Discussion: Time vs. distance?

So on my run today i was thinking, most teams when they practice are told to run for a certain length of time at a certain percentage of speed. But then there are other people who set out and say i'm running 5 miles no matter how long (or short) it takes me. So i guess my question is which is better? running for a certain amount of time or a certain distance. and which do people tend to do?

It's a simple matter of keeping it simple for me.

I run by time mostly because I'm never sure how far my route is. There are no clear mile markers where I run.

Also, some days I feel better and go farther in a certain time, but other days I'm more tired or conditions are worse, and I go not as far. Either way, I go for a specific amount of time and feel I accomplished my goal.

Lastly, when I'm away from home, I don't have to worry about measuring out distance in a new place. Time is the same no matter where I am (relativism aside).

I'm another that likes to keep track of pace and distance but as already mentioned there are occasions when time alone is a good thing or simply has to be good enough.

Usually, when I go for a run I know how far I'm going to go and the pace at which I'm going to run. It's not a matter of doing X miles no matter what. If I go on time alone, I know my pace well enough that I can guess the distance pretty closely.

For my purposes, I don't feel like time alone gives me enough information. For instance, With time alone, how do you compare runs? Also, there is a correlation between weekly distance (above a certain point) and injury. Pace is almost certainly a variable in that equation. I've had knee troubles so I'm keeping a close eye on mileage and pace.

I also feel that time alone is not enough information for me. I like knowing how far i ran and how long it took me. however my pace is all over the place, some days i run quite well, other days not so much. and there is a big difference if someone is running with me and if i run alone. That is normally why i pick distance because if i pick time sometimes i end up running shorter than i really wanted to or i end up running faster and running further than i wanted to (i also have been having knee problems)
it is interesting to hear what others have to say! and i'm glad that if i want to go by miles that isn't totally wrong.

An interesting variable I've introduced is running by time within heart rate zones (that is, for tempo running x amount of time while keeping my heart at a higher rate, or for long runs, running x amount of time while keeping it at a lower rate.) This is how I've avoided over-extending myself by running too fast or far within a given time, or too slowly for that matter. This means, of course, not being able to compare runs for distance accurately, but I've never thought about comparing training runs by distance and speed. (Of course since I run the same out and back trails a lot, I do notice if I've managed to go further in half the total time, at which point I turn around and head back.) Mostly I compare week to week for how much time I've put in, and how much time I've put in at higher intensity. I also "make comparisons" when I notice my body feeling better, or stronger and more efficient (or more fatigued).

For me this all goes along well with training for orienteering on the orange courses, where it seems that it's been more important for me to run well for an hour than to run for a certain distance.

When people run for time do they find that if they run out for say 30mins and then want to run back for 30mins to make an hour of training they end up running faster on the way back? That is another one of my problems when i run for time, my mind thinks oh going home, i'm feeling good, i can pick the pace up a little bit but then i end up running a shorter time than i wanted to. Or i'll add a min or two running out (31mins) and then take two off coming back (29mins) to try and account for that and then i end up taking longer, which i guess isn't that big of a deal just a bit annoying.
thank you everyone for your in put on this topic!

You've had a good run when your back half is quicker than your first half whether your training or racing: a negative split. Therefore, I've always added minutes to the half-time before the turnaround.

I can't stand not knowing my distance and pace. Therefore I never go for a run just by time alone. I log every run I take and have learned that sometimes I have unexpected bad days and unexpected great days. I never worry about the bad days. I do planned runs every week. I usually do 1 interval training session for a total of 3 to 4 miles, 1 tempo run of 3 to 5 miles, and 1 long run around 10 miles each week. On the off days I usually do a core workout and sometimes an easy run. I used to have knee problems when I did runs of 6 miles or longer until about a year ago when I started taking "Move Free".

My opinion for what it's worth - a great many people put more effort into measuring their exercise than is justified by the concrete results. Many of them apparently derive joy or at least satisfaction from this so far be it from me to criticise them for indulging in it. Some few of them seem to be slightly compulsive about it, which strikes me as more worrisome. Doing occasional running races or time trials to measure progress obviously makes sense but, that aside, distance is a deceptive yardstick unless you're running on a track or a treadmill (perhaps even then given varying conditions). If you really want to control your training precisely, particularly if you do any significant amount of non-running training, monitoring time and heart rate makes more sense.

I just go out and run. Often I run trail loops that I've run before and can compare with earlier outings if I want, but I really have no idea what the distance is on any of them, and I often take varying routes just to keep things interesting. Then again, you can't really use what I do as an example of successful training program. But you might note that it isn't that different in spirit than what Swampfox does (although, of course, it's immensely different in terms of quantity).

We run because we like to run. I do keep track of time as part of the plan but have little idea of distance. And don't really care. Lyn doesn't care about either, and I guess she has developed into a reasonable runner. When we run, we will pause to enjoy the woods, check out the brook, listen to the birds, stretch. An occasional interval session or race will be a check on, and give a feel for, pace, but that pace is quite different from an O experience and not particularly relevant. We'll probably do some more O drills as the season gets underway and some of the snow melts. That's probably one of the most important training disciplines to work on.

Distance and time are not really enough either for orienteers. Running 5min/km in heather is not at all the same as running the same speed on trails. One way to measure this is heart rate.

You could record total heart beats. If this doesn't give enough weight to speed sessions for your liking you way wish to square the number of beats and divide by two.

The division by two is probably not key... ;)

Perhaps extra heartbeats is the more interesting measure, i.e. how many beats tou had minus the number you would have had just sitting in a chair and reading Attackpoint.

and how does resting heart rate relate to Attackpoint heart rate....

This is a debate i constantly have with my running club. They all quantify their training by distance, whereas i always do mine by time. I find this a more accurate representation as i don't just do running so it gives a quantifiable means of how much training i'm doing each week. Also, if you are doing some hilly runs you may find that the distance is a lot less than your regular run although you may be putting in more effort.
I'd just do whatever you feel happy with, as long as the training's structured and quantifiable by the same means each week.

10 years back when I was into triathlons mainly and just orienteering racing I used to run for distance for my long runs (one or twice a week). I knew how far I was doing on that particular loop and the motivation to run solidly was the bonus of getting back quicker, but I had the restraint to rarely "race" myself. As I drifted away from tris I found the desire to run for distance also faded and I have become a fan of running for time and saying things like "it's time on feet for the long run, not about pace".

I thnk there are arguments for both - these days I run with a GPS so I can measure distance anyway wherever we meander through the suburbs/beach/parks etc. Unfortnately the metamorphosis into the "run for time" thing has definitely been part of my slowing down over the last 5 years or so - I tend to aim for long beach sections when I am tired as I 'know' I can achieve the time without covering as much ground!

Maybe it's just that my drive has faded over the years, rather than the distance - time thing.... :-)

As I said, "for my purposes...." I certainly wasn't leaning towards a right or wrong answer. I suspect the preference has to do with personality type: I'm an analytical....

With my recovery from knee problems, I've started from just about scratch on pace and distance and am trying to get back to a competitive level (whatever that means). Keeping track of time and distance, I can go back to the training pace charts and see if I was on target.

I use a HR monitor and run for certain amounts of time in a specific HR zones, depending on the particular workout. Distance/pace workouts don't work for me since I now exclusively run trails which vary a lot in elevation changes. Running a steep trail at a given distance/pace requires a lot more effort than running a flat trail at a given distance/pace. However I can get close to equivalent efforts using a time/HR workout. I now do interval training on trails using the HR monitor. In the past I hated interval training because they were usually done on a flat track. Now I love intervals on trails. It's more like the origen of intervals - the fartlek - .

I've always emphasized quality before quantity for my athletes. Train for time and intensity, distance is really irrelevant.

Hmm ok this is interesting. I gathered that most people i knew ran from time, but it always seems like my track team is running for distance not time so was wondering if that was having us not get as of good training as we should be.

Maybe it's just "cultural differences"? It occurs to me your track team are training for races of a specific set of distances, while as an orienteer you train for races of varying distance but with as consistent as possible a winning time. Maybe if you're training athletes for the 1500m you'll have the mindset of prescribing X times 1500m, while if you're training athletes for a 60 minute race you'll prescribe X times 60 minutes?

Running intervals on the track is completely different. Like birdman says, they are training for something specific.

The only way to gauge your fitness is to do intervals for distance and time on a fixed platform, i.e. the track. If you swim, it's the pool, if you ride, the velodrome, etc.