They'll need anti-gravity suspenders much like Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
They'll need anti-gravity suspenders much like Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
car culture suburbanization/urban sprawl play a huge part in this
I call BS
I'm 53 years old. American. Male.
I can run a mile in under 7 minutes without breathing hard. Under 6 minutes if I had to. And there is nothing special about me. Totally average. So the average 53 year old USA male can probably do about a 5:45.
I ran 6:03 for 13 miles at that age. By letsrun standards that was pretty poor. In spite of that, I was pretty happy with it.
grssg wrote:
Former Twolapper wrote:The average male under age 30 in the US, period, is either a scrawny, feminized, PC controlled sissy (especially if he's white) who speaks in a manner that used to ...population, black guys the least - but the black guys actually engage in more gay sex, the "straight" ones keeping it on the down-low. LOL. Funny but true.
Funny but true? You completely made up all of this stuff. Oh, wait, you're special and everyone else is a sheep, right?
Wouldn't you like to be a Pepper too?
Forget 53 year olds, when I was getting into running at 30 I could not do go under 9:00 for the mile without puking up a lung. So there you go another gold nugget for the skinny sub-elite hoping to feel good about their half talent getting them nowhere.
Congrats!! wrote:
Anyway, frontiersmen like Daniel Boone could have easily run a 6 minute mile at age 50. They were aerobic monsters.
Daniel Boone lived to 85 by the way.
Johnny Appleseed was the first minimalist to run a marathon.
(though not 53 he was 37 or 38)
http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/2010/08/johnny_appleseed.htmlI am a member of one of the 4 largest police agencies in the country. I am assigned to the academy. It is sad to see the number of men in their 20s who cant run a mile and a half at a 9:30 pace without gasping for air.
Dont get me started on the women.
Hey, I'm above average
I'm a 53 year old male. And, I agree. Often I find myself amazed that someone is younger than me, because they look so much older. Plus my niece's girlfriends say I'm hot.
And, I am
bald guys generally have more testosterone than sissy guys with estrogen and full head of hair.
I've read that but then I've read the opposite.
I've read that a big gut and male pattern baldness are signs of decreasing testosterone. Who really know?
What we DO know is that it decreases with age.
uradumbass wrote:
Average =/= median
actually dude there are at least three kinds of average--mean, median, mode--and if we're talking about an "average" individual's ability to run we're probably talking median.
Average America 53 year-old wrote:
I call BS
I'm 53 years old. American. Male.
I can run a mile in under 7 minutes without breathing hard. Under 6 minutes if I had to. And there is nothing special about me. Totally average. So the average 53 year old USA male can probably do about a 5:45.
Ah, I see the runnersworld joggers are here today.
runn wrote:
bald guys generally have more testosterone than sissy guys with estrogen and full head of hair.
.....and every woman knows this. Thus the more hair you lose, the more head you get.
anotherrainynight wrote:
Average America 53 year-old wrote:I call BS
I'm 53 years old. American. Male.
I can run a mile in under 7 minutes without breathing hard. Under 6 minutes if I had to. And there is nothing special about me. Totally average. So the average 53 year old USA male can probably do about a 5:45.
Ah, I see the runnersworld joggers are here today.
Exactly! So, if even us runnersworld joggers can go under 6:00 then there is no way the average American 53 y.o. male can't.
Only 5% of adult Americans can run a mile without stopping, so this is no surprise.
I am going for a 5:35 mile this Saturday, 51 years old....ran a 1:58 600 last Saturday
onefoot7 wrote:
I am going for a 5:35 mile this Saturday, 51 years old....ran a 1:58 600 last Saturday
So you have a great genetics and you're showing signs of being an anti-aging runner. A lot of middle-agers with less than ideal genetics can't even break 7 minutes. How many 51 yr olds can run a 5:35 mile? Very, very few. ? In fact, there are hundreds of HS runners who can't run anywhere near 5:30.
Recent phenomenon wrote:
53 year old USA male wrote:
Great point on life expectancy. But it doesn't quite work that way. The life expectancy is influenced most by fewer infant and child deaths. It's an average. Once you got to 53, your odds of living to 80 were pretty good then and better now.
That being said, how many 53 year olds need to run a mile? So what if they can't.
Let's say you beat the odds back then and lived to the age of 53. Most of those people's bodies would have been in pretty bad shape except for the wealthy. No 53 year old American was running the mile. Not one.
Maybe not. Maybe those who got through the filters of child birth and infant mortality were tougher than most, and tougher than those today.
A study of nearly 600 races run in the eighteenth century reveals some remarkable times over other distances, too. Take the marathon. Even though it was not standardised at 26 miles 385 yards until 1924, we find the newspapers and sporting magazines of the time frequently report races of 20 to 30 miles, and it is possible to estimate marathon times from these. These include one inside 2hr 10min completed on the streets of London in 1769 by a Swiss runner, and another of about 2hr 11min in 1753, by a runner who was probably Italian. James Appleby was reported to have run 12 miles in 57min in 1730, and Thomas Phillips was only 15sec behind. Both men on other occasions were reported to have run four miles in 18min. There was even a girl of 15 from Kent who ran a mile in 5min 28sec in 1780. All of these times would still be impressive in the twenty-first century, and all, except the girl's time, are of a quality equally as good as a four-minute mile.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that athletes who lived before the internal combustion engine were physically fit and capable of great feats. Racehorses of 250 years ago are believed to have run as fast as they do today. Why not the athletes, particularly when they were motivated by large sums of money and took it seriously?
On the balance of the evidence, the report of Parrott's run should be accepted rather than rejected, but it still comes as something of a surprise. Part of the problem is that we have grown up with the idea that since Victorian times records have risen phenomenally, and that performances before that were poor to the point of being derisory.
The Victorians, who first codified and controlled the new sport of athletics, rowing and other sports, were ideologically driven to exclude large sections of society. It was the political correctness of the age to exclude anyone who wasn't an 'amateur', and so all those who ran or rowed for money out of necessity or choice were instantly eliminated.
Before the Amateur Athletic Association became the controlling force of athletics in 1880, men and women of all social classes ran for money on the streets and on the moors and greens of England. Later, the sport was policed to eliminate the undesirables who ran for money, or whose jobs tainted them and rendered them 'professionals'. They also excluded women.
The new political correctness also caused writers to airbrush out the professionals of the past and to start a new page of athletics.
