Running for Time vs. Distance

Each has its place in training (interesting thread on the topic). I was thinking about this concept the other week when we were doing sets of 2-, 1-, 0.5-min "hard" with 1/2 time recovery in place of our normal track workout. In my head, I converted this to approximate distances, and tried to think about which seemed less intimidating. At the end of 5 sets, I still hadn't reached a conclusion. The 0.5-min interval seemed a lot longer than the 150m that I mapped it to, while the 2-min seemed a lot less awful than the 500-600m that I would normally cover in that time. In all honesty, I have no idea why, but I'll hazard a guess for the sake of this post.

For most distance runners (I'm considering myself one since most of my training is focused on distances 10k or greater), 60-sec worth of running seems like nothing. So, we run hard, much harder than we probably should (especially since we don't often run that pace). After about 20sec, our legs begin to burn because we are (1) tapping into a vastly different energy system and (2) using a greater range of motion then we are used to. However, most of us can see 150m, so we internally calibrate our speed to much more closely approximate what it should be.

Now on to the 2-min interval. I don't know about y'all, but I consider any interval greater than 400m to be something that is going to be *slightly* unpleasant (because I feel that the speed does not decrease proportionately with the added distance). However, I think that the majority of my problem with the 401-1600m interval distance is the fact that it means that I have to start a new lap (wonder what a 500m track would be like?). When running for time, there's nothing to serve as a reminder of how long you've been running. Plus, I have a pretty good idea of the pace I can maintain (reasonably) for two minutes, and tend to moderate my effort level accordingly (versus starting/ending fast and dropping off in the middle, like I do at the track). Also, 2-min isn't so excessively long that I begin checking my watch non-stop (5-min is the cutoff for me).

Other thoughts I have... I find running for time to be more mentally challenging than running for distance because there is no visual reminder of the finish. Also, there is no easy way to make sure you're on pace (i.e., you can't look at your watch every 100m), so it's a good lesson on the topic. Running a "straight" distance (like the Lake Johnson chip trail or the ATT) also has a similar effect. Anyways, that's a lot of words without a lot of links (aka these are my thoughts on the subject and not someone (with more experience) else's), so take this post for what it is. Anyone else want to share their opinion?