SHOULD YOU RUN BY THE MILE OR BY THE MINUTE?
One of the elementary questions of running is should you train for so many miles or for so many minutes? (Of course, if you’re not a runner you’re probably asking yourself “Why should I even read this post?”)
Running for Time
I usually train by “running” for time. (There are men and women my age who still actually run—but over the years I’ve become more of a jogger than a runner.) I perform repetitions of jogging for 10 minutes followed by walking rapidly for 2 minutes. I do a minimum of six sets—or 72 minutes—of these. When I’m training for a half marathon, I’ll keep adding on a set a week until I’m up to 12, or 144 minutes of jogging/walking.
One of the major benefits of running by minutes is that I know exactly how much time I’ll spend out training. This way I can arrange my day knowing I’m able to make it to appointments or telephone conferences.
Running for Distance
The problem with running by time is that I don’t need to step on the gas pedal, i.e. run very fast. Thus, I wouldn’t be ready to compete in a race. So as I get closer to the date for a half marathon, I change over to running for distance. My Fitbit is fairly accurate to my pace, so I use it to gauge how many miles I’ve run (jogged). I still break up my jogging with walks, but do it after each mile instead of after 10 minutes.
Running for distance I train at race pace, which helps build my confidence that I might finish the event with a decent time.
I’m sure that if you’re a runner you’ve also faced this run by the mile or by the minute quandary. One solution is on “easy days” to run by time—say 96 minutes of moderate exertion. Then, on pre-event training days to instead run for the distance—say 10 miles at race pace.
But in the final analysis, the most important thing is to just have fun running!