0

I need to be able to run 2.4k in about 12.5 minutes, which means I can basically do the whole run at 12kmh.

I can't do anywhere near that. I can just about run about half of that at 8kmh with a 12kmh push for the last 100/200m.

So, I'm thinking, I add an extra hundred metres to that final push every few runs til the whole thing is at that speed, then add hundred metre increments to the run until I hit the distance.

What I'm wondering though, is would I be better off walk/running the whole distance and then gradually increasing the running intervals?

Or does it not really matter?

6
  • What is the timeframe for this? When do you need to be able to run this distance at that speed? (Military or similar test I assume?)
    – JohnP
    Commented Mar 6 at 13:59
  • 1
    Are you ever running further than 2.4K? You'd be better off increasing the running distance and then you'll fine that the shorter distances at higher speeds become easier. Commented Mar 6 at 16:10
  • @JohnP - that's exactly it, but not in any rush, I'm taking my time with things as I've spent the last 5 years recovering from an ankle injury and many rounds of surgery Commented Mar 6 at 17:15
  • @TheFootsie - Probably at some point but it's not something I would like to do now unless it would make hitting that target in the medium term easier Commented Mar 6 at 17:16
  • 1
    @ScottishTapWater - There is no substitute at all for distance. Scout7 used to say "Run. Run lots. Mostly easy, sometimes fast". That's the best generic formula to get faster at running that I know of. (As you can see, I use that a lot - fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/7309/…)
    – JohnP
    Commented Mar 6 at 20:12

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.