I measure running in distance. My brain calculates distance first, then time and rate as byproducts of how far I ran. I start a run with a particular distance goal in mind: 2 miles, 10k, 11 miles, a half-marathon. Distance is the constant, rate is the variable, time is only a measurement so that I can tell if I'm capable of doing more distance while still running rather than walking. When I started my running endeavor in June, l had one goal in mind:
BE ABLE TO *RUN* 13.1 MILES WITHOUT STOPPING.
Sure, I like it when I run faster, because I can be done sooner. I like it when I can see that my rate is increasing, because it tells me I am becoming more fit. But what I like the most is that distance figure. If I can run 13.1 miles, I have the security of knowing that I can do crazy/fun things like run to the nearest town, challenge my son to run and know that while he might beat me I can at least stay in the race, and put a fun 13.1 sticker on my car. My friend doesn't think of it that way. She looks at running as the amount of time she needs to endure the sweat, bugs, weather conditions, and foot pounding so that she can be done and move on to something else.
So, what really is most important, time, distance, or rate? They are of equal importance. The critical issue is that each of us find some component of the running equation that we can fixate on in a way that makes the endeavor manageable. For me, that golden 13.1 number is the component that motivates.
Até amanhã...
9/27/11 - 3.3 miles | 34 min | 5.6 mph | 347 kcal
9/27/11 - 2.0 miles | 21 min | 5.2 mph | 200 kcal
No comments:
Post a Comment