Is it better to run?

Question

Is it better to run for distance or for time? Like, is it better to say your going for a mile run or saying your going to run for a certain amount of time?

Answer 1

It depends on you.

If I run for distance, I will time myself and I will push. This was great when I was improving my race times, but horrible when I was recovering from injury. When I needed to take it easy, I stayed away from my normal routes and I did not wear a stopwatch; just a normal watch for an estimate. That kept the afterburners off and let me ease into it.

I would say try both and see how you feel each time. Running is a very personal activity and you have to learn to trust your instincts.

Answer 2

It depends on what your goals are and your purposes for running. If you are trying to train for a marathon you want to make sure that you do a certain number of miles or you will never work your way up to 26.2 miles. If you are running just to be healthy and get in shape then running for time is an ok idea. You should make sure that you run for over 20 minutes at a time in order to get the cardiovascular benefits. I usually do a combination of both when I am going for a run. I decide how much time I have and then think about where I want to run. If I have more time then I will pick a route that is 5 or 6 miles. If I don't have as much time I pick one where I run 2 or 3 miles. If you are training for a 5k road race you want to make sure you get some good mileage in during the week. Possibly two or three days where you run 5 or more miles. After you have been running for a while and are in better shape you will be able to run the same distances in less time. I guess it really depends on what you are working towards. Let me know if you have a more specific question.

Answer 3

I think that it's both because if you run a mile you don't want to jog it in like 15 minutes, so you should aim for a certain distance and try to make a time goal for the distance.

Answer 4

Both are okay it just depends on what you like best. Personally, I think running for time is less stressful and restrictive. I have raced 5K to marathon for many years and have never run specific mileage during my training. I always run based on feel. If I know I only have an hour to run I don't try to squeeze in 10 miles if my body doesn't feel like it can handle a 6 minute mile pace. If I only maintain a 7 minute mile pace but still run for an hour who cares if I only ran 9 miles, I still got a productive run and didn't risk injury doing it.

Answer 5

I bicycle, and I say it's better to bicycle for distance than for speed.
I don't know if that carries over into running, but speed can cause exaustion . The world speed record for cycling is the 200 metre sprint, which is a flying start event. I can't keep up with them:
http://www.speed101.com
The racers will only make one attempt at the 200 metre sprint per day.
Sprinting is a different kind of race than a marathon.

Answer 6

i think its better to run for distance if ur first starting out. then as u get better you can try to run a certain distance in a certain amount of time

Answer 7

Either one is fine. But I would say setting a time and distance would be even better.

Answer 8

I prefer time. If you run the same time while you are improving you will run further. But, don't get so hooked on time that you just run slower and slower.

Answer 9

a lil of bothh..u need to practice endurance and also just get sum milage in there

Answer 10

i've been doing distance, but that's only because i am a beginner..