1

Which is best for regaining endurance? (Read 721 times)

finney


Resident pinniped

    As some of you might know, I was laid up and laid off running for a month due to a non-running related rib injury. Before that, I had just started running regularly and seriously and was doing 3-4 miles 3 times a week. So, a beginner, but I could run my pace at that distance consistently and pretty comfortably. Now, post injury, I might as well be starting over. That's life I suppose, but I'm wondering which is better: to just do my distance no matter how slow or how many walk breaks I need to take, or run straight through at a shorter distance/slower pace. Right now I'm just trying to get back to where I was. Tonight I did 3.5 miles with a few walk breaks and feel OK, but I want to know if that's the right strategy for getting going again.
    milkbaby


      You can approach it either way and as long as you don't push way too hard, both could work okay. If your run longer but take walk breaks, then you give yourself some time to recover inbetween. If you run slower but for a shorter distance, you are building back to where you were without stressing too hard also. Remember to train, don't strain. Smile You will be surprised how much faster you get back into shape this time around than when you first started running. And if it seems to be taking a while to get back to where you were previously, don't fret too much because you did it before and that means you can do it again. Good luck!
      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi "I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt." -- William Lloyd Garrison "The marathon is an art; the marathoner is an artist." -- Kiyoshi Nakamura


      Oh Mighty Wing

        Finney, I think you should do which ever makes you happier. Both methods are fine and it's truly a matter of preference and which you can do without pushing yourself too hard.
          For me running 9 miles with a couple breaks in the middle walking is much easier than 9 straight miles. I am not sure if I am losing a lot of benefit by walking in the middle or not?
          JimR


            Just do what you're doing. No need to rush it.
            finney


            Resident pinniped

              Thanks, good to know I'm not on the completely wrong track (no pun intended). Somehow I just feel more productive running for longer, even if I walk bits in between. I'm normally a big proponent of "more lower intensity exercise is better than less higher intensity." Of course that can change depending on goals, but for overall fitness anyway I think that's true. I guess I'll keep doing what I'm doing and try to go longer intervals between walk breaks until I get back in shape. Thanks!
                I am in the same boat. I had trained for and then ran (well, ended up more walking than running) San Diego Marathon. Then the flu bug hit right after, twice, with naggiing and lingering cough in between. I finally started back up the end of last week. I had gone from running "long distances" fairly comfortably to attempting three miles. But, I had to be realistic, and begin at the beginning. Again. Three miles, with walk breaks every five minutes. I have my plan though, to be running a half in August, and then back to training for a full in Jan 09. What will keep me going is the knowledge that I have done 3 miles before, and 8, and 10, etc..and can do so again...but I'll have to take baby steps.
                Dorsey

                San Diego 1997: 4:59:59, San Diego 1999: 4:37:23, Carlsbad 2008: 6:32:21, America's Finest City Half Aug 2008: ??

                "Run if you can. Walk if you must. Crawl if you have to. Just don't give up."