Do you run in kilometers or miles?

joeKel73

When starting out with 5km, 8km and 10km races, training plans and races seemed to all use the metric system (km, min/km, etc.).

Now that I'm doing more half-marathons and the odd marathon everything from training plans to distances markers on the routes seem to be in the imperial system (miles, min/mile, etc.). Is it because marathon runners are more likely to travel abroad to race, to countries that use the imperial system?

Personally I use kilometers but it's a bit of a pain having to convert everything I read in relation to marathon training back into metric.

Would be interested to know what unit system runners here use to track their training and races?

walshb

I think most people have upgraded, me included to the metric system..

But I still find myself using miles and yards every so often...

seamus

I use KM and min/KM pacing and all the rest, but that's because I don't have anything else in my life in miles, so I would have to convert everything for running.

I imagine mile-based pacing is used purely because marathons and halves are still given in miles. So when you pass a mile marker, the maths is easier to do in your head during a race. If you do more 5ks and 10ks, then the maths is easier if you use KM-based pacing.

joeKel73

J o e wrote: »

Is it because marathon runners are more likely to travel abroad to race, to countries that use the imperial system?

Or another theory...

The average age of long distances races tends to be higher, with a higher proportion brought up with miles...

RayCun

Watch is set to kms, training plan is in miles... conversion is easy

joeKel73

walshb wrote: »

I think most people have upgraded

Will be intersting to see if the poll confirms this.

Even the annual DCM Novice thread is using miles.

average_runner

From 5-10k races i use km, for 10 miles up, i use miles!

pconn062

That's a bit of a weird poll! I train mostly for 800m-5k races and train in miles and minutes per mile pace. Even when I train on the track I rarely think in km paces, usually seconds per lap (eg 80 second laps is 5.20 mile).

TFBubendorfer

J o e wrote: »

Is it because marathon runners are more likely to travel abroad to race, to countries that use the imperial system?

It's got nothing to do with running marathons abroad. The vast majority of Irish runners are running their marathons in Ireland,

It's because existing training plans are usually in miles and most "new" training plans are simply updated versions of previous plans. Usually they don't bother to convert the miles into km.

Also, a lot of marathon training plans originate in the states - and they are obviously in miles.

I grew up in central Europe and the metric system is in my blood, yet when running I always think in miles. All my training plans have been in miles, and the 2 coaches I used were American.

joeKel73

pconn062 wrote: »

That's a bit of a weird poll! I train mostly for 800m-5k races and train in miles and minutes per mile pace. Even when I train on the track I rarely think in km paces, usually seconds per lap (eg 80 second laps is 5.20 mile).

I hadn't even thought of track training and races, was thinking in terms of road races.

walshb

J o e wrote: »

Even the annual DCM Novice thread is using miles.

Yes, but historically the marathon is and always will be imperial...

Very rare to hear 42.x being used when talking about a marathon. That has nothing to do with metric or imperial. Just the way it is.....

So it would stand to reason that you would likely discuss it and your efforts and training in miles....

Same with half marathon. Who ever says 21 ks?

joeKel73

walshb wrote: »

Yes, but historically the marathon is and always will be imperial...

Very rare to hear 42.x being used when talking about a marathon. That hs nothing to do with metric or imperial. Just the way it is.....

But it's not even an even mileage @ 26.219 miles or 26 miles 385 yards.

walshb wrote: »

Who ever says 21 ks?

I do

Zebra3

Kms all the way.

Literally. :pac:

It's not the 1960s, folks.

I hope some of you don't be trying to pay for marathons with a big pile of schillings.

RayCun

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

It's because existing training plans are usually in miles and most "new" training plans are simply updated versions of previous plans. Usually they don't bother to convert the miles into km.

and most training plans are coming from the US and UK, which use miles

walshb

J o e wrote: »

I do

There's always one!:p

Jakey Rolling

I'm in my fifties and comfortable using and converting between both systems, but haven't used min/ mile for almost 20 years. Any training plan that uses miles I convert to km.

One benefit for me is that kilometers come round a lot quicker when ticking off the distance in a race, mentally I feel like I'm making progress.

What gets my goat is some of the local 5 and 10k races where the markers are still in miles.

judeboy101

9 inches sounds better than 23 cm 😈

walshb

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

.

What gets my goat is some of the local 5 and 10k races where the markers are still in miles.

That would pi&s me off...

That and no bloody markers!

Rockyman7

kms are for lycra tri guys and track fairies,miles are for runners...

HigginsJ

I started out with KM's but changed to miles at the start of the year with my new watch and marathon training. That being said it is a fairly simple conversion.

ThisRegard

The last training plan I used was in miles, but yet the speed sessions were in kilometres, even the yanks get themselves confused. I'd change my watch from kms to miles at the beginning but then just stopped bothering and stuck to kilometres.

joeKel73

RayCun wrote: »

conversion is easy

HigginsJ wrote: »

That being said it is a fairly simple conversion.

It's a simple conversion but annoyingly awkward when you're reading a plan that says something like "10M (approx 1:39) - first 5M (52 mins) @ 10:30/M, last 5M (47 mins) at 9:00/M" and the plan varies a bit day to day.

RayCun

J o e wrote: »

It's a simple conversion but annoyingly awkward when you're reading a plan that says something like "10M (approx 1:39) - first 5M (52 mins) @ 10:30/M, last 5M (47 mins) at 9:00/M" and the plan varies a bit day to day.

the extra data makes it more confusing when you're trying to convert
5 miles @10.30 ~ 8k @ 6:40
5 miles @9.00 ~ 8k @ 5:40

doesn't help that 5@10:30 is longer than 52 minutes, and 5@9 is shorter than 47

Pherekydes

My watch gives me K splits, but I pretend they're miles.

"Yeah, I did an easy ten this morning at 6:30 pace."

joeKel73

J o e wrote: »

10M (approx 1:39) - first 5M (52 mins) @ 10:30/M, last 5M (47 mins) at 9:00/M

RayCun wrote: »

the extra data makes it more confusing when you're trying to convert
5 miles @10.30 ~ 8k @ 6:40
5 miles @9.00 ~ 8k @ 5:40

doesn't help that 5@10:30 is longer than 52 minutes, and 5@9 is shorter than 47

Actually that converts as...
5 miles @ 10:30 ~ 8km @ 6:30/km
5 miles @ 09:00 ~ 8km @ 6:00/km

RayCun

J o e wrote: »

Actually that converts as...
5 miles @ 10:30 ~ 8km @ 6:30/km
5 miles @ 09:00 ~ 8km @ 6:00/km

nah, 9:00/mile is more like 5:40/km, something like 5:37 really
9 * 26.2 = 235.8 (3:55:48)
5.66 * 42.2 = 238.85 (3:58:51)

6 * 42.2 is 253.2, you don't want that

joeKel73

RayCun wrote: »

nah, 9:00/mile is more like 5:40/km, something like 5:37 really
9 * 26.2 = 235.8 (3:55:48)
5.66 * 42.2 = 238.85 (3:58:51)

6 * 42.2 is 253.2, you don't want that

Ah you're right there - I took 5.59 from my conversion and took it as 6mins, rather than 5:36. Times are horrible to work with.

So we both messed up our simple conversions - which shows it's messy! :P

RacoonQueen

I run in miles. Cycling in kms. Can loosely run in kms but generally I'm doing a session or an easy / long run and go by heart rate so would rarely specifically go out for '10 miles' so doesn't really matter anymore - my watchface is now always set to display time of day and HR...I'm running far, far better since I stopped running to pace.

RayCun

J o e wrote: »

Ah you're right there - I took 5.59 from my conversion and took it as 6mins, rather than 5:36. Times are horrible to work with.

So we both messed up our simple conversions - which shows it's messy! :P

I start with
8 minutes/mile = 5 minutes/km
for every 16 seconds/mile you get faster or slower, that's 10 seconds km
a minute/mile is a bit under 40 seconds/km

that's more than enough accuracy for most runs

If I have a definite target time in a race, I know what that is in kms and miles, so I can check against my watch and race signs

edited to add - actually, most of the time I'm converting it isn't pace, it's distance. So a plan says "10 miles" and I convert to 16k, something like that

BeepBeep67

Generally train in min/ml and measure weekly distance in miles not kms, but sometimes my plans are metric, so will switch over.
Will change the watch settings depending on the race, 5k in km splits, 5M in mile splits.

Similar to Ray, If my watch is on kms, I do tend to work out mile pace, a simple reasonably accurate way of doing this is working back from 5 min/km, which is 8 min/ml pace (8:03 actually) is 1.5 times the difference; 4:50 pace = 7:45 pace (7:47), 4:40 = 7:30 pace (7:31), etc, can be difficult to count in 16's when tired

Lazare

Was actually thinking of switching to miles next week after Fingal, just for the run up to DCM as so much of the talk/advice in the novices thread is old money.

I do prefer km though, particularly the much more frequent splits.