I just saw this interesting article in the New York Times suggesting that for middle aged people, the ability to run a mile at a certain speed might be just as good a marker for heart health as chloresterol, blood pressure, etc.

Remember that this is for forty year olds, so presumably if you're younger, you have to run faster. I'm just about to turn fifty, so I used the forty-year-old marks.

Very fit: For men: 8 minute mile, for women: 9 minute mile.
Moderately fit: For men: 9 minutes, for women: 10.30
Low fitness: For men > 10 minutes for women >12 minutes

I tried it last night, and I can run a 10.30 minute mile, but not a 9 minute mile, although I slacked off exercise for a couple of months and have only been back to my normal routine for a couple of weeks.

Still, fairly happy with "moderately fit" which decreases your risk of heart disease significantly. My mom had a heart attack at age 62, and 18 months ago when I started running, I could not run 3 straight minutes at a pace of 4.5!

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...-heart-health/

I'm at about 9 1/2 minutes, but I'm only in my 30 so I guess that would put me in the moderately fit category.....Running has never been my thing though.

I think this is interesting...I can run a 9:30 or 10:30 mile, but more often I run 11:00 because I run longer distances. I also can swim 900 yards in 16:50 and bike a mile in 3:00. Most often I don't, as I swim 2000+ yards and bike 15-20 miles on a moderate day. I would say that I am better than moderately fit and consider running my weakest sport. That said, I have huge room for improvement in all three sports, so perhaps they are right.

I can see using it as a rule of thumb, but there's a lot that it doesn't take into account.

Cool to know! I thought as a 41 y.o. fitness instructor my mile was slow! I haven't really tried hard to see what my best time was but after boot camp one day I ran it in 6:57. Yes, the three seconds under 7 minutes is a big deal to me.

Interesting: Last year I made 10:30, but then I fell while x country skiing and lost a lot of fitness...so now it's closer to 12.

They didn't mean for it to be a be-all-and-end-all. The point of the article was that it might be a good screening type test for heart disease risk-- comparable to looking at things like blood pressure, and cholesterol.

Still, it got me to thinking, because when I started losing weight and exercising, I swam laps every single day for six months, and I thought I was moderately fit then, but when I started running, I could only do about 1 minute at a time, and it took me almost 6 months just to build up to thirty minutes of continuous running BELOW a 12 minute pace!

I know a lot of people in their fifties who probably think they are moderately fit because they walk a bit who can't run a single mile and would think it was outrageous to even consider it.

Depends on whether I thought something was chasing me.

I'm only half-joking. On the rare occasions when I do run, I never really push myself to see how fast I can go. That feels ... dangerous. In way that I don't feel while sprinting in spin class or using an elliptical. The machine makes me feel safer. Out of doors, what if I tripped & went down hard on the pavement? I am probably a big ole fraidy cat, but those thoughts do go through my mind. My goal was always more like endurance than a sprint -- say, running for 45 minutes in a measured rhythm & seeing how far that got me.

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?

I can do a mile in under 8 minutes easily and I would never say I am "very fit" but definitions can vary. For cardio I would say I'm in above average condtion for a 40 year old. (Well I'm almost 40)

When I was 16-18 my best singular mile time on cross country team was 5:45. I ran an average of 8-10 miles a day. I have dreamed of attaining the 4 min mile. Now, at 22, after I discovered I hate running, I just walk all the time. Although, I must say, sometimes I can walk a mile faster than some people running it.

I can now do a 10 minute mile. I am hoping to get to where I can do multiple 10 min. miles. But it took me quite a while to get up to going a whole mile in 12 mins. I am a little bummed to hear that is LOW fitness.

Cherrypie, good question about how many people over 40 can even run a whole mile straight.

This is very sad to me. Not only about the state of our nation's fitness, but the mental state, too. Seeing a mile run as nearly impossible speaks to the fact that we've defeated ourselves without even trying.

I bet a lot more people can run a mile but few will ever try.

I run about a 14 minute mile-I am very slow, but I really just started a few months ago. I go more for endurance. In 51 minutes, I can run 3.5 miles. Pretty good for a girl of my size, I think.

Just one mile? Probably 7 something minutes. But I run, a lot. And most of my miles are done at a 10-11 minute pace.

Also, height makes no difference in speed. Most elite runners tend to be shorter, actually.

And don't anyone feel discouraged! The more slower miles you run, the faster you will get! I know that seems weird, but it's true. More miles, slowly, will help you run faster in the long run.

Trail, I totally agree with the slow but more mile training. In training for my 5k, I ran 9 miles slower 5 days before the race. I had my PR that race.

ferret, you totally rock that 3+ mile run at that pace for just getting started! You should be very proud!