A lot of people only do 16 miles in training for the IM marathon. It's very common. That's just how some do it, especially if you are not a strong runner. Even if you are, still only 16 miles. |
| 2009-08-12 3:00 PM in reply to: #2344451 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? I agree with your prospective coaches. I didn't run over 16mi before my first IM and that was perhaps 2:10-2:15 of run time. Remember that you have to get to the start of the marathon by swimming and biking. Doing very long runs that require significant recovery and eat into your swim/bike training would make those portions harder. And that would far outweigh any benefits you might get from the extra-long runs. |
| 2009-08-12 4:15 PM in reply to: #2344451 |
Champion 19812  MA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? I think both ways are viable. I've heard the 2.5 hour rule for IM run training, personally right now I'd never go with a plan or coach that did that as I see the value and the improvement in my running the way I have trained this year. Second IM is different as obviously I have more base than last.
|
| 2009-08-12 4:17 PM in reply to: #2344451 |
| over a barrier | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? Time based training is great and I agree with your interviewed coaches. Running longer than 2:30 puts a big dent in your recovery/ability to get back on the horse and keep training. I will be bumping up against 20 only because I'm able to get the run in within 2:30.....A teammate of mine goes over 20 miles all the time but he has a VDOT of 60+ and his easy pace is stupid fast he doesn't run ove 2:30 either. Edited by running2far 2009-08-12 4:18 PM |
| 2009-08-13 7:43 AM in reply to: #2344451 |
Expert 762 Missouri | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? Time based No reason to run over 2.5 to 3 hours. If someone thinks there is, then ask them why and ask them what they think the cap should be? 5 hours, 6 hours, 7 hours? Seems to me anything over 3 hours takes a lot of recovery time. . sure there are some great runners out there who have the base and can do 3+ hours and recover quicker, but for the 98% of us, no reason to go over 3 hours, I don't care how "slow" you are. In training we shouldn't jeopordize the next 5-6 days of training to get in a 4 hour run. Don't see the point in that. . plus the injuries that can occur for running for so long. . |
| 2009-08-13 8:12 AM in reply to: #2344451 |
Master 1376 Chicago | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? I do time based as well. The longest I ran prior to IMCDA was 2:33. I went the extra 3 minutes to get a full 18 miles in. As many have said before. If you start to go over that it takes a while to recover, at least for me. With IM training I couldn't afford to take off several days to recover from a 3 hour plus run. |
| 2009-08-13 8:22 AM in reply to: #2344451 |
Expert 1207 Liberty Lake, WA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? I've done IMCDA five times and I only train by time. For IM run training my rule of thumb is to go 2.5 hours or 20 miles, whichever comes first. |
| 2009-08-13 9:32 AM in reply to: #2344451 |
Pro 3906 Libertyville, IL | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? I am probably against the grain on this one a bit but go with distance and experimenting for my 2nd IM. I am basically integrating some of an intermediate run plan that I used to BQ into my IM plan. That has biweekly bump ups on the longs of 2 miles up to 26 miles (at easier pace). So far so good with all but the 26 under my belt. I have done this run plan to BQ and then went a level up with a 26 and 28 miler to train for Boston. I figured taking a step back to intermediate would allow integration of bike and swim. For me, I have found these plans helped erase a lot of my issues with fading towards the end. I realize a IM mary is a different animal but running a lot has helped increase efficiency and things still are pretty comfy up to around mile 23. Recovery has also not been that huge an issue if ice bath or swimming, eating properly and pacing the run correctly are done. I know its not for all, but I disagree that over 2:30 is bad for everyone and that recovery cost is too high. Probably for the majority, but if you are doing an IM, you will do yourself great favors by building up your durability. |
| 2009-08-13 9:43 AM in reply to: #2345999 |
The Original 7834 Raleigh/Durham | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? jszat - 2009-08-13 10:32 AM I am probably against the grain on this one a bit but go with distance and experimenting for my 2nd IM. I am basically integrating some of an intermediate run plan that I used to BQ into my IM plan. That has biweekly bump ups on the longs of 2 miles up to 26 miles (at easier pace). So far so good with all but the 26 under my belt. I have done this run plan to BQ and then went a level up with a 26 and 28 miler to train for Boston. I figured taking a step back to intermediate would allow integration of bike and swim. For me, I have found these plans helped erase a lot of my issues with fading towards the end. I realize a IM mary is a different animal but running a lot has helped increase efficiency and things still are pretty comfy up to around mile 23. Recovery has also not been that huge an issue if ice bath or swimming, eating properly and pacing the run correctly are done. I know its not for all, but I disagree that over 2:30 is bad for everyone and that recovery cost is too high. Probably for the majority, but if you are doing an IM, you will do yourself great favors by building up your durability. I'm with you on this one! I only ran 17 mile max in prep for my first IM. Now that I'm training for my 2nd, I really want to go a little longer than that. I find the more longer runs I do the better I run. And the recovery doesn't set me back that much at all. Sleep, stretching, pacing and lots of protein helped me recovery quicker. For the last stand alone marathon I ran back in Jan I ran three 20 milers, two 22's and one 24 miler. My 24 miler was 2 weeks before my marathon and I only did a 2 week taper. I never felt so good in a marathon as I did in that marathon- I didn't really fatigue until mile 23. And then at that point I knew that I really only had to make it through to mile 24, where going back into the city adrenaline would take me to the finish from mile 25 and on. For me I broke the rule and added more longer runs over 20 into my marathon training and it worked REALLY well for me as well  Everyone is different though but I think I've found what works for me. |
| 2009-08-13 9:46 AM in reply to: #2344451 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? For the majority of my athletes I give them sessions based on time and intensity. I make them run more frequently than other plans/coaches hence their total load ends up adding up pretty good, IMO it is the sum of all your training and not one infividual session that will develop your fitness. Yes sometimes they do some session based on distance if we want to accomplish an specific goal (i.e. race pace) or track sessions, otherwise we run by time. For my IM next year I'll be training by time primarily... |
| 2009-08-13 11:14 AM in reply to: #2344451 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? My coach is time-based. I am slower than dirt. My longest run before the IM was 13.1 miles. And I ran more in the last half of the marathon than 95% of the people still out there on the course with me. I am a time-based convert for life. One you go time-based you'll never go back. If you're going to hire a coach you need to be ready to trust. I never for a minute doubted that my coach would have me ready to finish the race. I knew that if he didn't think I could he wouldn't let me start. So, hire the coach you trust...even if he likes to base things on time. |
| 2009-08-13 2:31 PM in reply to: #2345999 |
Expert 762 Missouri | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? jszat - 2009-08-13 9:32 AM I am probably against the grain on this one a bit but go with distance and experimenting for my 2nd IM. I am basically integrating some of an intermediate run plan that I used to BQ into my IM plan. That has biweekly bump ups on the longs of 2 miles up to 26 miles (at easier pace). So far so good with all but the 26 under my belt. I have done this run plan to BQ and then went a level up with a 26 and 28 miler to train for Boston. I figured taking a step back to intermediate would allow integration of bike and swim. For me, I have found these plans helped erase a lot of my issues with fading towards the end. I realize a IM mary is a different animal but running a lot has helped increase efficiency and things still are pretty comfy up to around mile 23. Recovery has also not been that huge an issue if ice bath or swimming, eating properly and pacing the run correctly are done. I know its not for all, but I disagree that over 2:30 is bad for everyone and that recovery cost is too high. Probably for the majority, but if you are doing an IM, you will do yourself great favors by building up your durability. Not to start a war here, but you are very good runner and by looking at your logs and races seem to have many miles on those legs of yours. I think you are a different class of runner than our original poster. I think for many, the main thing is about time. . . . . What if it took our original poster 4 hours to run 20 miles, then is it a good idea to go by distance? What about 23 miles taking 4.5 hours??? etc. . . Just seems like a long time on the legs just to get a distance covered. . . |
| 2009-08-13 2:43 PM in reply to: #2344451 |
Veteran 196 Arlington, VA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? I frankly don't see much difference between the two. If I know my training pace for a long run is 9 min/mile, and I want to run 2.5 hours, I know beforehand that it'll be about 16.66 miles. So if I'm doing an out-and-back, I can turn at 8.33 miles or at 1:15 minutes, and they'll be in the same spot. And when I get back home, it'll be 16.66 miles and 2.5 hours. I guess if I start to struggle, the return trip may take longer, but I still have to get home or back to the car, don't I? And with my Garmin watch, I'm unlikely to pick up the pace such that I return to the start before the time is up. Those who train more by HR zone instead of pace may slow things up if the HR goes too high, but again, that usually happens on the second half of the run, and you've got to make it back to where you started anyway. In other words, before you run (or at the turn around) you have to choose a course, and the distances don't vary. On occasion, I have done a couple quick loops in the neighborhood to hit a time or distance mark. (One thing I like I about my 305 is the freedom to head out in any direction and still know who far/fast you went. I'll guess and when to turn for home, and usually try to guess short, which results in those mini-loops to fill out the run.) Edited by kcb203 2009-08-13 2:50 PM |
| 2009-08-13 3:27 PM in reply to: #2344451 |
Extreme Veteran 315 South Jordan UT | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? I started out doing time based on my first IM. I would suggest starting there and then making sure that you get some workouts of all three disciplines close to the desired distances towards the end. It was huge for my confidence knowing that I actually could do the entire distance The time approach is easier in the beginning as it gives you something to wrap your head around a bit and know that you can fit it into the time you have allotted. Mentally it is easier to say I am going for a 90 minute run and get it whatever I do, than it is to say I am going for 10 miles no matter how long it takes me. I am currently training for my 2nd IM and I will be doing a blended approach. Skill workouts(ie tempo and hill work) will be done on minutes. Distance workouts will all be done on, you guessed it, distance. First IM's are hard enough without the nagging thought that you can't go long enough to finish. Chances are, once you get there and get working, you will "get through" whatever you have to in order to finish. Wouldn't it be easier to know that you could say to yourself "Ok, I've done a 2.4 mile swim before. Here goes another one." Then be able to say "Ok, I've done a 112 mile bike before, let's get rolling." and then be able to say "Here comes the marathon. I can do this!" No I am not suggesting that you get in an entire IM in practice. I am suggesting that no matter how fast you are or how slow you are, that you get close to the distance of each discipline at least once before the race. If that is within the time limit your coach has set, great! If not, suck it up and hammer it out, just once. |
| 2009-08-13 4:06 PM in reply to: #2346898 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? Tell3131 - 2009-08-13 2:31 PM jszat - 2009-08-13 9:32 AM I am probably against the grain on this one a bit but go with distance and experimenting for my 2nd IM. I am basically integrating some of an intermediate run plan that I used to BQ into my IM plan. That has biweekly bump ups on the longs of 2 miles up to 26 miles (at easier pace). So far so good with all but the 26 under my belt. I have done this run plan to BQ and then went a level up with a 26 and 28 miler to train for Boston. I figured taking a step back to intermediate would allow integration of bike and swim. For me, I have found these plans helped erase a lot of my issues with fading towards the end. I realize a IM mary is a different animal but running a lot has helped increase efficiency and things still are pretty comfy up to around mile 23. Recovery has also not been that huge an issue if ice bath or swimming, eating properly and pacing the run correctly are done. I know its not for all, but I disagree that over 2:30 is bad for everyone and that recovery cost is too high. Probably for the majority, but if you are doing an IM, you will do yourself great favors by building up your durability. Not to start a war here, but you are very good runner and by looking at your logs and races seem to have many miles on those legs of yours. I think you are a different class of runner than our original poster. I think for many, the main thing is about time. . . . . What if it took our original poster 4 hours to run 20 miles, then is it a good idea to go by distance? What about 23 miles taking 4.5 hours??? etc. . . Just seems like a long time on the legs just to get a distance covered. . . Yeah, you pretty much just hit the nail on the head. For faster runners trailing by miles or time tend to be one and the same...anyone that can run 20-24 miles in 2.5-3 hours or less won't notice a difference. But for a slower runner who might take 4+ hours to do that same 20-24 miles...they are just setting themselves up for injury because it just takes too long to recover from workouts like that. Hence the "train by time" and "don't run more than 2.5-3 hours" theories. And...they work...really. |
| 2009-08-13 4:08 PM in reply to: #2346926 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? kcb203 - 2009-08-13 2:43 PM I frankly don't see much difference between the two. If I know my training pace for a long run is 9 min/mile, and I want to run 2.5 hours, I know beforehand that it'll be about 16.66 miles. So if I'm doing an out-and-back, I can turn at 8.33 miles or at 1:15 minutes, and they'll be in the same spot. And when I get back home, it'll be 16.66 miles and 2.5 hours. I guess if I start to struggle, the return trip may take longer, but I still have to get home or back to the car, don't I? And with my Garmin watch, I'm unlikely to pick up the pace such that I return to the start before the time is up. The difference lies in whether you go out saying "I'm going to run 2.5 hours" or "I'm going to run 16.66 miles". If you go out saying "I'm going to run 2.5 hours" you don't care how FAR you get in THE TIME. If you go out saying "I'm going to run 16.66 miles" you don't care how LONG it takes you to cover the DISTANCE. Hence the distinction between training by time versus distance. |
| 2009-08-13 4:10 PM in reply to: #2344451 |
Elite 3088 Austin, TX Gold member | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? I go for distance-based. I don't particularly understand the "3 hour runs take too long to recover from" statements. If one is doing 20 miles in 2.5 hours or 3.5 hours, it's still the same distance and very near the same amount of energy to cover that distance. More than that, if you KNOW that it's going to take you 5 or so hours to complete the IM run course, why on earth would your maximum training only be half of that? I agree that runs of over 20 miles have limited benefit for marathon training and an increased chance of injury and maybe that's where the 2.5 to 3 hour limit idea came from. Don't know. But it seems like you're setting yourself up for failure (or a VERY rough day) if your longest run/shuffle/walk/whatever isn't even 2/3 of the distance you'll need to cover on race day. |
| 2009-08-13 4:33 PM in reply to: #2347165 |
| over a barrier | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? dgunthert - 2009-08-13 4:10 PM I go for distance-based. I don't particularly understand the "3 hour runs take too long to recover from" statements. If one is doing 20 miles in 2.5 hours or 3.5 hours, it's still the same distance and very near the same amount of energy to cover that distance. Yes, the energy is about the same. The impact and pounding on the body is completely different. 90 extra foot strikes X the number of additional mins is a huge especially when you've already been breaking the body down from 2+hrs of running. An extra 30 mins = 2,700 more foot strikes. I cap my runs at 2:30 and let the distane shake itself out. My overall weekely load will actually be higher because I'm not shelled from the long run taking days off or battling minor aches and pains. |
| 2009-08-13 4:44 PM in reply to: #2344451 |
Elite 3658 Roswell, GA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? If a coach is customizing a plan for you shouldn't they know what pace you will be doing your runs at and therefore it's irrelevant whether they tell you to run 2.5 hours or "x" miles? |
| 2009-08-13 4:56 PM in reply to: #2347165 |
Champion 19812 MA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? dgunthert - 2009-08-13 5:10 PM I go for distance-based. I don't particularly understand the "3 hour runs take too long to recover from" statements. If one is doing 20 miles in 2.5 hours or 3.5 hours, it's still the same distance and very near the same amount of energy to cover that distance. More than that, if you KNOW that it's going to take you 5 or so hours to complete the IM run course, why on earth would your maximum training only be half of that? I agree that runs of over 20 miles have limited benefit for marathon training and an increased chance of injury and maybe that's where the 2.5 to 3 hour limit idea came from. Don't know. But it seems like you're setting yourself up for failure (or a VERY rough day) if your longest run/shuffle/walk/whatever isn't even 2/3 of the distance you'll need to cover on race day. I would be happy with 5:30 IM run and you know running only 2.5 hours training seems crazy. How exactly am I supposed to run more than twice that far in an IM. I think it would set me up to do an awful lot of walking second half of the Mary even if I paced my swim and bike correctly and didn't muck up my nutrition. I hear the folks say recovery but if I can run longer and recover fine to do my next workout, it's working for me. I ran twice in last 5 days over 3 hours, and I am recovering faster after my long runs the more I do. You have to trust your coach or your plan. You need to know what makes sense for you training wise. |
| 2009-08-13 5:30 PM in reply to: #2344451 |
Master 1572 PA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? I have the same run pace as you and my longest run was 3 hours. I had 2 at 2.5 hours, but only b/c i begged for the second one. I needed the mental confidence to do that 2.5 one more time. The rest were 2:15 and under. I trained under Jorge, and has he posted, maybe we run with more frequency. I don't really know any different or how much/little other people run when training for an IM. All I know is I got to the starting line 100% injury free, and then blew my goals & expectations out of the water on the run. I saw Jorge at mile 12ish and did ask if I could walk the entire rest of the mary....so I wanted to walk, *felt* like i needed to walk, but at the same time I KNEW the fitness was there to run (only b/c he kept telling me it was and I trusted him). And I did it. I walked the aid stations and the uphills, that's it. Ran the entire rest of it. This was the single part of the race I was most proud of myself for and feel my training was spot on. And as an aside, training by distance would never work for me....for some reason I am extremely intimidated by the distance. To run 2 hours is ok, but if i knew i had to run 11 or 12 miles....i'd be nervous for days. So I don't even wear the garmin, i do it exclusively by time and i don't even let my mind go to the place of thinking about how many miles it is. |
| 2009-08-13 8:51 PM in reply to: #2347162 |
Veteran 196 Arlington, VA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? jldicarlo - 2009-08-13 4:08 PM kcb203 - 2009-08-13 2:43 PM I frankly don't see much difference between the two. If I know my training pace for a long run is 9 min/mile, and I want to run 2.5 hours, I know beforehand that it'll be about 16.66 miles. So if I'm doing an out-and-back, I can turn at 8.33 miles or at 1:15 minutes, and they'll be in the same spot. And when I get back home, it'll be 16.66 miles and 2.5 hours. I guess if I start to struggle, the return trip may take longer, but I still have to get home or back to the car, don't I? And with my Garmin watch, I'm unlikely to pick up the pace such that I return to the start before the time is up. The difference lies in whether you go out saying "I'm going to run 2.5 hours" or "I'm going to run 16.66 miles". If you go out saying "I'm going to run 2.5 hours" you don't care how FAR you get in THE TIME. If you go out saying "I'm going to run 16.66 miles" you don't care how LONG it takes you to cover the DISTANCE. Hence the distinction between training by time versus distance. I'm not trying to be difficult, but what do you do when you have a slow day and you hit 2.5 hours and you're still 2 miles from home? Walk? Call a cab? Planning a run, at least for me, involves projecting both time and distance, and it's easier to project distance because it doesn't change. |
| 2009-08-13 9:45 PM in reply to: #2347614 |
Master 1572 PA | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? kcb203 - 2009-08-13 9:51 PM jldicarlo - 2009-08-13 4:08 PM kcb203 - 2009-08-13 2:43 PM I frankly don't see much difference between the two. If I know my training pace for a long run is 9 min/mile, and I want to run 2.5 hours, I know beforehand that it'll be about 16.66 miles. So if I'm doing an out-and-back, I can turn at 8.33 miles or at 1:15 minutes, and they'll be in the same spot. And when I get back home, it'll be 16.66 miles and 2.5 hours. I guess if I start to struggle, the return trip may take longer, but I still have to get home or back to the car, don't I? And with my Garmin watch, I'm unlikely to pick up the pace such that I return to the start before the time is up. The difference lies in whether you go out saying "I'm going to run 2.5 hours" or "I'm going to run 16.66 miles". If you go out saying "I'm going to run 2.5 hours" you don't care how FAR you get in THE TIME. If you go out saying "I'm going to run 16.66 miles" you don't care how LONG it takes you to cover the DISTANCE. Hence the distinction between training by time versus distance. I'm not trying to be difficult, but what do you do when you have a slow day and you hit 2.5 hours and you're still 2 miles from home? Walk? Call a cab? Planning a run, at least for me, involves projecting both time and distance, and it's easier to project distance because it doesn't change. I walk! And am excited about a forced cool down that i would otherwise most likely skip. Usually i can plan based on time where i am to be back home or to my car sometime close to my finish time (like w/ 15 minutes typically), so it's no big deal. Plus, i tend to run similar routes, so i have a pretty good idea of 'oh if i'm out at the stadium it will take me about 40 mins to get back to the YMCA, etc.' |
| 2009-08-13 11:04 PM in reply to: #2347614 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: IM Run - Measure training by time or distance? kcb203 - 2009-08-13 8:51 PM jldicarlo - 2009-08-13 4:08 PM kcb203 - 2009-08-13 2:43 PM I frankly don't see much difference between the two. If I know my training pace for a long run is 9 min/mile, and I want to run 2.5 hours, I know beforehand that it'll be about 16.66 miles. So if I'm doing an out-and-back, I can turn at 8.33 miles or at 1:15 minutes, and they'll be in the same spot. And when I get back home, it'll be 16.66 miles and 2.5 hours. I guess if I start to struggle, the return trip may take longer, but I still have to get home or back to the car, don't I? And with my Garmin watch, I'm unlikely to pick up the pace such that I return to the start before the time is up. The difference lies in whether you go out saying "I'm going to run 2.5 hours" or "I'm going to run 16.66 miles". If you go out saying "I'm going to run 2.5 hours" you don't care how FAR you get in THE TIME. If you go out saying "I'm going to run 16.66 miles" you don't care how LONG it takes you to cover the DISTANCE. Hence the distinction between training by time versus distance. I'm not trying to be difficult, but what do you do when you have a slow day and you hit 2.5 hours and you're still 2 miles from home? Walk? Call a cab? Planning a run, at least for me, involves projecting both time and distance, and it's easier to project distance because it doesn't change. That really never happens. I either do a series of loops or an out and back. I'm usually within 5' of my projected finish time. If it's going to be more than few minutes of extra running I would go ahead and walk a cooldown. Really not a big deal. You would be amazed at how much math you can do on the fly...sometimes it's actually fun trying to gnats arse your turnaround so you end up at home right on time. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK