General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2011-06-22 1:45 PM

Extreme Veteran
525
50025
Subject: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran

Looking for advice and insight on how to approach increasing my run volume.  I am, admittedly, a poor runner.  It doesn't help that I'm a bigger guy (6' @215lbs).  I enjoy swimming, again I'm not that fast but improving, biking is my favourite and I can hold my own there.  But running. Oh how running is the bane of my training. 

That being said, I want to get to the point where I can run longer and run faster but not feel like I've been run over by a car each time.

I've been reading about increasing my volume by running everyday so I've started to modestly increase my distance for each run I do (and I mean modest!) but I wonder if adding distance is the right approach?  Would it be more effective to not worry about the distance and focus instead on the time actually being run?



2011-06-22 1:47 PM
in reply to: #3562367

User image

Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
Either way works IMO.  If you do routes that have a lot of variation...meaning one route could be nice and flat, and another route may be hilly and off road...you may want to go by time. 
2011-06-22 1:48 PM
in reply to: #3562372

Pro
4054
200020002525
yep,
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran

tri808 - 2011-06-22 2:47 PM Either way works IMO.  If you do routes that have a lot of variation...meaning one route could be nice and flat, and another route may be hilly and off road...you may want to go by time. 

 

I agree usually time is more consistent then distance unless you run the same course all the time.

 

I usually focus more on my time running for training purposes. 

2011-06-22 2:05 PM
in reply to: #3562373

User image

Champion
10018
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
I train entirely by time now. I used to focus on distance and it's so variable, especially if you're not a super talented runner (I am not).  Also, if you're doing HR training and trying to adhere to certain types of runs, distance can be grueling.  For instance last summer I did a low HR run on a very hot day and averaged about 2 min/mile slower than usual.   If I had tried to squeeze our a prescribed distance, I would have been out there all day!
2011-06-22 2:12 PM
in reply to: #3562367

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
Although I use both, our bodies only know time, they don't have any concept of distance.
2011-06-22 2:19 PM
in reply to: #3562367

User image

Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran

I'm a bit like you, seems I wasn't designed to move quickly over land....

I've tried different methods of increasing volume/consistency, but always seemed to get injured in the process.  I have adopted somewhat the BarryP 3:2:1 (from slowtwitch) approach.  6 runs a week, 3 short, 2 medium (2X short), and one long (3X short).  This works with time or distance.  I use distance.  Increases come in small chunks, i.e. .5 mile or 5:00 to two of the short runs one week, then small additions to the medium, etc.

Mine is modified as I am doing 5 runs a week, and my long is actually twice as long (or longer) than the medium.   However, I think that's a function of the mdium being a little too short.

It's easy to overthink this, but for me it was important to have some kind of structure.  When I started increasing frequency, I followed two rules:

1.  No watch (or at least not visible during the run).  speed is irrelevant
2.  End every run feeling as if you could go longer. 

I've slowly worked one temp run into the mix.  Increases in volume come fairly slowly.  But that's the point



2011-06-22 2:24 PM
in reply to: #3562420

User image

Member
291
100100252525
Hugo, MN
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran

bryancd - 2011-06-22 2:12 PM Although I use both, our bodies only know time, they don't have any concept of distance.

I second this statement.

I used to focus on distance quite a bit, but now I use time as my measure.  For me personally, distance is valuable in track workouts (which I would not recommend at all) and when I want to mimic a race. 

Get out there and run 20-30 min easy, every day if you can.  Start from there.

2011-06-22 2:27 PM
in reply to: #3562444

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2011-06-22 2:29 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Champion
5781
5000500100100252525
Northridge, California
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran

I'm going to going a bit outside the box here and refer back to what worked for me when I was losing weight (I'm a little shorter than the OP and weighed more at the time)--once I got back to running (after a 12 year hiatus and then about a year of building up my run breaks during walk/run sessions), I didn't worry about building time or distance really...I just focused on getting comfortable again with running... period.  If you are feeling like you are getting "run over by a car" every time you run at a relatively short distance, honestly, in my experience, there's something to be gained by just staying where you are and working on getting more efficient (and adapted to running in general).

That means things like checking your posture, your balance and symmetry, whether you're overstriding.  Maybe you are simply running too fast for your fitness...I don't use a HR monitor, personally, but if you aren't, that might be something to consider.  It might be that you actually need to dial back your effort for a while before you dial it up.

Don't know if you are trying to lose weight or if you'll ultimately be racing at your current weight, but focusing on proper nutrition to reduce weight while you get acclimated to running (rather than relying on the exercise to shed weight) can help with comfort on the run.

(E.T.A.:  Thinking about the above, really my approach points toward distance as the initial benchmark:  If you are actually building efficiency, you'll gradually see shorter times to cover the same distance...I used to run the same course all the time, to be honest, with a longer run maybe on the weekend.  Eventually you'll be adding time and distance as a matter of course...which you rely on is a matter of individual taste and convenience as much as anything else.)



Edited by tcovert 2011-06-22 2:35 PM
2011-06-22 2:38 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Expert
1168
10001002525
Vancouver (not Canada) Washington (not D.C.)
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
I run for time but do keep track of distance. I really love to run and focusing on time keeps me from going nuts.

I'd really recommend spending a bit of time with a run coach if it is at all possible for you. I'm not suggesting a run plan but seeking help getting really good running form. The mechanics of running really deserve more attention than most of us give.

Best of luck.
2011-06-22 2:59 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Elite
4048
2000200025
Gilbert, Az.
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
wushunut - 2011-06-22 11:45 AM

Looking for advice and insight on how to approach increasing my run volume.  I am, admittedly, a poor runner.  It doesn't help that I'm a bigger guy (6' @215lbs).  I enjoy swimming, again I'm not that fast but improving, biking is my favourite and I can hold my own there.  But running. Oh how running is the bane of my training. 

That being said, I want to get to the point where I can run longer and run faster but not feel like I've been run over by a car each time.

I've been reading about increasing my volume by running everyday so I've started to modestly increase my distance for each run I do (and I mean modest!) but I wonder if adding distance is the right approach?  Would it be more effective to not worry about the distance and focus instead on the time actually being run?

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1612485;search_string=runtraining;#1612485

Read the program, parts 1 2 and 3. Then search on here for anything Scout7 writes on running. Lather rinse repeat.

It's nothing magical, it's just time on the roads, being consistent with the training. Just like everything else, put in consistent, smart training and you will get the results.

John



2011-06-22 3:12 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2011-06-22 3:16 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Runner
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
I am going to both agree and disagree with what has been said.

Firstly, the agree:

It doesn't matter what metric you use, as long as

A) It is meaningful to you;
B) You understand it;

Time and distance both represent the same thing: volume. Neither of them tell you any more than that. Even together, representing speed, you still have no idea about anything else. Speed is not a very useful metric except to measure change in performance.

The other part of the equation is Effort. Time/distance do not tell you anything at all about the effort you've put forth (speed might, but it's not always the most accurate or reliable). To measure effort, you need another system. Some people use Heart Rate (and various ways of measuring that), some people use Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE). Both do the same thing, just differently. I won't go into the details here; there's a number of posts around discussing them.

Now, when I see someone saying that they don't want to finish each run feeling beat up, my first thought is EFFORT. Chances are, you are running at an effort level that is inappropriate for day-to-day running. Some of that may be fitness-related, but I'm willing to bet that a big part of it is that you go out, run, and think that it's supposed to be difficult. It's not. You should end most of your runs feeling refreshed, ready to go back out and do the exact. Same. Run.

So, to tie all this together, I think that you need to work on two things: Work on figuring out what "easy running" is, and work on adding in volume. You can accomplish both by adding frequency (practice makes perfect). Instead of adding distance to each run, try adding another run.

As to whether you should run by time or volume, I think you should pick ONE for now and use just that one metric to measure volume. If you're going by distance, don't wear a watch. If you're going by time, do out and back runs, with a timer set to go off at the halfway point. Pick the method that works best for YOU.

ETA:

I forget my "disagree"....

I disagree that the body only knows time. The body does know anything. Your mind knows time, because it is aware of its passage. The body does care that you ran a marathon in 4 hours or 5 hours. It only knows what you have asked it to do.

I say this because calories are not measured by time, but rather by distance. You burn X number of calories over a mile regardless of how fast it took you to travel that distance. But that's really a thread for another day.

Edited by Scout7 2011-06-22 3:30 PM
2011-06-22 3:26 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Extreme Veteran
341
10010010025
Woodstock, MD
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran

Scout - I've read enough here to know that I really respect your writing on running - so I'll take my chance and ask this here and hope it isn't too much of a threadjack:

What's the deal with these Z2 runs? With low effort runs, however you measure them? Does keeping it that low help avoid injury? Or is there some magic behind keeping the HR down?

I'm not wired to run as slowly as it would take to stay in Z2 - I find myself in Z3 (Z4 on some hills) often...

2011-06-22 3:28 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Pro
5011
5000
Twin Cities
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
Personally, I do all my training/logging by time and RPE. But I've been running long enough that I can tell you with a pretty fair degree of accuracy how far I've gone, so it's not like I'm out there thinking I'm running 8 miles, but it's really like 5, or some such.
2011-06-22 3:36 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Regular
108
100
Raleigh, NC
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
Which poster is the infamous 'Scout'??


2011-06-22 3:37 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Master
2563
20005002525
University Park, MD
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
wushunut - 2011-06-22 2:45 PM

Looking for advice and insight on how to approach increasing my run volume.  I am, admittedly, a poor runner.  It doesn't help that I'm a bigger guy (6' @215lbs).  I enjoy swimming, again I'm not that fast but improving, biking is my favourite and I can hold my own there.  But running. Oh how running is the bane of my training. 

That being said, I want to get to the point where I can run longer and run faster but not feel like I've been run over by a car each time.

I've been reading about increasing my volume by running everyday so I've started to modestly increase my distance for each run I do (and I mean modest!) but I wonder if adding distance is the right approach?  Would it be more effective to not worry about the distance and focus instead on the time actually being run?

Time or distance - just build steadily. Either measure will work just fine.

I hate to say this, but you'll probably get the most benefit from working on the weight. Like you, I'm 6'0". When I was 210 lb I was slow and got injured all the time. Now that I'm 160 lb I am much faster, and although I still get injured, it takes a whole lot more to get me to that point. In addition to care with the diet, most of the weight loss came from biking a lot, which allowed for a high calorie burn with less pounding.

2011-06-22 3:37 PM
in reply to: #3562588

Runner
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
wannanorseman - 2011-06-22 4:26 PM

Scout - I've read enough here to know that I really respect your writing on running - so I'll take my chance and ask this here and hope it isn't too much of a threadjack:

What's the deal with these Z2 runs? With low effort runs, however you measure them? Does keeping it that low help avoid injury? Or is there some magic behind keeping the HR down?

I'm not wired to run as slowly as it would take to stay in Z2 - I find myself in Z3 (Z4 on some hills) often...



Actually, I think it's appropriate to the topic at hand.

The point of running easy is to fit into my nice little statement:

Run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard.

The goal is to get faster. To get faster, you have to run a lot, over a fairly substantial period of time. In order to be able to run a lot, you have to do most of that running at a low effort level. Someone mentioned recovery, and that's a big part of it. You can recover from an easy run much faster than from a harder effort. A lower effort can help with injury prevention as well, but I believe that effort level is only part of the equation; you have to keep in mind the volume. As a friend of mine once said, it ain't the miles that break ya. It's how hard you run them.

So in the end, frequency and consistency trump volume, which trumps intensity. You need harder efforts; don't ignore it, it gets you ready to push, ready to race. But most of the time you're focused on a healthy diet of time on your feet.
2011-06-22 3:40 PM
in reply to: #3562602

Regular
108
100
Raleigh, NC
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
donwah - 2011-06-22 4:36 PM

Which poster is the infamous 'Scout'??


ok, now i see it, no idea how i missed that one!.. my bad... I'm scottish as well, how the hell did i miss the pint of Guiness!???
2011-06-22 7:27 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Champion
5312
5000100100100
Calgary
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran
limited insight here, but I used to be bigger than I am and spent more than a year trying to get faster by running longer (time), this, I think, only resulted in me running slower and longer, for the most part. This could be for a number of reasons, in my experience, as I was training for ultras and concentrating on "time on feet" as opposed to distance.

I THINK that when you are bigger and starting running you are handicapped to a greater degree by the lack of muscular and skeletal development to support running at higher intensity or for a longer time or for a longer distance. This requires you to spend a large amount of time building that physical base, or losing weight I suppose.

Anyways, once I started running by distance I feel that my running improved greatly, like a lot. I am not sure if I started running by distance earlier if my running would have improved quicker due to my lack of base.

I THINK that running by time may make more sense for people who are able to carry a consistant pace or put out a consistant effort. If you have a hard time doing this you may be fooling yourself in basing your goals and improvements on how long (time) you can run.

Anyways. Although I tend to think that the advice about making it mean something to you, is very good.
2011-06-22 7:53 PM
in reply to: #3562367

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran

listen to the guy that's the pint of guiness.  I fought it for a year until I found out how right he was.

"mostly easy, sometimes hard" is now my mantra.  It works.  But- you do have to run a lot.  The thing is- by running easy most of the time... you can.  I now come back from my runs feeling refreshed and ready to go again, rather than sore and tired.  



New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Run Volume - Time Ran vs Distance Ran Rss Feed