WOW look at the comments.
"You'd have to be an Olympic athlete to run that in 10 minutes"
jesus
In my army days that would get you the maximum score for the run in the PT test. Works out to something around 6 minute mile which for the genpop is a good measure of fitness.
The Bannister inspired workout is slightly flawed. Bannister ran his 400 meter repeats only around 59 seconds a piece, less than two percent faster than his mile goal pace with 2 to 3 minutes recovery. It would be pretty impossible to run 600 meter repeats at 10 percent faster than 1.5 mile pace with only 1 minute rest.
1.5 miles in 10 minutes is 6:40 pace.
In my high school days I could race 3200 meters under 9:30. I assume many of you LRC posters could do something similar.
That said, I am fat and out of shape yet would still achieve endurance excellence by these standards with enough time left to go through the drive thru and raid the dollar menu.
It's akin to bench 1.5 times your body weight. Why don't you twigs comment on that?
If you can run 1 and a half miles at 6:40 pace I bet you can cover a mile in 6:20 or so, Not sure if that counts as around 6 minutes or not.
Lol I know you're trolling, but you have a point there!
For the average population, yeah
conceived in a singles bar wrote:
If you can run 1 and a half miles at 6:40 pace I bet you can cover a mile in 6:20 or so, Not sure if that counts as around 6 minutes or not.
Only for those who are significantly slower, or faster.
6:40 for 1.5 miles is nowhere near 11:54 for 2 (5:57 pace), which is what it takes for a younger guy to max the Army Physical Fitness Test.
xfitter wrote:
It's akin to bench 1.5 times your body weight. Why don't you twigs comment on that?
Not a twig. I can still do both but the bench is a much tougher standard to hit.
Its all a put perspective. For general health, absolutely. If a person were to achieve equivalent levels of ability related to strength, flexibility, and coordination, I'd definitely consider them an extremely fit and healthy individual. If you're in the top 5% of the general population at something that you dont focus on specifically or pursue competitively, I think it's fine to call that excellent.
xfitter wrote:
It's akin to bench 1.5 times your body weight. Why don't you twigs comment on that?
Not that difficult if you focus on it some. No reason anybody that runs fast can't bench 1.5x BW. Most just choose not to focus on that.
j666 wrote:
WOW look at the comments.
"You'd have to be an Olympic athlete to run that in 10 minutes"
jesus
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm enjoying reading some of them.
I love the one below, in which the author seems to believe that a few weeks of training is how long it takes to reach your max running potential.
"I graduated from the police academy a few years back. After weeks and weeks of running miles and miles, our time went down by about 2 minutes from when we started, but only a few of us were in the 10 to 12 minute range at the end. Only the 20 year old athletes were doing the run in 10 minutes. The rest of us were doing it between 12 to 13 minutes, so this running scale is way off. One would have to be an olympic athlete to run that in 10 minutes. Please recheck your data on running. Thanks"
It really is amazing how much the average person's perspective differs from serious runners when it comes to what is considered "fast". I have experienced both perspectives personally. 5 years ago, before really getting into running, I couldn't fathom how it was possible to run 3:10 to qualify for Boston. Now that's my Daniels Easy pace.
Ex wrestler wrote:
the bench is a much tougher standard to hit.
For fatties like you, yes.
Not so low for the genpop wrote:
In my army days that would get you the maximum score for the run in the PT test. Works out to something around 6 minute mile which for the genpop is a good measure of fitness.
Actually 6:40 pace; off by about 10% son.
What percent of the population would you have to be ahead of to be considered "excellent?"
90% usually gets you an "A" in testing.
If you want to be even more strict go with 5%.
Or how about going with the top 1%?
In a nation of 300 million, what would the 3 millionth best runner run for 1.5 miles?
6:40 pace for 10 minutes is probably unachievable for the general population. So yes, anybody running 1.5 miles in 10 minutes is pretty damn good.
I wonder if the top 100meter sprinters could do it?
getting stronger% wrote:
6:40 for 1.5 miles is nowhere near 11:54 for 2 (5:57 pace), which is what it takes for a younger guy to max the Army Physical Fitness Test.
Actually it's 13:00 for the 18-21 age group. The Marine Corps, which generally is significantly more enthusiastic about running than the Army, takes 18:00 for three miles.
yogibear wrote:
What percent of the population would you have to be ahead of to be considered "excellent?"
90% usually gets you an "A" in testing.
If you want to be even more strict go with 5%.
Or how about going with the top 1%?
In a nation of 300 million, what would the 3 millionth best runner run for 1.5 miles?
6:40 pace for 10 minutes is probably unachievable for the general population. So yes, anybody running 1.5 miles in 10 minutes is pretty damn good.
I wonder if the top 100meter sprinters could do it?
1.5M in 10 min is perfectly attainable for general male population. If you look at presidential fitness standard, the 50th percentile for 17yr olds is 7:03, or roughly 10:50 for 1.5M. Given that most aren't fully developed then...nor training to run, I'm quite confident most could make 10:00 without much trouble IF they were willing to put in the work.