Running long distances a couple times a week or shorter distances more often?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I am a very busy person and can really only allot a certain number of hours per week to run. So which is better doing a longer distance like 5-6 miles per run two times a week or doing 2 miles five times a week? |
Anonymous
| What's your goal? |
Anonymous
| 2 miles 5x a week |
Nicodemus
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
2 miles 5 times a week......to me at least.
I have found it much easier to find the time to crank out short runs than fitting long runs into my week. Of course this also depends on your pace but I tend to eat lunch at my desk while I am working so as long as I have somewhere to change/shower I can fit a quick 2 or 3 miles in for my lunch break. On those rare days things are slow I can then crank out a quick 4 or 5 and make up the extra time taken. ~N~ |
Anonymous
| I would run for a time vs miles...run 30 or 45 minutes 3-4 times a week vs running x miles. You really start to feel it after 30 minutes. |
Anonymous
| 5x2miles is better for your body and health. 2x5miles is probably more time efficient, but seems a recipe for injury. |
Anonymous
|
What is your pace?
How long does it take you to run 5-6miles verse running 2 miles? Seems like a hassle to run for 2 miles, I feel like I'm just getting started at the point. Plus, I took the time to change out into my running stuff and stretch. It almost takes me longer to get ready than to actual run. 2 miles is all, of what, 15 minutes? Are you doing it an aerobic pace or just a leisure (you can still talk) run? |
Anonymous
It takes me about 26 mins to run 2 miles. I can't talk because i am actually pretty winded running. I have been running for two years and it had always been like this. |
Anonymous
| 5 times a week is great. Work on your speed, at least in short intervals. |
Anonymous
|
I like a combination. One longer run on the weekend and a few shorter runs during the week.
Or you could just run every other day for whatever time you have. I think it's good to take a day between runs so you can recover. |
Anonymous
13 min miles OP? And that's running? It would take you all afternoon to run 5 or 6 miles ( which, by the way, isn't considered long distance). Your post doesn't say, but how much time were thinking og allotting for a 6 mile run? |
Anonymous
Don't be an asshole. Of course it's running. I'm a slow runner myself, have been for a few years - and while it may take me over an hour to run a 10K, I enjoy my longer runs (for me, that's 5-8 miles) thoroughly. Not everyone who runs does so to improve their speed or win races or because it's something they have a natural aptitude for. Some of us run simply because it's good exercise and we enjoy it. |
Anonymous
Do you enjoy being an asshole? People are at all different stages of their fitness and running. Is there something developmentally wrong with you, that you can't understand that basic concept? When I first started running (a year and a half ago) I was doing 13 minute miles. I'm now down to about 9 minute miles for a 5k/10k. For me, that's awesome. It's not about the number, but about achieving your personal goals. I currently run about 12-16 miles a week. I don't particularly give a crap if that's "long distance" or not. Or I could quit because poor, poor me is not as fast and far as pp. Or maybe I'm just not worried about others, but focused on my own benchmarks 
OP--- I think it depends on your goals. If you're more focused on cardio health, I think short, frequent runs will be better. But if you're looking to improve endurance, less frequent, longer runs will be better. It really depends on what you're after. |
Anonymous
|
Some people run for time.....some for distance......as long as your running that is all that is important.
If you are trying to up your pace though I will say something that did it for me was two a days. I would hop on the treadmill at work and crank out two or three miles then do a quick two or three after work. When I got back to running outdoors all the time I found my times had dropped significantly. I think it had to do with the constant pace of the treadmill versus the ebb and flow of running outdoors. All that said, run your own run man. Not everyone is a speed demon. Anytime I begin to think I am blazing it I will end up crossing paths with someone that rolls by me like I am standing still. When I first started running I was happy to complete a mile in the 12:30 range and now I am pretty solidly in the 8:20/30 range. I still have off days occasionally where I am back in the low to mid 9's. What matters most to me is that I got my run in not how quickly I completed it. (for the most part) ~N~ |
Anonymous
|
Agree with 12:02 and some others - everyone is different. Some people have great endurance, some have great speed, some have neither but they're getting out there anyway. Let's face it, most of us are not kenyans doing sub-5 minute miles, marathon distance.
In my teens I wasn't especially fast - same with my 20's. I actually got faster in my 30's, and my 40's have been pretty awesome, speed-wise. (less awesome in terms of soreness. ow.) I've found that a key to getting faster, if that's a goal, is that running faster than your usual pace can be uncomfortable. Discomfort (not pain) is where gains can be made. When a run feels hard to me, it is often because my pace is faster than usual or my distance is longer than I'm currently trained for. If you push the speed or the distance (assuming you're healthy enough for this), without being afraid of a little discomfort, you might be able to get faster. |