Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryPie99
I guess this makes sense BUT - what percentage of 40 year olds - general population - can run a mile straight, period?
I run a Sllllowwww mile - takes me about 14 minutes - and I'm in my late 30's. And I know it's slow, although I'll tell you that since I started this journey I'm in much better shape then most people I work with, including some younger then me. Also, I'm 5'1" - doesn't it make sense that someone 5'10" would run a faster mile then me?
|
Yeah, I mean, I guess that was the whole point. I'm just about to turn fifty, and most of my women friends can't run a whole mile. We tend to think of that as something reserved for "very fit" people. By the time you hit fifty, look around and besides that small subset of fitness fanatics, I'd say a lot of people can't run a mile, no matter how slow.
In any case, the subject of the article was how fitness, as measured by mile speed, in midlife, predicted cardiac disease in late life. The idea is that if you are fifty and you can't run a 12 minute mile, you are at significantly higher risk for getting cardiovascular disease.
I'm sure if you are not a runner, but you do elliptical, or some other type of exercise, you "could" run a mile at that speed, if you tried. But if you're a couch potato probably not.
I was completely and totally out of shape that I couldn't even run for 60 straight seconds when I started, so it really makes an impression on me!