which is more important time/distance

I'm sure this has been covered but I couldn't find it!

10 messages
31/05/2013 at 11:24

Hi all,

I've just started running and am aiming to do a 10k in 12 weeks time. I have a training plan and to start with it's 3.2k in 30mins. I'm doing the 3.2k in about 23mins. My question is basically should I:

1. run for the full 30mins and run further than 3.2k

2. run just the 3.2k and take less than the 30mins

3. run slower and do exactly 3.2k in 30mins

and will the same principle apply as the distances increase?

Any help appreciated.

Thanks

31/05/2013 at 13:00

thats a strange thing to have on a training plan - normally they state time OR distance. I'm guessing the plan says 2 miles as 3.2km is also an odd amount?
can you post what your first weeks plan actually says?
have you done any other running before?

31/05/2013 at 13:11

Heather, it sounds like you are a bit fitter than the average person the plan was developed for.  But not to worry that's a good thing

In my opinion, since you have that advantage, and the ability to carry on, go with time based training.  There are a lot of arguments in favour of time-based, one of which is that you don't keep trying to go faster than you should if you know you just have to carry on anyway (ie don't keep trying to finish your 3.2 in 20 minutes instead of 23 next time around) which helps keep you running nice and easy while you develop some base fitness.

31/05/2013 at 13:35

Max's mum

It was originally in miles but I have converted (bit roughly!) to km.

Plan is 3 runs a week. first week all are 3.2k in 30mins
week 2 first two runs are 3.2k in 30mins, third run is 4.8k in 45mins
after that the first run stays at 3.2k the second run changes to tempo runs or interval training and the third run increases in distance each week up to a maximum 12.8k.

Haven't ran much since school (12 years ago) play hockey and do some other sports.

Louise thanks for the advice.

31/05/2013 at 13:37

normally you would get a plan saying 'easy run 30 mins' or 'easy run 2 miles'

it seems odd that it would stipulate both the distance and the time.

31/05/2013 at 14:08

I checked the original programme (before my converting to kms) and it was distance in miles with a pace in mins e.g 2miles @15m40s so I changed the miles in kms and calculated the total time based on the pace suggested. So basically i'm running faster than the suggested pace so spending less actual time running but completing the required distance.

31/05/2013 at 14:18

Up to you, but if you feel like it keep going for the whole half hour, if you don't feel it's to difficult.

Plans are just plans, you should be flexible on the odd day you will have a bad run, so maybe take advantage of the good days and get a bit of extra practise in.  It sounds like maybe you are slightly healthier then the target audience for your plan..

31/05/2013 at 14:43

As booktrunk says, plans are flexible.

05/06/2013 at 13:09

agree with post above, you seem to be fitter than whomever the plan is aimed at. Try timing youself over a fastish 5k and then try somthing like the mcmillan calculator to predict your 10k time and get appropriate training paces.

03/07/2013 at 19:10

thanks for all your advice.


We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
10 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums