1.5 mile run challenge , THE CHALLENGE IS ON....

currently my PB is 9min 32

bump for more entries.

Mercenary since 04.
...........JOURNAL...........

Just got back now this minute mate.

I set of in Jan when this thread was first started, so whats my time then?





:]

I HATE this forum software!! The old one was miles better!!  Even my spell checker wont work on this!!

As a punishment, you will all have to put up with my pants spelling as I refuse to keep cutting and pasting to MS word and back.

will update , if anyone has anymore times :-)

    7.38 the lad I work with ex Para, and PF, and I did see some lad named lips in the reg get 7.12 crazy, me best was 8.12 and I was ferked.

Am a serving royal marine mate, my best was 8:05 in boots, im nowhere near bein a great runner compared to some of the lads but if your a reasonably fit bloke who runs till you drop during the mile and a half, sub 9 mins should be easily achievable...

I'd give it a go but I must be some kind of retard as I can't get that map/route site to do s**t!

You did gain far too much fat though,I mean,you're not muscular at all,you're just a fat mess.

Getting a bit tedious all these serving or ex squadies saying anyone can do this in 3 seconds if they put there mind to it.

For a start you are all basing your experience on a section of society that doesn't reflect average everyday people.  To get in ANY of the British armed forces you have to pass a fitness test.  This weeds out anyone who isn't an average to good runner. 

There is no way even with a pit bull terrier chasing me with a sausage dangling out of my arse that I could run a mile and a half in any time less than 10:30 and im sure then Id be putting my mind to it.

My mate could though, he could probs do this in 8 or 9 mins as he's a natural red twitch muscle fiber sort of guy. However put us both on a bench press and I can lift him and all the weight he can life also at the same time.

As a serving Royal Marine (Big time Kudos, one of the hardest physical tests in the world - much respect mate!!) you have to be at a standard where you can run 9 mile in 90 mins in boots and denims. 

It leaves me little surprise that someone fit enough to pass out as a Royal Marine (Not the US girl guides version) could pi$$ a mile and a half.  Is that not fair to say. 

A said not meaning to Pi$$ anyone off here but im sick of hearing everyone should be able to do this in 20 seconds and its a disgrace if you cannot.  YOU ARE NATURAL RUNNERS!!

I HATE this forum software!! The old one was miles better!!  Even my spell checker wont work on this!!

As a punishment, you will all have to put up with my pants spelling as I refuse to keep cutting and pasting to MS word and back.

Ye fair one mate i supose i dont really mix with anyone who cant really run 'naturally'.

Maybe im just biased as i seem to do this test every couple of months for our 'tick in the box' fitness tests.
Anyway not trynna step on any toes, good luck mate gettin ya time down.
 

Hey royalfred. Dont take me the wrong way mate.  I have the utmost respect for our servicmen. I think what you have achieved passing commando training is superb.

Im more just trying to get the point across that some people are built one way and others another and this isnt necessarily a test of fitness.  The 1.5  mile run is more just a test of arobic ability.  There are another 50 sides to fitness and if people cant run 1.5 mile in a good time but are fit anyhow they are just more suited to explosive events/sports.

You can even apply this to running.  Sprinters make terrible long distance runners and long distance runners make terrible sprinters. 
However all our service personnel are mid / long distance runners.  And when some of them quote how everyone they know can pi$$ a mile and a half Im just trying to balance this out with a more general pool of people to show this isnt always the case nor is it a demonstration of anything more than their aerobic system.

I HATE this forum software!! The old one was miles better!!  Even my spell checker wont work on this!!

As a punishment, you will all have to put up with my pants spelling as I refuse to keep cutting and pasting to MS word and back.

Mickey123


You can even apply this to running.  Sprinters make terrible long distance runners and long distance runners make terrible sprinters. 

 
This is far from true IMO as I know quite a few ultra distance runners who are good or very good sprinters. One I know has a recorded sub 4 minute mile on his record and later became an ultra runner. He was successful at distances far below a mile too. 100 and 200M etc.
 
Its just a sweeping generalisation.

Mickey123


However all our service personnel are mid / long distance runners.  And when some of them quote how everyone they know can pi$$ a mile and a half Im just trying to balance this out with a more general pool of people to show this isnt always the case nor is it a demonstration of anything more than their aerobic system.

 
What you have put makes no real sense.

Trident it makes perfect sense.  The only thing a 1.5 mile run is a test of is aerobic conditioning as this is the major energy system used by far.  It does not demonstrate of the lactic acid system which is say predominantly used withins say the 400m sprint, nor does it demonstrate strength as a weight lifter nor does it demonstrate phosphocreatine system such as a 100m sprinter.  There are many more elements to fitness than the aerobic system fitness.  I just hate the idea that because someone isnt a good distance runner or even a mile and a half there branded unfit by the military.

 

I HATE this forum software!! The old one was miles better!!  Even my spell checker wont work on this!!

As a punishment, you will all have to put up with my pants spelling as I refuse to keep cutting and pasting to MS word and back.

Mickey123


Trident it makes perfect sense.  The only thing a 1.5 mile run is a test of is aerobic conditioning as this is the major energy system used by far.  It does not demonstrate of the lactic acid system which is say predominantly used withins say the 400m sprint, nor does it demonstrate strength as a weight lifter nor does it demonstrate phosphocreatine system such as a 100m sprinter.  There are many more elements to fitness than the aerobic system fitness.  I just hate the idea that because someone isnt a good distance runner or even a mile and a half there branded unfit by the military.

 
Thats not correct. But I wont waste time on the tech talk.
 
In the real World a 1.5 mile run is a short distance to run and far and away from any endurance distance event. If you cannot train yourself over a decent timescale to run that kind of distance without getting gassed or indeed run it in a fast time (but be gassed) then your overall fitness is indeed poor (IMO) and in the opinion of many others im certain to say.
 
One thing Google wont tell you is what Heart and balls can do within events like these. Most people will not be governed over that distance by thier Aerobic capacity but will be controlled more by their ability to withstand discomfort from the elements of lactic acid and anaerobic stages within the event. Simply the discomfort of a very high heartbeat can defeat some.
 
 
 

 

QUOTE This is far from true IMO as I know quite a few ultra distance runners who are good or very good sprinters. One I know has a recorded sub 4 minute mile on his record and later became an ultra runner. He was successful at distances far below a mile too. 100 and 200M etc.
 
Its just a sweeping generalisation. UNQUOTE

Sorry just noticed this.  Also as you can see I dont know how to quote on here :]  Preferred the old forum software TBH

All I can think of is this person you know is a genetic freak.  My comment was far from a generalization.

The science of it to back up my generalization as you put it is a person's muscles are either made up of predominantly fast or slow twitch fibers.

Slow twitch is red in colour because it has a very good o2 supply and plenty of mitochondria suiting it and the persons make up who has predominantly slow twitch fibers to endurance events.
Fast twitch fiber which is white in colour works well without o2 and is much better suited to explosive events. 
So, one is dedicated to aerobic activities and the other anaerobic.
Then fast twitch is divided up into type a and b.  Type A being somewhere in the middle of anaerobic or aerobic.

It stands to reason then that a pro athlete (or anyone for that matter has the potential to be) is either built for great explosive usage or great endurance usage, or they could be a jack of all trades and master of none.  You just cannot have it all ways.

If you can tell me an Olympic athlete who is/was a great sprinter that also cleaned up in the distance events then it will be learning curve to me and I will run it by my uni lecturers.  Yeah a good 800m runner may be a good marathon runner but again both of these events utilize the aerobic system and red twitch muscle fibers.  But certainly not two opposite ends of the scale IE a top marathon runner who is also a top sprinter, just doesn't happen.

I would put money on the majority of top Olympic explosive athletes muscle twitch fiber being white/fast and the majority of top endurance athletes being slow/red twitch.
As far as I know both from personal experience and study, athletes either work better with o2 or without but never both.

Of course a person with predominantly slow twitch fiber can train in endurance and improve it.  But you are ultimately how you are made in the first place.  Hence how I can run and run and run training for a year and my mate can turn up with a hangover after never having ran once in the whole year, and literally leave me for dead.  Same the other way around for sprinting or weights, he just cannot hope to compete with me here no matter how much training he does.





 

I HATE this forum software!! The old one was miles better!!  Even my spell checker wont work on this!!

As a punishment, you will all have to put up with my pants spelling as I refuse to keep cutting and pasting to MS word and back.

Just posting my time up. Did a 1.5 miler at the end of June and the time was 8:37, which was a new PB for me (and also a very flat course! :) ).

Mickey123


QUOTE This is far from true IMO as I know quite a few ultra distance runners who are good or very good sprinters. One I know has a recorded sub 4 minute mile on his record and later became an ultra runner. He was successful at distances far below a mile too. 100 and 200M etc.

Its just a sweeping generalisation. UNQUOTE

Sorry just noticed this.  Also as you can see I dont know how to quote on here :]  Preferred the old forum software TBH

All I can think of is this person you know is a genetic freak.  My comment was far from a generalization.

The science of it to back up my generalization as you put it is a person's muscles are either made up of predominantly fast or slow twitch fibers.

Slow twitch is red in colour because it has a very good o2 supply and plenty of mitochondria suiting it and the persons make up who has predominantly slow twitch fibers to endurance events.
Fast twitch fiber which is white in colour works well without o2 and is much better suited to explosive events. 
So, one is dedicated to aerobic activities and the other anaerobic.
Then fast twitch is divided up into type a and b.  Type A being somewhere in the middle of anaerobic or aerobic.

It stands to reason then that a pro athlete (or anyone for that matter has the potential to be) is either built for great explosive usage or great endurance usage, or they could be a jack of all trades and master of none.  You just cannot have it all ways.

If you can tell me an Olympic athlete who is/was a great sprinter that also cleaned up in the distance events then it will be learning curve to me and I will run it by my uni lecturers.  Yeah a good 800m runner may be a good marathon runner but again both of these events utilize the aerobic system and red twitch muscle fibers.  But certainly not two opposite ends of the scale IE a top marathon runner who is also a top sprinter, just doesn't happen.

I would put money on the majority of top Olympic explosive athletes muscle twitch fiber being white/fast and the majority of top endurance athletes being slow/red twitch.
As far as I know both from personal experience and study, athletes either work better with o2 or without but never both.

Of course a person with predominantly slow twitch fiber can train in endurance and improve it.  But you are ultimately how you are made in the first place.  Hence how I can run and run and run training for a year and my mate can turn up with a hangover after never having ran once in the whole year, and literally leave me for dead.  Same the other way around for sprinting or weights, he just cannot hope to compete with me here no matter how much training he does.

 
Can I ask how you are?  
   
   
   
   
 

Trident

Mickey123


QUOTE This is far from true IMO as I know quite a few ultra distance runners who are good or very good sprinters. One I know has a recorded sub 4 minute mile on his record and later became an ultra runner. He was successful at distances far below a mile too. 100 and 200M etc.

Its just a sweeping generalisation. UNQUOTE

Sorry just noticed this.  Also as you can see I dont know how to quote on here :]  Preferred the old forum software TBH

All I can think of is this person you know is a genetic freak.  My comment was far from a generalization.

The science of it to back up my generalization as you put it is a person's muscles are either made up of predominantly fast or slow twitch fibers.

Slow twitch is red in colour because it has a very good o2 supply and plenty of mitochondria suiting it and the persons make up who has predominantly slow twitch fibers to endurance events.
Fast twitch fiber which is white in colour works well without o2 and is much better suited to explosive events. 
So, one is dedicated to aerobic activities and the other anaerobic.
Then fast twitch is divided up into type a and b.  Type A being somewhere in the middle of anaerobic or aerobic.

It stands to reason then that a pro athlete (or anyone for that matter has the potential to be) is either built for great explosive usage or great endurance usage, or they could be a jack of all trades and master of none.  You just cannot have it all ways.

If you can tell me an Olympic athlete who is/was a great sprinter that also cleaned up in the distance events then it will be learning curve to me and I will run it by my uni lecturers.  Yeah a good 800m runner may be a good marathon runner but again both of these events utilize the aerobic system and red twitch muscle fibers.  But certainly not two opposite ends of the scale IE a top marathon runner who is also a top sprinter, just doesn't happen.

I would put money on the majority of top Olympic explosive athletes muscle twitch fiber being white/fast and the majority of top endurance athletes being slow/red twitch.
As far as I know both from personal experience and study, athletes either work better with o2 or without but never both.

Of course a person with predominantly slow twitch fiber can train in endurance and improve it.  But you are ultimately how you are made in the first place.  Hence how I can run and run and run training for a year and my mate can turn up with a hangover after never having ran once in the whole year, and literally leave me for dead.  Same the other way around for sprinting or weights, he just cannot hope to compete with me here no matter how much training he does.

 
Can I ask how you are?   
    
    
That should read "Can I ask how OLD you are!"
 
Cheers
    
 

Only if I can ask you why first.

I HATE this forum software!! The old one was miles better!!  Even my spell checker wont work on this!!

As a punishment, you will all have to put up with my pants spelling as I refuse to keep cutting and pasting to MS word and back.

did 1.5mile run this morning in 10.03 secs and i hate running!my fastest 6 years ago was 8.45 secs and my slowest 12 weeks before my fastest time was about 11.30secs! and im am NOT a natural runner!

[/link] No rest is worth anything except the rest that is earned [/link]