Time vs. Distance Training
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2015-05-16 3:06 PM |
New user 4 | Subject: Time vs. Distance Training I'm sure this has been covered but i have searched and cannot find the thread. Why do the training programs focus on time rather than distance? |
|
2015-05-16 3:56 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 2912 ...at home in The ATL | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Targeted physiological adaptations occur through certain efforts over time, not distance. ETA: that said, some workouts in which environmental variables are much more controlled (on the track or in the pool for instance) workouts are most often given in pace (speed) and distance. |
2015-05-16 5:21 PM in reply to: TankBoy |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Yes, the adaptations come from time, not distance. Should still be mindful of distance for things like route planning, trying to figure out how far to run at a given effort so that you spend the time scheduled in running. That distance changes depending on what kind of shape you're in. An olympian will go farther because they are that much faster at a given effort. Things like track & swim workouts will have distances to cover, but when the planning is really good both the individual intervals and the overall workout will take into account the time taken to perform them and adjust accordingly. When working these it's easier to go with the set distance increments that most closely correspond to the desired time to spend doing an interval. |
2015-05-16 6:35 PM in reply to: TankBoy |
1055 | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Yeah I guess but when I'm just running, its all about the miles and time spent is merely a by-product. For triathlon training, the volumes are just easier to schedule using time. |
2015-05-16 10:45 PM in reply to: colemanmedina |
Extreme Veteran 1986 Cypress, TX | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Your body only knows time (how long) and effort (how hard). Your body doesn't know distance (how far). |
2015-05-17 2:57 PM in reply to: ziggie204 |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Originally posted by ziggie204 Yeah I guess but when I'm just running, its all about the miles and time spent is merely a by-product. For triathlon training, the volumes are just easier to schedule using time. What do you follow when you're just running? |
|
2015-05-17 4:56 PM in reply to: brigby1 |
1055 | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by ziggie204 Yeah I guess but when I'm just running, its all about the miles and time spent is merely a by-product. For triathlon training, the volumes are just easier to schedule using time. What do you follow when you're just running? Don't really follow any type of plan, I just know how many miles per week I want to do and go from there. But I do believe that most run only plans out there are mile based aren't they? I believe the plan I used for my first marry was laid out that way. |
2015-05-18 7:27 AM in reply to: ziggie204 |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Originally posted by ziggie204 Yeah I guess but when I'm just running, its all about the miles and time spent is merely a by-product. For triathlon training, the volumes are just easier to schedule using time. It's actually the opposite. As has been mentioned, in simple terms, our bodies respond to time and intensity. Pace and distance are meaningless to our bodies. Distance is a byproduct of time and intensity.
|
2015-05-18 7:46 AM in reply to: ziggie204 |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Originally posted by ziggie204 Originally posted by brigby1 Don't really follow any type of plan, I just know how many miles per week I want to do and go from there. But I do believe that most run only plans out there are mile based aren't they? I believe the plan I used for my first marry was laid out that way. Originally posted by ziggie204 Yeah I guess but when I'm just running, its all about the miles and time spent is merely a by-product. For triathlon training, the volumes are just easier to schedule using time. What do you follow when you're just running? Going with distance can work ok as you do become familiar with how long it takes to do the runs. Also, it can take a while to improve enough that the time difference with increased fitness becomes really significant. Many run plans I've seen have distances listed out. Don't forget that these are designed to sell. Not that they're bad, just that there may be some compromise to them. People like working with the mileage laid out for them and also feel better seeing that long run go up to a certain point. Some plan designers may fully believe that, others may have compromised some to help people do ok. These tend to be rather basic general plans, trying to accommodate a variety of runners, so there will certainly be some compromise in how they do things. In something like Daniels Running Formula, however, it is very much time based. The 4 more general plans have most, if not all, aspects in time. The more specific race plans have a mix of mileage and time in them, but something that gets missed in the reading is that he has a time conversion for people who are not elite. I forget the I-pace, but T-pace is to figure about 5 min per mile. So when he has a 4 mile T-pace run, I know to go for 20 minutes. Even with the very fast Repetition based work he cautions on the occasional 800 in there as it is likely to well past about 2 minutes for a lot of people. |
2015-05-19 7:00 AM in reply to: brigby1 |
102 | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training I don't know much about anything, but it seems to me that distance is a good milestone for training in conjunction with time. I use time for distance to judge how I'm doing each run. This time/distance gives me my pace and it allows me to tune as I run. I use some run days for distance only to build up capacity and other days I use as a sprint day where I do broken workouts focusing on time per mile. Taking short breathers at specified distances sometimes every mile sometimes every two miles so that I can build up my pace/cadence. Again I don't know much about anything. But, I really like to run for distance/time not just time... Looking forward to responses! |
2015-05-19 7:11 AM in reply to: sdalcher |
Member 28 Covington | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training I prefer to run for time and watch the distances improve as my fitness improves. There is nothing more gratifying then seeing that a 30 min easy run covered 1/2 mile more this month then it did 2 months ago. |
|
2015-05-19 10:19 AM in reply to: colemanmedina |
Member 28 Covington | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Here is a runners world article that just posted on my FB wall about the same thing. http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/running-time-vs-distance?a... |
2015-05-19 12:14 PM in reply to: brigby1 |
Master 4119 Toronto | Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by ziggie204 Originally posted by brigby1 Don't really follow any type of plan, I just know how many miles per week I want to do and go from there. But I do believe that most run only plans out there are mile based aren't they? I believe the plan I used for my first marry was laid out that way. Originally posted by ziggie204 Yeah I guess but when I'm just running, its all about the miles and time spent is merely a by-product. For triathlon training, the volumes are just easier to schedule using time. What do you follow when you're just running? Going with distance can work ok as you do become familiar with how long it takes to do the runs. Also, it can take a while to improve enough that the time difference with increased fitness becomes really significant. Many run plans I've seen have distances listed out. Don't forget that these are designed to sell. Not that they're bad, just that there may be some compromise to them. People like working with the mileage laid out for them and also feel better seeing that long run go up to a certain point. Some plan designers may fully believe that, others may have compromised some to help people do ok. These tend to be rather basic general plans, trying to accommodate a variety of runners, so there will certainly be some compromise in how they do things. In something like Daniels Running Formula, however, it is very much time based. The 4 more general plans have most, if not all, aspects in time. The more specific race plans have a mix of mileage and time in them, but something that gets missed in the reading is that he has a time conversion for people who are not elite. I forget the I-pace, but T-pace is to figure about 5 min per mile. So when he has a 4 mile T-pace run, I know to go for 20 minutes. Even with the very fast Repetition based work he cautions on the occasional 800 in there as it is likely to well past about 2 minutes for a lot of people. Definitely - i think also the time based plans usually account for some kind of pacing. In tri plans I generally see HR based training along with power for biking. But I've definitely come round to the time based approach over the distance (i can tell i went from runner to triathlete) - this is where it is important to read the pre-amble of plan - the who it is intended for and the base level of fitness. But for those who are uncertain about not having a distance - distance is a good metric to track. Don't lose it but it isn't the whole goal of the workout. Especially when you're training for a new or longer distance. You may have a stock plan where the time volume isn't allowing you to cover the distances in your race. I find this with long distance races, because I am on the slower end of things I know what a realistic pace is and I want to have my load be comfortable enough to get me through my own paces on race day. For that reason I picked an Ironman plan with a longer longest ride so i could get to or close to the distance of race day. While there were other plans with shorter long rides for my own comfort. |
2015-05-19 1:47 PM in reply to: colemanmedina |
Subject: RE: Time vs. Distance Training I used to base training on distance by now it's more about time and intensity. For rides, sometimes I choose very hilly days where 30 miles with 4200' of climbing is a 2+ hour ride with lots of intensity...as compared to maybe a flatter 38 mile ride that may also be 2+ hours...but very much a Z2 day. With riding, it can be a lot easier to fudge the distance to suit your time needs. Spinning at a really easy pace for an extra 5-10 miles isn't going to add a lot of training load to your workout. For example...if my goal was to ride for 3 hours at X% intensity, I can go out and do that on many different routes. If it turns out I finish my 3 hours and am still 8 miles away from home or my car...I just spin at recovery pace the rest of the way. Time dictates that my workout is done, even though I have more miles left on my route. With running, it takes a bit more planning to make sure your route distance matches up with your planned time and intensity as it would kind of suck to have to walk an extra 3-4 miles if you didn't plan your route right. For swimming, usually in a pool it's easy to get your sets right without having to worry about distance matching up to time and intensity. |
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|