ericlambi wrote:
CU427 wrote:
Looking at the math of all this I have a few questions.... 200 miles of running at an average pace of 9:00/mile is 30 hours per month, or 7.5 per week (just running).
One random person's opinion: you should target hours instead of miles.
Yeah thats kind of why I asked that question to begin with, although I see more merit with time vs distance in biking or running as biking gives more variability with speed and the outcomes can be much different versus running.
And why 200, why not 150, or 225? What is it about 200 that is the "standard" that has been set?
Is that what the OP has seen through various different athletes to respond to best?
I guess that leads me to another question, is this a good blanket challenge for all to get a good training response out of, or just their personal opinion.