Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Speed or distance: which do you prefer?

Running a 16 minute 5K (or alternately a 34 min 10K) or running a marathon or ultra marathon at a slow pace (just completing it, not racing it). Both feats seem challenging. Which would you rather accomplish and why?

Personally, I have confidence that with adequate training at relatively easy aerobic paces, I could complete a race of any distance, if I put my mind to it, but I am much less confident that I would ever be able to run a 16 minute 5K, even if I trained as hard as anyone else for it. Truly impressive speed seems more out of reach than truly impressive distances. So, I guess if I had one running wish to be granted by some running genie, it would be the 16 minute 5K.

After that, knowing I'd be unlikely to improve much on the time, I'd probably turn to longer distance pursuits. However, I'd still need to go for more speed each time to convince myself to do any given event more than once, most likely.

I do enjoy a nice, gentle, easy run at times, but I guess I don't enter events just to get from the start to the finish. I enter them to see how fast I can do so, and then subsequently to see if I can do them even faster the next time.

So, what are -your- thoughts on the subject?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Disqus for FoCo Runner