A local running coach, Jean-Yves Cloutier, has written a book about his training philosophy and has programs for running 5k, 10k, 1/2M and marathons. Basically his philosophy is similar to that of many other coaches: run mostly slow with a rather small percentage of total volume running faster, at different speeds. What sets him apart from other coaches is that the runs are always dictated in time, and pace. Never in distance.

A program based on distance will not work the same for runners with different conditioning. A 20 miles run is not the same training if run at 8:00/mile as if it is run at 10:00/mile.

Like most programs, with Cloutier, you run at different paces. You get these paces from a recent race time. Just for fun I made a comparison table of the paces Cloutier’s charts give me and put that same 10k time (42:30) in Jack Daniels’ running calculator (http://www.runsmartproject.com/calculator/#modInt)

With the exception that Daniels’ easy pace is slower than Cloutier’s R1 pace, both authors prescribe almost identical paces for that given 10k race time.

Then I made correlations between some of Cloutier’s typical workouts and their equivalent using distance and Daniels’ pace chart.

Again, numbers speak for themselves.

To me it is simpler and more practical to run by time than by distance because the intervals can then be run just about anywhere. No track needed.

In Cloutier’s programs, unless specified, all running is done at R1 pace. That is warmup, rest between intervals, and cooldown. Rest time between intervals are almost always the same length as the intervals themselves.

For example, Tuesday’s workout was 40 minutes total, 4x90s reps at R4, 90s rest between intervals. This means I warmed up at R1 pace for, say, 12 minutes, then ran my first 90s interval at R4 pace, rested for 90s at R1 pace, did another repeat of 90s at R4, rested for 90 at R1, and so on until I was done with my 4 repeats. Then I ran at R1 (cool down) until I reached around 40 minutes. The equivalent workout in Daniels’ programs would have been something like 5 miles total, 4x200m at Interval speed.

The book is only available in French. At first I found it awkward not to think in distance. So I changed the default display on my watch to Pace and Time. Now, I don't miss distance anymore. But distance still makes sense to me in total per week or per month. I prefer to know I ran 74.3 km in the week instead of I ran for 6:26 hours.

That’s it. Just wanted to share this.

I bought a marathon training plan from McMillan last year, one specifically designed for me in Boston. It was based on time rather than distance, just like you explained, Eric. I'm sure it makes great sense and I trust McMillan and your guy is probably a good coach as well. But I have been so brainwashed that I am always more concerned with my number of miles per week, rather than the hours I ran. I didn't use the McMillan plan. What a waste of money...

I can appreciate running by time as well, and I don't think it's as foreign of a concept in training as you'd believe. 

Agreed. One example...back in the 80's the former U of Wisconsin coach Jerry Schumacher created "Badger" miles. Every run was counted as a 7:00 min/mile pace. If you ran an hour, no matter your pace, it counted for ~8.5 miles. It evened out for faster runs and recovery runs. One of the  reasons I heard was that it kept runners from competing against each other on their weekly mileage totals.

And as always, your body has no idea what a mile is. It does know time and effort however.

Thank you for sharing-- I think there are some advantages to using time-based training, or at least a mix, rather than strictly going by prescribed distances.

Many coaches don't disregard time in their training methods.  Lydiard recommended an upwards limit of 9 and a half to 10 and a half hours per week of running, no matter your speed.  Daniels has a lot of workouts like: 7x(2 min hard, 1 min easy).  Daniels also recommends that slower runners convert tempo runs into minutes-- so instead of doing 4x1 mile at T pace, you should do 4x6 min at T pace (he suggested that slower runners do 6 minutes at T pace for every T-paced mile in the plan)

 

A program based on distance will not work the same for runners with different conditioning. A 20 miles run is not the same training if run at 8:00/mile as if it is run at 10:00/mile.

 

Most of us, though, are training to run by distance.  You can say that a 2:50 marathon is not the same thing is a 4:50 marathon, but ultimately you have to run 26.2 miles no matter how long it takes you.  If I had been following a strict time-based schedule with a max of a 3-hour long run, I never would have gone above 17 or 18 miles during marathon training, and I think the couple 20s I did were valuable and not detrimental to the rest of my training.  On the other hand, many years ago when I was much slower than I was now, I stupidly, stubbornly decided to follow Daniels' distance training to the letter--except for that part where he recommends converting the tempo runs to shorter, time-based efforts.  If he recommended 4x1 mile at T, I did 4x1 mile at T, even though it took me 40 minutes total rather than the ~24 minutes I should have been running at that pace.  I (shockingly) got injured.

In the end I think there's no one right answer; I think there are times where it's best to go by distance and times when it's best to go by time.

I think a friend of mine is using this Cloutier method (not sure if it's the same, though).  And I agree with his premise.  I, however, like to train for distance rather than time (just a matter of preference) and like those types of training more.

Sounds interesting, though.

As the majority of my god awfully early in the morning runs are on the TM.

I run those by time and pace.

 

That's what I was thinking. You do have to adjust your mindset, but the results should be the same.

What I see happening when people try running by time is that pace is ignored. That completely changes the formula. As runners tire when running intervals, the distance shortens because they ignore pace and run slower. That does NOT produce the same training effect. Also as pointed out previously, with the exception of timed events like a one hour, 6-hour, 12-hour, and 24-hour races, you are training for a specific distance. If that is not taken into account, one could end up woefully undertrained, especially slower runners. A 3 hour training run will take me to only 15 miles. It's tough to be ready for a marathon with that as my long run unless I'm also running 50+ mpw with a high proportion of quality speed work.

 

What I see happening when people try running by time is that pace is ignored. That completely changes the formula. As runners tire when running intervals, the distance shortens because they ignore pace and run slower. That does NOT produce the same training effect. Also as pointed out previously, with the exception of timed events like a one hour, 6-hour, 12-hour, and 24-hour races, you are training for a specific distance. If that is not taken into account, one could end up woefully undertrained, especially slower runners. A 3 hour training run will take me to only 15 miles. It's tough to be ready for a marathon with that as my long run unless I'm also running 50+ mpw with a high proportion of quality speed work.

But the schedule reprinted in the OP has a pace requirement. Or did I misread it?