7 ms·

Anyone who can run 5 miles at 7:15 pace is a pretty well conditioned athlete. If you can keep that pace for an hour, that shows some determination. Multiple h

Anyone who can run 5 miles at 7:15 pace is a pretty well conditioned athlete. If you can keep that pace for an hour, that shows some determination. Multiple hours is an incredible feat. 24 hours is just suprahuman.

travisjungroth 4y ago
The standard to pass the first phase of US Army Ranger School is 5 miles at 8:00 pace. Those aren't pro runners by any means, but shows a standard for a rather well conditioned group of people. They also need to do 49 push-ups and 59 sit-ups in 2 minutes each, plus 6 pull-ups.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  I could easily meet the push up/sit up/pull up bar but I can only run 12 min miles for 5 miles. Pretty interesting how uneven is my conditioning.
  - lancesells 4y ago
    I can do the running but not the pushups so maybe we can trade
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      You two should buy an extra long trenchcoat and see if you can make it work.
  - jeltz 4y ago
    My conditioning is also very uneven. Running would be trivial (I ran a half marathon at 7:55 min/mile a couple of days ago), I could also manage sit-ups just fine, would fail on push-ups (but not by much) but can't even do a single pull-up.
    - Cd00d 4y ago
      I'm the same - it's very easy for me to ramp up miles and pace in endurance sports, but I've never been able to do a pull up. I do notice I weigh 25-30 pounds less than my friends that are same height and waist size. I'm 6'3" and when fit hover a little under 170 lbs, while everyone else is 190-200. I think it's a distinct lack of muscle.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  I consider myself unfit and can do 10k at 7min/km ... not sure those numbers are right given 1km=.6mile
  - cainxinth 4y ago
    No one actually “unfit” can run (not walk) 10km
  - travisjungroth 4y ago
    Maybe there's a conversion issue here. The fit Soldiers are running a pace of 8:00 per mile at the slowest. You (self-proclaimed unfit) are running a pace of 11:16 per mile. This is much slower. To change to speed and km, the slowest acceptable speed is 12 kmh. Yours is 8.5 kmh. Source for Ranger numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test#Ranger_Physical_Fitness_Tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fi...
  - jeltz 4y ago
    You did some calculation error, the requirement for rangers is 5 min/km or a 50 minute 10k (compared to your 70 minute one). Not that hard to do but requires one to be in decent shape.
    - sirsinsalot 4y ago
      My mental arithmetic is shocking. Maybe more shocking than my cardio. 5min/km is quick.
- dieselgate 4y ago
  Only 6 pull ups? I find that a bit humorous compared to some of the other requirements
AlwaysRock 4y ago
It's truly incredible. Even most pretty in shape people could not run a 7:15 pace for more than 2 or 3 miles.
twawaaay 4y ago
I was 35 when I was able to run 10k in 47m on my first season after I lost 26 kg the previous year. This is about about 7:30 minutes per mile. I was also able to run 5k in 21:03 (about 6:47) and at the end of the season a marathon in 4:12:00 (~9:35). I wouldn't consider myself athletic and definitely not "conditioned athlete". I had no prior history of running or taking up any sports of any kind. Actually, I would be spending very few days doing anything else than sitting straight by the computer, lying down to read a book or standing in the kitchen cooking something. But I quickly learned to like running and I would push myself to run faster, harder, longer and further and I ran about 900 miles between March and October of my first running season with most of the volume in second half as I was ramping up on distance. At the peak I was doing say three 10k days in the middle of the week and then a 20-24k on the weekend every two weeks.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  You ran 900 miles in 6 months but don’t consider yourself athletic? Um ok you might want to revise that evaluation.
  - gnuj3 4y ago
    He just wants others to tell him that he is.
    - twawaaay 4y ago
      No, I just want to say that probably most of healthy people (well, at the very least men) can, with a bit of preparation, achieve the above mentioned result with no prior history of doing any serious sports. It would require some effort but it is doable in 6 months. Why does everybody assume this is vanity?
      - notacoward 4y ago
        The numbers simply don't agree with you. Instead of repeating myself, I'll just cite my other comment in this thread (including link to RunRepeat). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32900865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32900865
cafard 4y ago
Back in the 1980s, a man under 40 had to run a 2:50 marathon to qualify for the Boston Marathon. That's right around 6:30/mile. Quite a few did.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  But that wasn't a general fitness measure, that was a way to weed out weaker contestants by setting a very aggressive standard. That's aiming to get only elite runners.
- float4 4y ago
  Assume 5% can run a marathon (definitely less) and that 2:50 is 90th percentile (definitely higher) and you're still top 99.5%. How is that not an "incredible feat" as the GP called it?
  - cafard 4y ago
    Well, because it was me. I regarded myself as a fair recreational runner, but nothing more.
phphphphp 4y ago
I don't think the first part of that is true. That pace is a ~25 minute 5k which most reasonably healthy adults could build up to quite quickly; you certainly don't need to be a "well conditioned athlete" to do 5 miles at that pace. Anyway, doesn't change your point that maintaining the pace over 24 hours is super-human, very much agreed.
- notacoward 4y ago
  > ~25 minute 5k which most reasonably healthy adults could build up to quite quickly For 5km, 25:00 would put you into the top 10% (median is 34:37). https://runrepeat.com/how-do-you-masure-up-the-runners-percentile-calculator https://runrepeat.com/how-do-you-masure-up-the-runners-perce... That's out of those who post times in measured/timed events, so it would be an even better result compared to all runners, and better still compared to fit people specializing in other sports such as cycling. It's also for all ages. For example, in my own 50-59 age group that would be top 6% (median 36:36). 25:00 might not be all that impressive when you're looking on Strava, but in a broader context it really is closer to "well conditioned athlete" than to "reasonably healthy adult". BTW, since I know somebody will ad hominem at me if I don't say anything, I'm on schedule for 1000 miles this year and to that end I run 5km continuously (even on hills) at least once or twice a week. It takes a certain level of dedication independent of how generally fit you are.
  - phphphphp 4y ago
    I'm not sure how much I trust those stats. If you look at parkrun results, 25 minutes is definitely not the top 10%. I imagine you're familiar with parkrun, but just in case: parkrun is a weekly, non-competitive, just for fun 5k -- with millions of participants, and all their stats are online. I picked a bunch of random events from last week's parkrun, and for most of them, ~>1/3rd finish in <=25 mins and very few of those times are PBs. I'd be absolutely shocked if being able to do a 5k in 25 mins puts you in the top 10% of runners, in fact, I'd go as far as to say, I think the majority of runners could do a 25min 5k -- where "runner" means "someone who runs regularly" (once per week, which parkrun is representative of). Click a town name in the "event" column on this page to see various results (includes gender and age group) you can also click through to individual profiles: https://www.parkrun.org.uk/results https://www.parkrun.org.uk/results If we expand the definition of "runner" to include anyone who runs at least once per year, I think maybe you'd get to the 10% figure you're quoting. The other possibility is that the page you've linked is using marathon times and extrapolating out from those to get 5k times, which is not going to produce accurate results.

travisjungroth 4y ago

The standard to pass the first phase of US Army Ranger School is 5 miles at 8:00 pace. Those aren't pro runners by any means, but shows a standard for a rather well conditioned group of people. They also need to do 49 push-ups and 59 sit-ups in 2 minutes each, plus 6 pull-ups.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
I could easily meet the push up/sit up/pull up bar but I can only run 12 min miles for 5 miles. Pretty interesting how uneven is my conditioning.
- lancesells 4y ago
  I can do the running but not the pushups so maybe we can trade
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    You two should buy an extra long trenchcoat and see if you can make it work.
- jeltz 4y ago
  My conditioning is also very uneven. Running would be trivial (I ran a half marathon at 7:55 min/mile a couple of days ago), I could also manage sit-ups just fine, would fail on push-ups (but not by much) but can't even do a single pull-up.
  - Cd00d 4y ago
    I'm the same - it's very easy for me to ramp up miles and pace in endurance sports, but I've never been able to do a pull up. I do notice I weigh 25-30 pounds less than my friends that are same height and waist size. I'm 6'3" and when fit hover a little under 170 lbs, while everyone else is 190-200. I think it's a distinct lack of muscle.
sirsinsalot 4y ago
I consider myself unfit and can do 10k at 7min/km ... not sure those numbers are right given 1km=.6mile
- cainxinth 4y ago
  No one actually “unfit” can run (not walk) 10km
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  Maybe there's a conversion issue here. The fit Soldiers are running a pace of 8:00 per mile at the slowest. You (self-proclaimed unfit) are running a pace of 11:16 per mile. This is much slower. To change to speed and km, the slowest acceptable speed is 12 kmh. Yours is 8.5 kmh. Source for Ranger numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test#Ranger_Physical_Fitness_Tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fi...
- jeltz 4y ago
  You did some calculation error, the requirement for rangers is 5 min/km or a 50 minute 10k (compared to your 70 minute one). Not that hard to do but requires one to be in decent shape.
  - sirsinsalot 4y ago
    My mental arithmetic is shocking. Maybe more shocking than my cardio. 5min/km is quick.
dieselgate 4y ago
Only 6 pull ups? I find that a bit humorous compared to some of the other requirements

AlwaysRock 4y ago

It's truly incredible. Even most pretty in shape people could not run a 7:15 pace for more than 2 or 3 miles.

twawaaay 4y ago

I was 35 when I was able to run 10k in 47m on my first season after I lost 26 kg the previous year. This is about about 7:30 minutes per mile. I was also able to run 5k in 21:03 (about 6:47) and at the end of the season a marathon in 4:12:00 (~9:35). I wouldn't consider myself athletic and definitely not "conditioned athlete". I had no prior history of running or taking up any sports of any kind. Actually, I would be spending very few days doing anything else than sitting straight by the computer, lying down to read a book or standing in the kitchen cooking something. But I quickly learned to like running and I would push myself to run faster, harder, longer and further and I ran about 900 miles between March and October of my first running season with most of the volume in second half as I was ramping up on distance. At the peak I was doing say three 10k days in the middle of the week and then a 20-24k on the weekend every two weeks.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
You ran 900 miles in 6 months but don’t consider yourself athletic? Um ok you might want to revise that evaluation.
- gnuj3 4y ago
  He just wants others to tell him that he is.
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    No, I just want to say that probably most of healthy people (well, at the very least men) can, with a bit of preparation, achieve the above mentioned result with no prior history of doing any serious sports. It would require some effort but it is doable in 6 months. Why does everybody assume this is vanity?
    - notacoward 4y ago
      The numbers simply don't agree with you. Instead of repeating myself, I'll just cite my other comment in this thread (including link to RunRepeat). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32900865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32900865

cafard 4y ago

Back in the 1980s, a man under 40 had to run a 2:50 marathon to qualify for the Boston Marathon. That's right around 6:30/mile. Quite a few did.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
But that wasn't a general fitness measure, that was a way to weed out weaker contestants by setting a very aggressive standard. That's aiming to get only elite runners.
float4 4y ago
Assume 5% can run a marathon (definitely less) and that 2:50 is 90th percentile (definitely higher) and you're still top 99.5%. How is that not an "incredible feat" as the GP called it?
- cafard 4y ago
  Well, because it was me. I regarded myself as a fair recreational runner, but nothing more.

phphphphp 4y ago

I don't think the first part of that is true. That pace is a ~25 minute 5k which most reasonably healthy adults could build up to quite quickly; you certainly don't need to be a "well conditioned athlete" to do 5 miles at that pace. Anyway, doesn't change your point that maintaining the pace over 24 hours is super-human, very much agreed.

notacoward 4y ago
> ~25 minute 5k which most reasonably healthy adults could build up to quite quickly For 5km, 25:00 would put you into the top 10% (median is 34:37). https://runrepeat.com/how-do-you-masure-up-the-runners-percentile-calculator https://runrepeat.com/how-do-you-masure-up-the-runners-perce... That's out of those who post times in measured/timed events, so it would be an even better result compared to all runners, and better still compared to fit people specializing in other sports such as cycling. It's also for all ages. For example, in my own 50-59 age group that would be top 6% (median 36:36). 25:00 might not be all that impressive when you're looking on Strava, but in a broader context it really is closer to "well conditioned athlete" than to "reasonably healthy adult". BTW, since I know somebody will ad hominem at me if I don't say anything, I'm on schedule for 1000 miles this year and to that end I run 5km continuously (even on hills) at least once or twice a week. It takes a certain level of dedication independent of how generally fit you are.
- phphphphp 4y ago
  I'm not sure how much I trust those stats. If you look at parkrun results, 25 minutes is definitely not the top 10%. I imagine you're familiar with parkrun, but just in case: parkrun is a weekly, non-competitive, just for fun 5k -- with millions of participants, and all their stats are online. I picked a bunch of random events from last week's parkrun, and for most of them, ~>1/3rd finish in <=25 mins and very few of those times are PBs. I'd be absolutely shocked if being able to do a 5k in 25 mins puts you in the top 10% of runners, in fact, I'd go as far as to say, I think the majority of runners could do a 25min 5k -- where "runner" means "someone who runs regularly" (once per week, which parkrun is representative of). Click a town name in the "event" column on this page to see various results (includes gender and age group) you can also click through to individual profiles: https://www.parkrun.org.uk/results https://www.parkrun.org.uk/results If we expand the definition of "runner" to include anyone who runs at least once per year, I think maybe you'd get to the 10% figure you're quoting. The other possibility is that the page you've linked is using marathon times and extrapolating out from those to get 5k times, which is not going to produce accurate results.