I Googled and couldn't find anything to say it was fake. If real, it adds a new dimension to hobby jogger-ism.
I Googled and couldn't find anything to say it was fake. If real, it adds a new dimension to hobby jogger-ism.
managed to find some articles about it...don't have any clue what this guy is talking about since during my first mile a good portion of my 4th grade class broke 10. is this what America has come to?
"But he's wrong in another important respect: A "less than" 10-minute mile is nowhere near what a beginner would call a "moderate pace." It's quite fast, even for many experienced runners.
If you're going into this challenge expecting to run anything less than a 12 or 13-minute mile, you're not only going to be sorely disappointed, you're also going to be extremely sore, out of breath and unlikely to keep it up for a year."
Why 365? It's a leap year, he should have said 366.
Maybe we should see how soon we complete the challenge? Maybe some of us will be done before January ends...
Googled and found this article quoted above. When you look at the photo which do you see first: cell phone or heel strike? Which is more painful to look at?
http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/mark-zuckerberg-running-wrong/#CbQvANpUiqqs
HardLoper wrote:
Why 365? It's a leap year, he should have said 366.
Maybe we should see how soon we complete the challenge? Maybe some of us will be done before January ends...
Really? You'rte going to run 365 days in January? Really?
THIRTEEN?!!!!!!!!?!!??! minute/mile pace. Most people could walk that pace easily for at least a mile. WTF is this guy talking about?
Aloha means Hello wrote:
HardLoper wrote:Why 365? It's a leap year, he should have said 366.
Maybe we should see how soon we complete the challenge? Maybe some of us will be done before January ends...
Really? You'rte going to run 365 days in January? Really?
The challenge had nothing to do with number of days to run the 365 miles. Many people on letsrun could and will run 365 miles in January
Snake Plissken wrote:
Googled and found this article quoted above. When you look at the photo which do you see first: cell phone or heel strike? Which is more painful to look at?
http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/mark-zuckerberg-running-wrong/#CbQvANpUiqqs
2011 called. It wants its running fad back.
Snake Plissken wrote:
Googled and found this article quoted above. When you look at the photo which do you see first: cell phone or heel strike? Which is more painful to look at?
http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/mark-zuckerberg-running-wrong/#CbQvANpUiqqs
Running a 10 minute mile is too fast? iPhone armbands?
Is that article being ironic?
Seriously mate? wrote:
THIRTEEN?!!!!!!!!?!!??! minute/mile pace. Most people could walk that pace easily for at least a mile. WTF is this guy talking about?
Not even close to most people. Maybe most people could walk a 15 minute mile. Maybe.
Le veritable wrote:
Snake Plissken wrote:Googled and found this article quoted above. When you look at the photo which do you see first: cell phone or heel strike? Which is more painful to look at?
http://mashable.com/2016/01/05/mark-zuckerberg-running-wrong/#CbQvANpUiqqsRunning a 10 minute mile is too fast? iPhone armbands?
Is that article being ironic?
Ridiculous. When I was in my late 20s, I quit running and got fat. When I started running again, I was 260lbs. Even as a giant fatass, I was running 7-8 minute mile pace for 1-2 mile runs within a few weeks of my return to the sport.
If a 260lb man can run a 7 minute mile, just about anyone without a physical disability should be able to run a mile in under 10 minutes.
once a fat guy wrote:
Le veritable wrote:Running a 10 minute mile is too fast? iPhone armbands?
Is that article being ironic?
Ridiculous. When I was in my late 20s, I quit running and got fat. When I started running again, I was 260lbs. Even as a giant fatass, I was running 7-8 minute mile pace for 1-2 mile runs within a few weeks of my return to the sport.
If a 260lb man can run a 7 minute mile, just about anyone without a physical disability should be able to run a mile in under 10 minutes.
Oh okay, a sample of one should suffice to cover 8 Billion people.
Statistical certainty wrote:
once a fat guy wrote:Ridiculous. When I was in my late 20s, I quit running and got fat. When I started running again, I was 260lbs. Even as a giant fatass, I was running 7-8 minute mile pace for 1-2 mile runs within a few weeks of my return to the sport.
If a 260lb man can run a 7 minute mile, just about anyone without a physical disability should be able to run a mile in under 10 minutes.
Oh okay, a sample of one should suffice to cover 8 Billion people.
The claim made in the article is based on zero data points, so I'm one up on the author.
once a fat guy wrote:
Le veritable wrote:Running a 10 minute mile is too fast? iPhone armbands?
Is that article being ironic?
Ridiculous. When I was in my late 20s, I quit running and got fat. When I started running again, I was 260lbs. Even as a giant fatass, I was running 7-8 minute mile pace for 1-2 mile runs within a few weeks of my return to the sport.
If a 260lb man can run a 7 minute mile, just about anyone without a physical disability should be able to run a mile in under 10 minutes.
I call BS. You'd be 120 pounds over your ideal running rate. At the standard 2 seconds per mile per pound, that's 240 seconds, or 4 minutes. If you got down to 140 you'd be running a 3 minute mile.
Now the 2 second rule is just a rule of thumb, but it does show that you're talking trash. You got down to 9 or 10 minute miles after a few weeks, not 7 minute miles.
2016 miles is a commendable goal.
Running 1 mile a day for 365 days is a more commendable goal than 365 miles in a year.
coolege wrote:
once a fat guy wrote:Ridiculous. When I was in my late 20s, I quit running and got fat. When I started running again, I was 260lbs. Even as a giant fatass, I was running 7-8 minute mile pace for 1-2 mile runs within a few weeks of my return to the sport.
If a 260lb man can run a 7 minute mile, just about anyone without a physical disability should be able to run a mile in under 10 minutes.
I call BS. You'd be 120 pounds over your ideal running rate. At the standard 2 seconds per mile per pound, that's 240 seconds, or 4 minutes. If you got down to 140 you'd be running a 3 minute mile.
Now the 2 second rule is just a rule of thumb, but it does show that you're talking trash. You got down to 9 or 10 minute miles after a few weeks, not 7 minute miles.
Not sure why you picked 140lbs as my ideal running weight. I was a 400/800 guy in college, and I looked emaciated at 180-185lbs. If I'd tried to get down to 140lbs, I probably would have died before I made that weight, and I definitely wouldn't have run well if I'd cut much below 180.
2 seconds per mile isn't even a rule of thumb. It is nonsense. Do you really believe that the relationship between weight and speed is linear?
once a fat guy wrote:
2 seconds per mile isn't even a rule of thumb. It is nonsense. Do you really believe that the relationship between weight and speed is linear?
Yes it is a rule of thumb. It's not nonsense. No one said it was linear or nonlinear. You said that. Why can't someone believe that the relationship is linear?
once a fat guy wrote:
If a 260lb man can run a 7 minute mile, just about anyone without a physical disability should be able to run a mile in under 10 minutes.
Yay you. Unlikely but possible if you were a talented runner and 20s is still quite young.
12-13 mpm is about right for a beginning 50 year old although many could go faster, some couldn't do that fast, and it'd be super slow for young people.
Also, a normal walk is about 20 minutes per mile, a brisk walk about 16 mpm.
That guy's article is about right for a lot of people.
And the 2 seconds per mile per lb is a pretty good rule of thumb.
Of course all LetsRun posters jog 4 minute miles when they're not banging supermodels on their yachts, but try to understand the plight of the sedentary hobbyjogger wannabe.
casual fan wrote:
once a fat guy wrote:2 seconds per mile isn't even a rule of thumb. It is nonsense. Do you really believe that the relationship between weight and speed is linear?
Yes it is a rule of thumb. It's not nonsense. No one said it was linear or nonlinear. You said that. Why can't someone believe that the relationship is linear?
2 seconds per mile is, by definition, a linear relationship. That "rule of thumb" means that the same improvement is expected from losing a pound regardless of current weight. If you wrote it out as a formula, it would be (expected mile time improvement in seconds) = (weight loss in lbs) X 2. That is a linear relationship.
It can't be a linear relationship because we know that this just isn't the case. We know, for example, that performance suffers when one is severely underweight. By your logic, El G could have starved himself, lost 10 pounds, and thrown down a 3:23 mile. Why didn't he just become anorexic and set a record that would never be touched? Because the relationship between weight loss and improvement is non-linear.
elephino wrote:
once a fat guy wrote:If a 260lb man can run a 7 minute mile, just about anyone without a physical disability should be able to run a mile in under 10 minutes.
Yay you. Unlikely but possible if you were a talented runner and 20s is still quite young.
12-13 mpm is about right for a beginning 50 year old although many could go faster, some couldn't do that fast, and it'd be super slow for young people.
Also, a normal walk is about 20 minutes per mile, a brisk walk about 16 mpm.
That guy's article is about right for a lot of people.
And the 2 seconds per mile per lb is a pretty good rule of thumb.
Of course all LetsRun posters jog 4 minute miles when they're not banging supermodels on their yachts, but try to understand the plight of the sedentary hobbyjogger wannabe.
+1
I once timed myself walking a mile on a track and hit about 16 minutes at a brisk pace (I ran about 60 min for 10 mile at that time). Walking at 12-13 min/mile would've been a fair bit of effort, and that's definitely at running pace for many people.