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.
> 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 :)
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.
Same opinion. There are so many wrong things with how the data is used.
For starters, the data is biased because the basal metabolic rate of someone who does sports is higher than someone who doesn't, and that's without taking into account the higher metabolic rate of people who are overweight/obese (albeit for different reasons), and even for people who are fit, runners are trained to be more efficient at running (duh).
But the underlying message isn't really all that insightful: the optimal running pace isn't the slowest nor the fastest, but somewhere in the middle, which is pretty obvious to anyone who's done some running.
It's true for most machines (as in, energy conversion).
The main exception would be heating, and even then, it's usually that the optimum performance is just really close to the top performance; e.g. imperfect combustion of more fuel being less efficient than perfect combustion of less.
I don't see why that means there's anything off. Just because most of us can't produce enough energy per unit time to maintain this pace doesn't mean that it's not the most efficient pace per unit distance.
Anecdotally, when I start (or re-start) running I find the pace I can run at increases quite rapidly. That makes sense with this data - although my fitness is only increasing slowly, being able to produce slightly more power actually gives a disproportionate increase in pace because the higher speed is more efficient per km.
As a 17 year old I got there by running an hour three times a week, maybe I just had the body for it low weight and long legs. You will be top 25% in our local 10 km competition[1]. The track is considered perfect for running in a fast pace, people compete to get a good PB.
I was curious so I looked it up, it turns out that the men’s world record for a mile is 3 minutes and 43 seconds, the women’s is 4 minutes and 7 seconds. These are the very best in the world at their prime. I would conjecture that less than 50% of adults in an industrial society would be able to run a 7 min mile, which is less than twice the world record times.
Lots of missing variables in the equation: how much do you carry, how much of your body weight is useful muscle versus the rest, etc...
I suspect the announced most-efficient run speed is for the most efficient (light) runner.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was quite generalizable. The lost efficiency has to be from the increased vertical travel required from running (followed by the additional stabilization required), I wouldn’t be surprised if the most efficient ratio of vertical to forward travel was very similar for a wide range of weights.
I’d be more interested in how they collected the data. A skilled and fit runner will run a lot more efficiently than a less skilled and less fit runner, and you’d also expect a skilled/fit runner to run faster than a less skilled/fit runner. So depending on how they collected the data, that could be a big confounder.
