Do You Run Distance, Time, Or Both?

• Posted: July 30, 2008
• |
• Author: Shéamus
• |
• Filed under: Gear, Observations
• |
• Tags: Garmin Forerunner 50

When I first used to run, many years ago, all of my workouts were time-based. That is, I’d go out and run 30 minutes, or an hour, and occasionally more. This was in the mid-1990s. Back then, virtually nobody had access to any kind of personal timing devices. With the likes of Garmin, Nike+ and Nokia Sportstracker in the world today, I’m not sure we realise how fortunate we are!

My only option was time. Sure, you could measure a fixed course and run that, but that’s not as easy to do as it sounds. You can drive a route, perhaps, but that means running on the road to ensure you meet the distance, as well as doing the same thing all the time.

Or you might be lucky enough to have a measured course in your area. Alas, there wasn’t one in mine.

Around that time, I read an article in Runner’s World that suggested that I was actually doing the right thing all along. That it was more important to count minutes, not miles. As this is what I was doing anyway, I happily agreed. After all, I didn’t have much of a choice in the matter.

A couple of months ago when I began running again, I also found myself limited in my options. I didn’t start using my Garmin Forerunner 50 until July 2 - up until that time, I was estimating my daily workouts using a combination of what it said on my basic digital watch and the mileage Google told me I was running on their Maps feature. This led me to believe I was running as fast as 7:20 a mile - when I finished my first workout with my Garmin, this turned out to be significantly off. By over one minute.

Since then, I’ve thankfully reduced my typical run-rate to approximately the time I thought I was running way back when, but it just illustrates how the novice runner really has little to no idea of their pace when they first begin to run regularly. You can’t guesstimate it. It doesn’t work. Your body makes you think it’s working harder than it is, certainly to the untrained mind.

Now don’t get me wrong. I know my Garmin isn’t 100 per cent accurate. Nobody’s is. And nor is anybody’s Nike+ or Sportstracker perfectly accurate, either. But it’s the closest thing we have. And it’s more than accurate enough.

If you’re literally just starting out as a runner, then I think it’s very important that you invest as little money as possible. I’ve written about this before, and I mean it - all you need to begin is a t-shirt, a pair of shorts, some socks and a pair of sneakers. You don’t need the fancy stuff - you will buy that as the weeks go by, but you absolutely should not rush out and spend a fortune on day one. (For more on this, read an excellent and very amusing post by Ian at CompleteRunning.com, entitled Running Is Cheap.)

However, one thing I do believe every even remotely serious runner needs to invest in as soon as possible is some kind of pace-tracking device. It is, I think, quite literally impossible to attain any level of improvement without being able to see what you did last week and to then compare it to this. And so on. Good workout or bad, I love getting home from my runs and uploading my workouts from my Garmin to my laptop (it does it automatically as soon as I enter my home, thanks to the bluetooth connection). Yes, I’m a bit of a statistics freak (in case you didn’t guess) but after a while of doing the same, you will be too.

It’s a modest investment - my Forerunner 50 is the most basic model and was £68, which includes the footpod that attaches to my running shoe that sends the signal from my foot to the watch - but one that has paid for itself many, many times over. I mean, think about it - if I had continued to assume I was running 7:20 when I first started, and made the same level of improvement that I have, I’d be assuming I was running regularly at a six-minute per mile pace right about now. Imagine the humiliation when I lined up for my first 5K, boldly telling everybody who was mad enough to listen that I’d only been training a couple of months but was about to show them how it was done! I can’t imagine I’d have continued with much enthusiasm after then being duly (and rightfully) thrashed by all and sundry.

This, of course, is the thing. Very few races - certainly at the level to which I am running right now - are raced over time. They’re all over distance - 5K, 10K, 13.1 miles, the marathon, and so on. Yes, there are 24-hour races, and records do exist for one-hour time trials, and the like, but that’s just not my bag, baby. More importantly, it’s virtually nobody’s bag, either. It almost certainly won’t be yours.

I do like every so often to post new milestones for duration as opposed to distance - for example, I’ve noted when I’ve ran for a full hour, and recently when I did my first 10-mile run I continued afterwards so that I could also say I’ve been ‘out there’ for an hour and a half, too. But the latter is far less significant than the former, in pretty much every sense.

Generally I’m simply concerned with distance versus time. My average pace per mile, and my total time for a given distance. Ultimately I feel myself being (very) slowly molded into a more plodding but durable ultra distance runner. It just feels like a natural progression, although I’m not really sure why. And over the weeks and months ahead passing the two, four, five and ten-hour marks will be significant milestones in my development.

But far, far less so than 13.1, 20, 26.2, 30, 50 and 100 milers.

If you haven’t done so yet, and you’re getting serious about your running, treat yourself to that tracking device. As said, the entry costs for basic models can be surprisingly modest. eBay is always an excellent option. Amazon undercuts pretty much everybody else.

You’ve earned it. And you will go on to make significant improvements in your workouts, albeit perhaps after you’ve recovered from the painful truth of that first timed run.

• (6) Comments
• Permalink
• RSS 2.0
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•