Improving running times? - Page 5

BvlyHls90210 · #41 08-29-2007, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad to see that there's as much difference in opinion from everyone on running as there is on lifting too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is so much that there is a difference in opinion, there is just some really bad advice in this thread.

BvlyHls90210 · #42 08-29-2007, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I currently jog a few miles a few times a week pretty much just to clear my mind as I've never been a huge fan of running, but do enjoy the feeling I get after. As someone who can currently run a mile in about 7 minutes (I'm out of shape I know) how hard would it be to improve this time to 6 min within 3 months? What type of training would you do to accomplish this? I just know close to nothing about how to improve running times as I was never in track.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need speedwork, you need to run more (based on the info other spots in the thread). If you are only running ~10 miles per week, I just don't think it is enough work for your muscles to develop into anything (assuming you have no running base from some point in the not too distant past). Just run 5 miles, four times a week for like six weeks. If you have no running base and you work up into doing this, your improvement in your mile time will be dramatic.

Those suggesting speed work for your situation are trying to injure you, and even if you don't get injured, it is going to be brutally not-fun, and you'll want to quit, which isn't a good path to success. Or in other words, no reward for a lot of extra work.

I say build up your mileage base first. You will experience very rapid improvement which might be enough to get to your goals. At some point, you'll experience diminishing returns, that that's when speed work will make sense. I would guesstimate that <5% of runners get to a level where speedwork has a positive return considerably higher than just getting some good mileage in.

BvlyHls90210 · #43 08-29-2007, 07:35 PM

One more comment

Not disrespect to the OP, but if you are motivated, running a 7 minute mile shouldn't be a big problem for most people. I believe you'd have to be in really pretty bad shape or a heavy smoker for this to be challenging.

Now there is a big difference between 6 and 7, but still, not that tough. I believe a very reasonable percentage of people (thinking guys under 30) could do a six minute mile if they wanted to, even with no training (assuming they aren't fat or a smoker).

So I think recommending a big training program to do it is pretty ridiculous, especially as the OP as far as I can tell is implying he is in pretty bad shape.

SmileyEH · #44 08-29-2007, 08:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Now there is a big difference between 6 and 7, but still, not that tough. I believe a very reasonable percentage of people (thinking guys under 30) could do a six minute mile if they wanted to, even with no training (assuming they aren't fat or a smoker).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying a non-fat sedentary person could run a 6minute mile? Because if that's the case I would like you to please pass me the crack pipe.

Thremp · #45 08-29-2007, 08:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now there is a big difference between 6 and 7, but still, not that tough. I believe a very reasonable percentage of people (thinking guys under 30) could do a six minute mile if they wanted to, even with no training (assuming they aren't fat or a smoker).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying a non-fat sedentary person could run a 6minute mile? Because if that's the case I would like you to please pass me the crack pipe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't break 7 if my life depended on it tomorrow. Probably 7:30 and I might die after.

Klompy · #46 08-29-2007, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think it is enough work for your muscles to develop into anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this what I'm aiming for? My legs never get tired, it's my lungs.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe a very reasonable percentage of people (thinking guys under 30) could do a six minute mile if they wanted to, even with no training (assuming they aren't fat or a smoker).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree fairly strongly with this. I'd go as far as to say it's less then 10%. Prob less then 5%.

[ QUOTE ]
One more comment

Not disrespect to the OP, but if you are motivated, running a 7 minute mile shouldn't be a big problem for most people. I believe you'd have to be in really pretty bad shape or a heavy smoker for this to be challenging.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no idea if the 7-6 min change would be reasonable during the time frame, thus why I started the thread. I've never done any sort of running with a time as a goal before, so I have nothing to base it on.

jogsxyz · #47 08-29-2007, 09:08 PM

If you ran 7:08 on no training, you should be able
to run 5:59 with mild training in 3 months. Any
semi-reasonable training program would probably
work.

[ QUOTE ]

One more comment

Not disrespect to the OP, but if you are motivated, running a 7 minute mile shouldn't be a big problem for most people. I believe you'd have to be in really pretty bad shape or a heavy smoker for this to be challenging.

[/ QUOTE ]

That describes 80% of American men between the ages of
21 to 30. Maybe it's higher among poker players.

BvlyHls90210 · #48 08-30-2007, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying a non-fat sedentary person could run a 6minute mile? Because if that's the case I would like you to please pass me the crack pipe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends how bad he wants to. It would suck and it would hurt, but 1 mile isn't very far.

I am exaggerating a little but just trying to make the point there is a difference between being able to go out and run a six minute mile once and gaining the fitness level of a 6-min miler.

SmileyEH · #49 08-30-2007, 05:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying a non-fat sedentary person could run a 6minute mile? Because if that's the case I would like you to please pass me the crack pipe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends how bad he wants to. It would suck and it would hurt, but 1 mile isn't very far.

I am exaggerating a little but just trying to make the point there is a difference between being able to go out and run a six minute mile once and gaining the fitness level of a 6-min miler.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are crazy. I ran cross country in highschool, was an almost elite (for my age) cross country skier in elementary school, and when I weighed 160lbs soaking wet I could barely break 7 minutes on a treadmill in college after being sedentary for a couple years. Even with probably top 5% endurance running genes I couldn't even come close to running a 6min mile - no matter how hard I wanted it.

Also I don't understand the difference between running a 6minute mile and having the fitness of a 6min miler? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

sanmarcosrun1 · #50 08-30-2007, 05:31 PM

The key point is made by this post here. You state your legs don't get tired but it is your lungs. Follow what others have said and just simply run more. Let your body dictate how fast you go during the run.

No need to track miles run or anything for your goal. By increasing the amount of time you spend running you will enhance your aerobic base. This is essentially what you are trying to build in order to drop from 7 minutes to 6 minutes. The most intense of training you may want to do is fartlek training which was suggested earlier.

If you have the time in your day and want to accomnplish this in 3 months easily you may want to try running twice a day. Say you normally run 40 minutes total for a run. Your body could easily handle two 30 minute runs split up during the day. This allows you to increase the amount of time spent running to increase your aerobic base while also reducing your risk for injury.