All this talk about one mile times had me running to my handy copy of "The
Ultimate Fit or Fat" by Covert Bailey.
On page 70 he has a great table called "How Fit Are You". (I'm a sucker
for these generic judgments by people who don't know me!)
Your Aerobic Pace is defined as "how fast you run, jog or walk consecutive
miles at a comfortable pace that doesn't get you out of breath." He
highlights that it's "not how fast you can run a mile, it's the speed at
which you walk, jog, or run mile after mile after mile." That raises the
bar a bit over me (I typically run a mile for warm-up) but here's the
chart:
Aerobic Fitness Level
Pace -45 yrs +45 yrs
----------- -------- ---------
6 min/mile Olympic
7-8 min/mile High Very High
9-10 min/mile Above Avg High
11-13 min Avg Above Avg
14-17 min Below Avg Avg
18-20 Poor Below Avg
21+ min Very Poor Poor
Okay, so having just blatently copied from his book, I'll mention that it
is really worth buying and reading and re-reading. I also like the
articles on his website. He turns exercise and nutrition lectures into
great stories! http://www.covertbailey.com/index.html
Wendy
244/189/174
Jayjay - 17 Nov 2003 16:31 GMT
Its still nice to know that I am in the "Above Average" when you
consider my 3 mile runs.... :)
>All this talk about one mile times had me running to my handy copy of "The
>Ultimate Fit or Fat" by Covert Bailey.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>Wendy
>244/189/174
Jayjay - 17 Nov 2003 16:50 GMT
I didn't have a chance to finish responding at first... So I'm
replying to my own message.
Covert Baily may say that fitness isn't judged by how fast you can run
a mile, but how fast you can run, jog or walk for many miles w/out
becoming out of breath...
Well, the President's Fitness Council, as well as the Military fitness
all judge "endurance" based on the pace of a 1 mile run. (Military
bases it on a 2 mile run).
The state of CA uses these standards for their fitness testing:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/statetests/pe/healthyfitnesszones.pdf
And the army uses this:
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/21-20/Ch14.htm
And the "International Physical FItness Test" is based on the US -
President's Fitness Council test.
The test battery is as follows:
1. 50-meter test, relative power, speed
2. Pull-up, relative strength, strength
3. 10-meter shuttle run, relative power, speed and suppleness
4. Back throw, absolute power, speed and suppleness
5. 1,000-meter run, aerobic/anaerobic capacity, stamina
http://www.thesportjournal.org/VOL1NO2/fittest.HTM
>Its still nice to know that I am in the "Above Average" when you
>consider my 3 mile runs.... :)
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>>Wendy
>>244/189/174
Chris Braun - 17 Nov 2003 18:38 GMT
> All this talk about one mile times had me running to my handy copy of "The
> Ultimate Fit or Fat" by Covert Bailey.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> 18-20 Poor Below Avg
> 21+ min Very Poor Poor
Interesting. And I'm glad to see I score "Above Avg" :-). But I
wonder about a couple of things: First, I think height (or more
particularly, leg length) is a significant parameter in running speed.
The other day I was running at 6 mph on the treadmill -- for me, this
means my legs are moving pretty fast -- and there was a guy on the
treadmill next to me gently loping along at 8.0 -- legs moving much
slower than mine. He was also about 6'4". Second, what does
"average" mean, exactly? Among the women my age that I know, almost
none of them could run a mile, never mind "mile after mile after
mile", at any pace. Are they all below average, then? Or do I just
know a non-representative sample of 50ish women? (Probably some of
them could walk at the pace required to do a 14-17 minute mile, I
guess, which would be average, at least.) Also, do only two age
groups really make sense? I'd think by the time you get up in your
70s or so, any sort of running would put you well above average.
Chris
Jane Lumley - 19 Nov 2003 21:16 GMT
>Interesting. And I'm glad to see I score "Above Avg" :-). But I
>wonder about a couple of things: First, I think height (or more
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>treadmill next to me gently loping along at 8.0 -- legs moving much
>slower than mine. He was also about 6'4".
I do so agree, being very short - I am thundering along at 6 mph. My dh
otoh is barely cantering, because his legs are so much longer.

Signature
Jane Lumley
MH - 20 Nov 2003 13:19 GMT
> >Interesting. And I'm glad to see I score "Above Avg" :-). But I
> >wonder about a couple of things: First, I think height (or more
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> --
> Jane Lumley
Sprinters are usually taller, while the best marathoners are smaller.
Kenyans are the best distance runners....they start running before they
learn to walk. : ) So marathoners are usually atheletes with smaller
frames. When running longer distances, you take smaller steps than
sprinters. Sprinters rely on more sheer brute strength rather than their
reserves.
Martha
Brad Sheppard - 17 Nov 2003 20:15 GMT
I have Bailey's book and like it. He is a great motivator. Kenneth
Cooper's books, tho, have more detailed tests. You can get what
percentile you fit in for any number of measures - pulse, blood
pressure, etc. Cooper's test is to run as fast as you can for 12
minutes. Here's an interesting fact (to me, at least): every year you
get older your maximum pulse declines by one beat - if you're not
exercising. However, if you do aerobic training your max pulse only
declines 1/2 a beat a year. Here's a link to Cooper's website
http://www.cooperaerobics.com/default.aspx
> All this talk about one mile times had me running to my handy copy of "The
> Ultimate Fit or Fat" by Covert Bailey.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Wendy
> 244/189/174
Jennifer A - 18 Nov 2003 02:56 GMT
At least I'm above avg at something.
Jenn
> All this talk about one mile times had me running to my handy copy of "The
> Ultimate Fit or Fat" by Covert Bailey.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Wendy
> 244/189/174