Yesterday, Bill and I were emailing about our 5K times and it came up that there's a good chance he'll still be doing some walking during his 5K race.
He's been doing an interval training 5K, which is what most couch to 5K programs recommend. And for good reason. They do help train your body and heart to get used to varying speeds, and they do well in building up your endurance.
My program goes by length of time, although I've switched over to a modified Hal Higdon program which goes by distance. I'm currently at 2.75 (my long run on Friday) that took me exactly 30 minutes.
Either way, I'm running the entire time and he's running for 3 minutes and walking for 45 seconds. And I'm not sure you can completely and accurately compare our times since even though he's going faster overall and definitely has a better run pace than I do, he's getting those 45 seconds at around 4 mph which does bring the heartrate down a bit.
So, I asked a couple of people what they thought. The female runner said that it does matter, and that in fact, you can't completely compare times. My husband, on the other hand, said time is the only thing that matters; when you run a marathon, they don't care whether you walk for a minute and then run, it's how fast you get to the finish line.
What do you think? Can you compare times with someone who's doing an interval program (walk/run) if you're running the entire time?


