distance v. time

I'm going to try something new on the run today. It may be a mistake, but I need to know. I'm going to run for distance rather than time.

Instead of upping my run to 30 minutes this week, I'm going to do two miles. With my speed slowing down like it has, this may come out to just about the same thing, but I think it's going to end up around 28-29 minutes. I'm going to do a 1/2 mile warmup and a 1/2 mile cooldown, for a total of 3 miles (6 laps). Hopefully, I'll do this in less than 45 minutes.

If this works out okay, I'm going to make it 2.5 miles next week, 3 miles the week after that, and 3.5 after that. I'll stay at 3.5 for the foreseeable future, maybe taking it up to 4 in the fall.

I may also stretch it out by 1/4-miles each week (2.25 next week, 2.5 week after, etc.), but I think it's really going to depend on how I feel after this week. Or probably after next week. If another 1/2 mile seems like too much of a jump, I'll back it off.

So, why?

There are a few reasons. The main one is that C-to-5k only goes up to 30 minutes, and it's going to be a long, loooooong time before I can run a 5k in 30 minutes. If my objective is to run a certain distance, then I think I should be training by distances. If my objective was to run for an hour straight, then the time increases would work better.

Another reason is that I can get a better idea of how long it takes me to run a specific distance. If I know that I'm going to run exactly 2 miles or 3 miles or whatever, I don't have to go through the math olympics to figure out my run speed. If I'm running 28 minutes and I almost make it to the 2 mile mark before walking, how do I quantify the almost? What I've been doing is just calculating speed for the full 2 mile distance, which includes some walking. Going for distance makes me seem faster without actually having to be faster.

And finally, it's the music. I like to shuffle play. I'll probably still create running playlists, but I won't need to worry about the play order so much this way.

Ya kno...I don't think it'll be a mistake, for one if it works for you how could it? ;)

I not sure if you saw it already but C25k also has an option of running for distance vs. time. I think that works better for outdoor runners. When I tried to do distance on the treadmill in my earlier low mph days I would have had to run for hours, so I chickened out and opted for time...lol

I can't remember if I asked, much less what you answered if I did (sorry!) but if you do the hal higdon pgm next, I think you'll like it b/c you do run for distance, which now that I've increased my mph on the treadmill is easier to do.

I always lol @ your number crunching and think to myself..."That is totally me"

*nod* I did see where you can do c25k by distance rather than time...it's sort of how I decided to pick it up at week 4 this time through, since I had been alternating either 1/4-mile or 1/2-mile intervals on my own before that.

With the intervals, time worked better because I'm slow, and 3 minutes was less intimidating than a 1/4 mile. Now that it's all running, though, I think distance is going to work better.

I'm sort of living the Hal Higdon program vicariously through you right now...not sure I'm up to that quite yet. :) Maybe in the fall.