I am not sure I totally agree with this. I understand that in a race we have to all run the same distance. So when training for a marathon, it's common practice to have your long training runs in the 18-20 mile range. But that is mostly to get the runner acclimated to the mental aspect of the 26 mile race. That's different than what we are talking about here. I think most people talk miles out of convenience. I have been diligent over the last few years concentrating on time at heartrate during my workouts. SERIOUS Training for Endurance Athletes, Friel and others always seem to refer to time for a workout, not distance - 45 minutes in the pool (not so many yards), 2.5 hours on the bike (not 50 miles), and a 60 minute tempo run. All these are not related to pace.
Maybe it's me, but I do all my workouts based on time and only use distance as a check for increased fitness levels. Did I run farther at 155 bpm average than I did two months ago?
As for having to run the same distance to get the same benefit ... Let me pose this question. I run my base building miles at 10:00 pace (I have always been a slow runner, but indulge me here for a moment). Say I go out for a 6 mile overdistance run and it takes me 60 minutes. You do the same run at the same %Max heartrate and it takes you 43 minutes. I would say that I got more benefit than you - not the same benefit. On the other hand, my training volume would be way higher than yours doing the same mileage.
I would be interested in what the coaches here think on this issue. Are your athlete's training plans built on time or distance? And if you say distance, is it distance because you know your client's pace so well, which would imply that it really is based on time? I am really interested in this, mostly because I am one of the few folks in our local group that will run for 1/2 my time, turn around and then run back. All my training is done on time at HR level. Thanks for your input.
Steve
Last edited by:
Chubby Hubby: Sep 29, 03 16:51