One Mile Run ==) 7 min 52 sec
View Full Version : One Mile Run ==) 7 min 52 sec
Just tried to run one mile (measured by my truck tachometer). The weather left much to be desired,
as it was drizzling. I ran in my BDU pants and a t shirt.
The result is 7 minutes and 52 seconds. My pulse right at the end was 160 bpm. I am 32 year
old, 5'11".
This was my first attempt at fast running in a long time -- I am generally a slow jogger -- but I
suspect that improving it by more than 10-20 seconds would be pretty hard work for me.
Is this a lousy result or a good result? I kind of wanted to know where I stand.
i
In article <bp7vd6$lnj$1@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus967 wrote:
> Just tried to run one mile (measured by my truck tachometer). The weather left much to be desired,
> as it was drizzling. I ran in my BDU pants and a t shirt.
>
> The result is 7 minutes and 52 seconds. My pulse right at the end was 160 bpm. I am 32 year
> old, 5'11".
>
> This was my first attempt at fast running in a long time -- I am generally a slow jogger -- but I
> suspect that improving it by more than 10-20 seconds would be pretty hard work for me.
>
> Is this a lousy result or a good result? I kind of wanted to know where I stand.
At 32, age is not a substantial disadvantage. In the large local races here, your pace would
probably put you in the large group of midpack runners, somewhere in the top 60%.
Based on your pulse at the end (seems very low), and your lack of speed work, you could probably
improve that time by a lot if you wanted to. Also, the conditions (poor) and the course (not
accurately measured) do make a difference. Try an athletics track instead if you have access to one.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Thank you for your input Donovan. I do not know where to find an athletic track (Lisle, IL).
Is such speed work beneficial to my long term health?
i
In article <slrnbrf141.8is.abuse@panix2.panix.com>, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> In article <bp7vd6$lnj$1@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus967 wrote:
>> Just tried to run one mile (measured by my truck tachometer). The weather left much to be
>> desired, as it was drizzling. I ran in my BDU pants and a t shirt.
>>
>> The result is 7 minutes and 52 seconds. My pulse right at the end was 160 bpm. I am 32 year
>> old, 5'11".
>>
>> This was my first attempt at fast running in a long time -- I am generally a slow jogger -- but I
>> suspect that improving it by more than 10-20 seconds would be pretty hard work for me.
>>
>> Is this a lousy result or a good result? I kind of wanted to know where I stand.
>
> At 32, age is not a substantial disadvantage. In the large local races here, your pace would
> probably put you in the large group of midpack runners, somewhere in the top 60%.
>
> Based on your pulse at the end (seems very low), and your lack of speed work, you could
> probably improve that time by a lot if you wanted to. Also, the conditions (poor) and the
> course (not accurately measured) do make a difference. Try an athletics track instead if you
> have access to one.
The local high schools will most likely have a track that you can use. Some are even rubber coated
making for nice runs. "Ignoramus967" <ignoramus967@NOSPAM.967.invalid> wrote in message
news:bp817m$qgj$0@pita.alt.net...
> Thank you for your input Donovan. I do not know where to find an athletic track (Lisle, IL).
>
> Is such speed work beneficial to my long term health?
>
> i
>
> In article <slrnbrf141.8is.abuse@panix2.panix.com>, Donovan Rebbechi
wrote:
> > In article <bp7vd6$lnj$1@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus967 wrote:
> >> Just tried to run one mile (measured by my truck tachometer). The weather left much to be
> >> desired, as it was drizzling. I ran in my BDU pants and a t shirt.
> >>
> >> The result is 7 minutes and 52 seconds. My pulse right at the end was 160 bpm. I am 32 year
> >> old, 5'11".
> >>
> >> This was my first attempt at fast running in a long time -- I am generally a slow jogger -- but
> >> I suspect that improving it by more than 10-20 seconds would be pretty hard work for me.
> >>
> >> Is this a lousy result or a good result? I kind of wanted to know where I stand.
> >
> > At 32, age is not a substantial disadvantage. In the large local races
here,
> > your pace would probably put you in the large group of midpack runners, somewhere in the
> > top 60%.
> >
> > Based on your pulse at the end (seems very low), and your lack of speed
work,
> > you could probably improve that time by a lot if you wanted to. Also,
the
> > conditions (poor) and the course (not accurately measured) do make a difference. Try an
> > athletics track instead if you have access to one.
In article <dZednYIau_VRFiqiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, Pier-14 wrote:
> The local high schools will most likely have a track that you can use. Some are even rubber coated
> making for nice runs.
Thanks, I will check around.
i
> "Ignoramus967" <ignoramus967@NOSPAM.967.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bp817m$qgj$0@pita.alt.net...
>> Thank you for your input Donovan. I do not know where to find an athletic track (Lisle, IL).
>>
>> Is such speed work beneficial to my long term health?
>>
>> i
>>
>> In article <slrnbrf141.8is.abuse@panix2.panix.com>, Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:
>> > In article <bp7vd6$lnj$1@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus967 wrote:
>> >> Just tried to run one mile (measured by my truck tachometer). The weather left much to be
>> >> desired, as it was drizzling. I ran in my BDU pants and a t shirt.
>> >>
>> >> The result is 7 minutes and 52 seconds. My pulse right at the end was 160 bpm. I am 32 year
>> >> old, 5'11".
>> >>
>> >> This was my first attempt at fast running in a long time -- I am generally a slow jogger --
>> >> but I suspect that improving it by more than 10-20 seconds would be pretty hard work for me.
>> >>
>> >> Is this a lousy result or a good result? I kind of wanted to know where I stand.
>> >
>> > At 32, age is not a substantial disadvantage. In the large local races
> here,
>> > your pace would probably put you in the large group of midpack runners, somewhere in the
>> > top 60%.
>> >
>> > Based on your pulse at the end (seems very low), and your lack of speed
> work,
>> > you could probably improve that time by a lot if you wanted to. Also,
> the
>> > conditions (poor) and the course (not accurately measured) do make a difference. Try an
>> > athletics track instead if you have access to one.
>> >
Not a bad speed. I might suggest however that next time you use your truck's odometer not the
tachometer to measure distance. ;-)
I would guess the mile may have been a little short as must cars don't measure accurate, but
close enough. A good time in any case.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Ignoramus967" <ignoramus967@NOSPAM.967.invalid> wrote in message news:bp7vd6$lnj$1@pita.alt.net...
> Just tried to run one mile (measured by my truck tachometer). The weather left much to be desired,
> as it was drizzling. I ran in my BDU pants and a t shirt.
>
> The result is 7 minutes and 52 seconds. My pulse right at the end was 160 bpm. I am 32 year
> old, 5'11".
>
> This was my first attempt at fast running in a long time -- I am generally a slow jogger -- but I
> suspect that improving it by more than 10-20 seconds would be pretty hard work for me.
>
> Is this a lousy result or a good result? I kind of wanted to know where I stand.
>
> i
DUDE! You are number one, numero uno, the biggest floater in the group, nobody here would dare try
to match that blistering pace, or test of endurance that you've put yourself through. My
recommendation
is: you are a superb runner in excellent physical condition and are on top of your game. Quit now
while you're ahead.
On 16 Nov 2003 13:51:34 GMT, Ignoramus967 <ignoramus967@NOSPAM.967.invalid> wrote:
>Just tried to run one mile (measured by my truck tachometer). The weather left much to be desired,
>as it was drizzling. I ran in my BDU pants and a t shirt.
>
>The result is 7 minutes and 52 seconds. My pulse right at the end was 160 bpm. I am 32 year
>old, 5'11".
>
>This was my first attempt at fast running in a long time -- I am generally a slow jogger -- but I
>suspect that improving it by more than 10-20 seconds would be pretty hard work for me.
>
>Is this a lousy result or a good result? I kind of wanted to know where I stand.
>
>i
Ignoramus967 wrote:
> Just tried to run one mile (measured by my truck tachometer). The
tell me how you used the tachometer to measure distance?
> Is this a lousy result or a good result? I kind of wanted to know where I stand.
Slower then some, faster than others.
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:09:39 GMT, Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Is this a lousy result or a good result? I kind of wanted to know where I stand.
>
>Slower then some, faster than others.
Geez, what a frickin' genius! We just couldn't of squeaked by today without this bit of wisdom.
there has got to be a high school track somewhere in lisle. Isn't there a college too? I generally
head down to my local high school track.
I am 33 and don't do a lot of speedwork. I ran a mile in 7.32 and a second in 7.45, but on the third
one I fell apart and ran 10+. I weigh about 230, so I am lugging around a lot of weight. I generally
run a fairly slow paced 15-25 miles/week.
In article <bp817m$qgj$0@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus967 wrote:
> Thank you for your input Donovan. I do not know where to find an athletic track (Lisle, IL).
>
> Is such speed work beneficial to my long term health?
It will improve your cardiovascular system, but it's also an additional injury risk. In fact, the
moment you start to become interested in running specific times, your injury risk probably increases
(because that's the point where you want to push your body harder to see what it can do)
If you're just interested in overall fitness, a good goal would be to be able to run 10k
comfortably. It's a reasonably impressive athletic feat, and it's a goal that you can accomplish
your with current training style (if you haven't already).
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
On 16 Nov 2003 14:22:46 GMT, Ignoramus967 <ignoramus967@NOSPAM.967.invalid> wrote:
>Thank you for your input Donovan. I do not know where to find an athletic track (Lisle, IL).
>
>Is such speed work beneficial to my long term health?
If you are running to be healthy then speedwork is a waste of time, and you may actually benefit
from a slower pace.
In article <3r8frvsjp0qs82l49kit77akdg08gafm1s@4ax.com>, Bagpop <Bagpop@aol.scum> wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2003 14:22:46 GMT, Ignoramus967 <ignoramus967@NOSPAM.967.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Thank you for your input Donovan. I do not know where to find an athletic track (Lisle, IL).
> >
> >Is such speed work beneficial to my long term health?
> If you are running to be healthy then speedwork is a waste of time, and you may actually benefit
> from a slower pace.
Can you support this claim?
Running intervals, I'm told, will help improve cardiovascular fitness. Think about it: you run long
and slow all the time, and eventualy you're not challenging your heart much anymore.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson
In article <slrnbrf61q.2or.abuse@panix2.panix.com>, Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <bp817m$qgj$0@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus967 wrote:
> > Thank you for your input Donovan. I do not know where to find an athletic track (Lisle, IL).
> >
> > Is such speed work beneficial to my long term health?
>
> It will improve your cardiovascular system, but it's also an additional injury risk.
True. However, to many people "speed work" means "400m sprints all out," which is NOT necessary for
improving speed. One book I read (Galloway? Eyestone?) calls for people to try the easiest speed
plan ever: the 1-1-1 speed plan (or something close to that). You run 1 mile at a pace
1:00 faster than your usual pace 1 time per week (in the middle of a longer run). This will give
some speed improvement to a LOT of runners (not the fastest, of course, since they already do a
ton of speedwork), with, I would guess, very little additional injury risk.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson
Harold Buck wrote:
>> If you are running to be healthy then speedwork is a waste of time, and you may actually benefit
>> from a slower pace.
>
>
>
> Can you support this claim?
>
> Running intervals, I'm told, will help improve cardiovascular fitness. Think about it: you run
> long and slow all the time, and eventualy you're not challenging your heart much anymore.
Can YOU support YOUR claim?
So tell us, how much over your resting pulse do you need to improve or maintain or challenge a
healthy heart. The heart is a muscle and as you train you will probably work your heart less to
achieve the same pace. I don't think there is a time where you are not challenging your heart
while running but maybe less as it grows stronger. With your theory when we master our maxv02 are
we done? ;)
If you apply this to a bicep muscle does it have to grow in girth all the time to show it has been
challenged?
--
Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" dfreeseS@NOBShvc.rr.com
In article <no_one_knows-09B33E.11113916112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com>, Harold Buck wrote:
> In article <slrnbrf61q.2or.abuse@panix2.panix.com>, Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <bp817m$qgj$0@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus967 wrote:
>> > Thank you for your input Donovan. I do not know where to find an athletic track (Lisle, IL).
>> >
>> > Is such speed work beneficial to my long term health?
>>
>> It will improve your cardiovascular system, but it's also an additional injury risk.
>
>
> True. However, to many people "speed work" means "400m sprints all out,"
That's just silly though. There does not exist a sensible speed plan that calls for anything
close to this.
> which is NOT necessary for improving speed. One book I read (Galloway? Eyestone?) calls for people
> to try the easiest speed plan ever: the 1-1-1 speed plan (or something close to that). You run 1
> mile at a pace
> 1:00 faster than your usual pace 1 time per week (in the middle of a longer run).
This is like a tempo run. You could do repeats of these and it would be like an easier form of speed
work. I think you're right that it wouldn't greatly increase injury risk, provided that "usual pace"
is an appropriate training speed.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:08:18 -0800, Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote:
>Can you support this claim?
>
>Running intervals, I'm told, will help improve cardiovascular fitness. Think about it: you run long
>and slow all the time, and eventualy you're not challenging your heart much anymore.
>
You are also increasing your risk of injury (to the avg jerkoff, not to immortals like me) by 10
fold. If being healthy is your only goal LSD will do you fine, and with little risk of injury.
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:25:17 GMT, Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote:
>If you apply this to a bicep muscle does it have to grow in girth all the time to show it has been
>challenged?
Do you mean like your "over worked" right arm Doug? Stop 'you-know-whatting' and it may return to
it's normal size, and you'll save a bundle on tissues too!
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:24:01 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>> True. However, to many people "speed work" means "400m sprints all out,"
>
>That's just silly though. There does not exist a sensible speed plan that calls for anything
>close to this.
>
The guys a bigger numpty than you Realbitchy... I never thought I'd see the day.
In article <blMtb.6333$uw5.303@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, Joseph Meehan wrote:
> Not a bad speed. I might suggest however that next time you use your truck's odometer not the
> tachometer to measure distance. ;-)
Hahaha, I used an odometer:)
> I would guess the mile may have been a little short as must cars don't measure accurate, but
> close enough. A good time in any case.
ROTFLMAO...
i
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
