Hacker News Reader

Comment by serial_dev | Hacker News Reader

I'd say it's obviously wrong?

7:00 min/miles is a 4:21 min/km, which would result in 21 min 5K, 43 min 10K, 1h 32 min half marathon and 3h 3min marathon.

I can run a 7 min mile pace, but I can't sustain it for a long time, and when it comes to comparing running VS walking, 20-30 km feels like the distance you should use, as that's a distance most people could walk daily over an extended period of time (e.g a week).

I was never a great long distance runner, but I took it seriously for 1.5 years and I could run a half marathon just under 2hrs. The pace the whole time felt dynamic, everything went perfect, I was significantly faster than all the joggers by the river. I needed two days to recover, and the suggested place would have been 30 minutes faster.

With 7 min/mile pace, I would qualify for the Boston Marathon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_Qualifying_S...

View on HN

> when it comes to comparing running VS walking, 20-30 km feels like the distance you should use, as that's a distance most people could walk daily over an extended period of time (e.g a week).

20-30km every day for a week, i.e. 140-210 km/week?

Fun fact, according to [1] 160-220 km/week is the training regime of world champion marathon runners like Eliud Kipchoge.

That guy that ran across America did 72 miles (115 km) per day [2]

But these certainly aren't "most people" weekly running distances :)

[1] https://therunningclinic.com/runners/blog/train-like-kipchog... [2] https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20828478/ultrarunner-pete...

I'd be very happy if I could just maintain a 8min mile over 10k.

7 min mile sustained feels like an impossible goal.

Hell, my best single mile is 6:48 and I'm dead at the end of that.

When I did a running course, I started from a bit above nothing (hence first weeks were boring) and ended at 5 km in 30 minutes (easily, with 8 min remaining). The course took 12 weeks to reach, approx 3 runs a week (so sometimes one extra day off). I was around 35 y.o. then, so it was still relatively easy to get in shape. If you're older, this is more difficult. But the course was nice because I had a (Belgian) woman in my ears telling me what to do. Really easy. You do what she tells you to. And if you can't, you still give it your best. Oh, and dear reader, do yourself a favor: do a proper warming up, every time. You don't want to retract a muscle.

You're probably just getting old and I don't think most people appreciate the effect that years of being relatively sedentary can have on you. I ran competitively in high school and stayed at it mostly recreationally, but not consistently, joined the Army at one point, then got badly injured in my 30s and didn't run for nearly a decade. Now I run again in my 40s, frankly more than I ever did before.

At age 12, I ran a 5:05 mile with no training except running a weekly all-out mile for PE class. At age 14, I ran a 17:14 5K after three months of training in my first cross-country meet of my first season. I PRed at 16:04 two years later. In my late 20, I was still hitting an 11:30 2-mile in the Army's fitness test pretty easily, mostly without running. I swam every day, did a lot of rowing, and ran track repeats for 8 weeks leading up to the test.

Today, I run almost 80 miles a week right now, a structured, principled program, and I can't get anywhere remotely close to the times I once used to run almost effortlessly. Same person, same genetics, but in my 40s after a decade of being mostly sedentary. It takes its toll and it makes people who take this up as a hobby because they got fat in their 30s think something is impossible that likely would have been quite doable if they'd been doing it their entire lives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com