The Running Thread - 2026

[sandam1]

For a very long time I did 30/30 and 60/30, and when I started trying to extend my intervals I went to 90/30 and then 2:00/30 but I never got in the groove of it. I found I could to 2/1 and be just as fast if not faster than 2:00/30. Maybe I'll mix this back in now and see how it goes.

Based on this answer, I'm going to ask another question - what is your purpose behind increasing your run intervals? I ask this because I know that a lot of people think that the key faster paces is lengthening the run interval and it doesn't quite work like that. I know that I can get the same pace using anywhere between a 15 to 45 second run and 30 second walk. Obviously, I waste a lot of extra energy doing a 45 second run so I want to do the shortest run interval that is both comfortable (i.e. not sprinting) and gets me the pace that I want. By your statement, it seems like you should be able to get the same pace at 60/30 as you do at 2:00/1:00.

Now yes, at some point if you want faster paces, you will have to run longer, but I only increase my run intervals when I cannot hit the paces comfortably using my current run intervals.

Not sure why I didn't consider that.

Because runners like numbers that end in 5's and 0's. I know that someone said that at one point Jeff Galloway was using something like a 22 second run and 17 second walk and just the thought made me - and several other people that were part of the conversation - twitch. I also realize that going from a 15 second run to a 30 second run, I was doubling my run time. Well, of course, it was going to be hard. Bumping it up by 5 seconds at a time was much more do-able.

 

[FFigawi]

Ooh! Where are you diving?

Indonesia. 12 days on a liveaboard in Raja Ampat, a week in Bali, and 2.5 weeks in Komodo getting my instructor certification done. Can’t wait!

 

[Novatrix]

Indonesia. 12 days on a liveaboard in Raja Ampat, a week in Bali, and 2.5 weeks in Komodo getting my instructor certification done. Can’t wait!

Wow, what a bucket list trip! Enjoy all the creatures and sights big and small!

 

[Naomeri]

Because runners like numbers that end in 5's and 0's.

Because running math is hard enough to do without bringing weird numbers into it

 

[FFigawi]

Because running math is hard enough to do without bringing weird numbers into it

Running math is especially hard while running. Many years ago, I ran Comrades with a friend of mine. Comrades has a strict 12-hour gun-to-gun cutoff time, making it very important to know the time and distance remaining, and be able to calculate that required pace compared to your current pace. The race helpfully has a sign every kilometer showing the distance to go. Okay, not very helpful when the first sign you see during the day reads 87, but when you get to 37, it's nice to know. So there we were, two MBAs trying to figure out if we have 37km remaining, are we going to make it in time? We do the easy part first and subtract our elapsed time on our watches from 12 hours. Then comes the hard part of turning 37km into X miles, which is not a nice round number, and then dividing the also not round number of minutes remaining by whatever we came up with for X to get a pace. By the time we thought we had it almost worked out, the 36km sign popped up and we had to do this all over again. Needless to say, this pattern continued for several km until we got to 30. That's basically 3 10k we told ourselves. At 70 minutes per 10k, that's 3.5 hours. We finally had numbers we could work with. So yeah, running math is hard.

 

[Naomeri]

Running math is especially hard while running. Many years ago, I ran Comrades with a friend of mine. Comrades has a strict 12-hour gun-to-gun cutoff time, making it very important to know the time and distance remaining, and be able to calculate that required pace compared to your current pace. The race helpfully has a sign every kilometer showing the distance to go. Okay, not very helpful when the first sign you see during the day reads 87, but when you get to 37, it's nice to know. So there we were, two MBAs trying to figure out if we have 37km remaining, are we going to make it in time? We do the easy part first and subtract our elapsed time on our watches from 12 hours. Then comes the hard part of turning 37km into X miles, which is not a nice round number, and then dividing the also not round number of minutes remaining by whatever we came up with for X to get a pace. By the time we thought we had it almost worked out, the 36km sign popped up and we had to do this all over again. Needless to say, this pattern continued for several km until we got to 30. That's basically 3 10k we told ourselves. At 70 minutes per 10k, that's 3.5 hours. We finally had numbers we could work with. So yeah, running math is hard.

And this is exactly why I have a spreadsheet on my phone for tracking my pace vs the balloons for the WDW marathon--I just pull out my phone and hit "now" when I pass a mile marker (after entering my start time and the balloon's start time) and the spreadsheet does all my math, and even accounts for me pausing my watch at character stops.

 

[FFigawi]

And this is exactly why I have a spreadsheet on my phone for tracking my pace vs the balloons for the WDW marathon--I just pull out my phone and hit "now" when I pass a mile marker (after entering my start time and the balloon's start time) and the spreadsheet does all my math, and even accounts for me pausing my watch at character stops.

There's an app for Garmin watches that does this too.

https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/apps/6a30651b-ca67-41a5-96dc-60634983fc93

 

[The Expert]

Based on this answer, I'm going to ask another question - what is your purpose behind increasing your run intervals? I ask this because I know that a lot of people think that the key faster paces is lengthening the run interval and it doesn't quite work like that. I know that I can get the same pace using anywhere between a 15 to 45 second run and 30 second walk. Obviously, I waste a lot of extra energy doing a 45 second run so I want to do the shortest run interval that is both comfortable (i.e. not sprinting) and gets me the pace that I want. By your statement, it seems like you should be able to get the same pace at 60/30 as you do at 2:00/1:00.

Now yes, at some point if you want faster paces, you will have to run longer, but I only increase my run intervals when I cannot hit the paces comfortably using my current run intervals.

The initial change was less about getting faster and more about seeing what felt right. The running coach I started working with in November encouraged me to play around during my MW training. What I found is that two minutes gets me in a nice groove and I'm not paying so much attention to the switching between walk and run. My form is also much better and I'm able to run faster paces that feel easier on my body. I feel like I could keep going after that two minutes, so I wanted to see what it felt like to extend that while I'm in between plans.

I start a new training cycle on April 1, and my coach is encouraging me to try intervals by feel, so I should probably really just wait for that and give that a shot instead of doing this now. To be clear, she is very supportive of interval running (all my regular and long runs are by time, not distance). But her experience is that some runners do use it as a mental crutch, thinking they can't run without them. I'm open to finding out.

Because running math is hard enough to do without bringing weird numbers into it

Running math is especially hard while running.

This is why I run with @Herding_Cats -- she does all the run math.

There's an app for Garmin watches that does this too.

https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/apps/6a30651b-ca67-41a5-96dc-60634983fc93

I have this saved to play with for Chicago!

 

[The Expert]

We've finally got some weather conducive to tapping a few of my trees here in Vermont, so I'm doing a maple syrup raffle for my Chicago Marathon fundraiser! I’m not sure if it’s okay to post here, so I put the details and link in my training journal, if you’re interested. I’ll draw names on Sunday evening (3/29).

 

[sandam1]

Because running math is hard enough to do without bringing weird numbers into it

That has some merit - although I'm not sure if that's the root cause or just a side effect.

We do the easy part first and subtract our elapsed time on our watches from 12 hours. Then comes the hard part of turning 37km into X miles, which is not a nice round number, and then dividing the also not round number of minutes remaining by whatever we came up with for X to get a pace. By the time we thought we had it almost worked out, the 36km sign popped up and we had to do this all over again.

This sounds like my friend's first half marathon which took place in Canada. I had done this race a few times, but had always done the 10K so I never really noticed the kilometer signs. It's an out and back course with the 10K that I'm running and the half starting at the same time. I finish my race, throw on some warmer clothes (it was super cold and rainy that day) and head back out onto the course to run her to the finish. I text her "what mile are you at?" Her response "my watch is messed up. I'm not really sure." Okay, plan B. "What do the course markings say?" "The sign says X kilometers." Now we have the math problem. If she's at X kilometers, moving at who knows what pace, and I'm at Y kilometers on the signs and moving at Z miles per hour pace, when will we meet? Add in the fact that there was also a marathon on the same course and the signage wasn't always 100% clear which was which, I'm surprised that we ever met up. (IIRC I finally found a bench near a kilometer marker and said "I'm at X, find me when you get to me.")