Distance x Speed x BMI
June 7, 2014 6:00 AM Subscribe
Please settle a running-related argument (distance vs. speed)
My friend and I (lazy slobs slowly trying to get fitter through running) are signed up for a Christmas 5k run. Please understand that 5K may as well be The Moon, considering how unfit we are. But we are also in this together and three weeks into training, so far so good.
However, there is one issue we keep butting heads on. I'm taking the view during training that it's better to focus on distance, to actually walk (for now) the full 5k everyday and walk faster and faster until I'm able to at least jog it. My friend feels that speed is more important. They're doing C25K everyday and often this only gets them about 1/3 of a 5K.
We don't train together, but check in with oneanother. So I know her C25K isn't taking her very far (in the beginning?), just in a 10-15 min trot away from her home and back again.
Psychologically, for me, completing the distance of 5K is a much better training style - hey, I can make it through 5K no matter how slow, even walking! If I can walk this much, I'll only get faster and soon factor in some jogging! But my friend thinkgs building speed and more prolonged periods of actual running, no matter how short distance-wise, is the way to go.
Is it just a matter of whatever gets you through on race day? Or does slow and steady trump speed?