Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravaggio
Recently in a video it said better to run for time than it is to run for miles.
Perils of learning anything on YouTube and great runners use weekly mileage.
They pointed out if it takes over three-hours in one session to reach your mileage that may not be beneficial.
For myself + three-hour runs were often what I needed to reach my LONG RUN DAY.
Just something some might find helpful.
|
It always depends on your goals. The body does get more efficient the more you run. You will burn less calories per mile if you are running a lot of distance. You also burn more calories per mile running fast (or doing HIIT workouts, etc.).
In order to run a fast 5k (just an example race distance, use whatever distance you want), you have to have a base number of miles in training. Some people say that for a 5k, that's 20 miles per week. Those 20 miles come from doing a mix of speed work and distance work. One long run per week (8 miles plus), a sprint workout (sometimes 100s, sometimes 400s, sometimes ladders, etc.), a tempo run (running a quick pace for a sustained period of time), plus "recovery runs." Just by accomplishing those different types of runs, you will hit a good amount of miles per week.
For me, I feel that I have that base established now (with the goal of running 1000 miles per year), so now I'm going to start incorporating some specific time goals in there. I need to sign up for some races too....
(EDIT: I agree with the premise that 3 hours to get the distance run in is probably too long!)