Are you fitter than the average guy? (article)

[HFWR]

How to Check for Heart Disease | Men's Health News

Quote:

The Cooper 12-minute Run Test is a reliable measure of your cardiovascular fitness. All you need is a stopwatch and a track.

Since I stopped jogging a number of years ago, I'm not sure what my distance would be, but may try it for kicks. Hopefully won't stroke out...

[ERD50]

If I admit that I am not, can I just skip the test?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that table does not make sense to me. Take the 70-79 for a more extreme example. First I'm sure some % of men that age couldn't even get through a 5 minute warm-up. And then they say that 99% could run flat out and cover .82 miles? OK, I guess that would be a fast walk on average (~ 4 mph?) - but c'mon, I would think that 1% could not walk .8 miles in 12 minutes, heck, probably about that many are in walkers or wheelchairs.

Or take the 20-29 age group. The bottom 1% can run half the distance of the top 1%? There has to be a wider distribution than that. Jocks versus geeks?

-ERD50

[rbmrtn]

Does that seem right... "run as fast and as far as you can for 12 minutes ". That's like running a 100yd dash for 12 minutes... I don't think anyone can do that, most running backs are shot after a long run down field.

I do several miles with the lawn mower... I wonder if that counts

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 If I admit that I am not, can I just skip the test? Maybe I'm missing something, but that table does not make sense to me. Take the 70-79 for a more extreme example. First I'm sure some % of men that age couldn't even get through a 5 minute warm-up. And then they say that 99% could run flat out and cover .82 miles? OK, I guess that would be a fast walk on average (~ 4 mph?) - but c'mon, I would think that 1% could not walk .8 miles in 12 minutes, heck, probably about that many are in walkers or wheelchairs. Or take the 20-29 age group. The bottom 1% can run half the distance of the top 1%? There has to be a wider distribution than that. Jocks versus geeks? -ERD50

Yeah, not sure what tests or data they used to develop those percentiles. When I ran regularly, I did 3-4 miles three days a week, averaging around an eight minute mile, or 1.5 miles in 12 minutes. Never tried to run just a mile for time, which is entirely different from running a 5k or 10K distance...

Being able to run for twelve minutes is likely more than most men could do without a "base".

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbmrtn Does that seem right... "run as fast and as far as you can for 12 minutes ". That's like running a 100yd dash for 12 minutes... I don't think anyone can do that, most running backs are shot after a long run down field. I do several miles with the lawn mower... I wonder if that counts

I didn't really get that either, but I take it to mean 'run as fast as you can at each point during the entire 12 minutes'. So the first 100 yards would be like a dash - very fast for anyone in decent shape. Then you would slow down a bit for the next length, because you can't keep up that pace. You would just keep slowing, and slowing as you go. I would think that even fit men would be down to a jog or a walk by the end of 12 minutes, if they really ran flat out for as long as they could for the previous 11 minutes.

That would be different from 'pace yourself to cover the most distance in 12 minutes'.

-ERD50

[Lsbcal]

The article was not clear on the pace but I'd interpret this as meaning to run at an even pace (but the fastest you can do this) over the 12 minute period. You want to measure the aerobic threshold not the anaerobic threshold.

I'm detecting some denial in a few of the posts here.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lsbcal I'm detecting some denial in a few of the posts here.

That's an understatement...

Reminds me of the Steve Martin lyric Criticize things you don't know about

[GSMAN]

Running for 12 minutes would give me a heart attack! No study/analysis need for that.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lsbcal The article was not clear on the pace but I'd interpret this as meaning to run at an even pace (but the fastest you can do this) over the 12 minute period. You want to measure the aerobic threshold not the anaerobic threshold. I'm detecting some denial in a few of the posts here.

Denial? Under either definition, do you really think there is a less than 2:1 difference in what the top 1% and the bottom 1% in any age group can achieve? I find that hard to accept, and I suspect there was a typical level of what passes as 'journalism' in this article.

Picture 1000 guys in the 20-29 age group. I'd bet that the top 10 of 1000 would be really fit - a mix of gym rats, military, police, fire, construction, athletes, marathon-runner types that are required to be, or choose to be physically fit.

And the bottom 10? Some 98 pound weaklings, desk job types, guys that just don't do anything physical - heck, they don't even distinguish for people with actual physical handicaps - they just say "age group". I bet most of those bottom 10/1000 would have trouble running for 12 minutes period.

-ERD50

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Denial? Under either definition, do you really think there is a less than 2:1 difference in what the top 1% and the bottom 1% in any age group can achieve? I find that hard to accept, and I suspect there was a typical level of what passes as 'journalism' in this article.

Since you're criticizing the author, by chance do you have a better study, or better data of your own...that might be worthwhile here?

[rescueme]

I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm good once as I ever was ...

I'm former military so once in my life I met the "standard"...

At my age (less than two months short of age 65) I can still drink all night, dance with the "young things" (girls, that is) till I pass out, and still make love to/with my DW (before I pass out, of course).

Heck, at my age that's all that counts, IMHO.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 If I admit that I am not, can I just skip the test? Maybe I'm missing something, but that table does not make sense to me. Take the 70-79 for a more extreme example. First I'm sure some % of men that age couldn't even get through a 5 minute warm-up. And then they say that 99% could run flat out and cover .82 miles? OK, I guess that would be a fast walk on average (~ 4 mph?) - but c'mon, I would think that 1% could not walk .8 miles in 12 minutes, heck, probably about that many are in walkers or wheelchairs.

Also, in any age group, think of all the morbidly obese folks - - some are over 400-500 pounds, and they aren't that rare any more (check out the clientele at Wal-Mart, for example, and those are the ones who can handle shopping at Wally World). I seriously doubt that someone who is carrying that much extra weight is going to be able to run for 12 minutes.

Seems to me that the main value of the article is not as a well designed scientific/statistical analysis, but just motivational. Maybe if someone reads the article he will work on his running capabilities.

[braumeister]

The Cooper 12-minute test goes back over 40 years. It was originally based on Air Force personnel under the age of 30, and a few years later re-normed for more decrepit mature age groups, but still only normed for ages up to 52. The table in the OP is apparently a much later extrapolation.

[Lsbcal]

The article was about how to test your conditioning using running. If you are not a runner then that's OK. IMO one should be able to at least walk 12 minutes around a track at a very brisk pace.

There is an excellent resource to check out equivalence of various exercises: walking, cycling, swimming, running, stationary bike, etc. and it's here:
Aerobics Program For Total Well-Being: Exercise, Diet, And Emotional Balance: Kenneth H. Cooper: 9780553346770: Amazon.com: Books

The books is a good way to consider how to approach exercising if that's what you want. Note it's by Cooper, the aerobics guy whose data is apparently used in the article. I doubt he suggests someone who is not a runner go out and run 12 minutes at a track.

From chapter 7 of the Cooper book:
step 1: Have a thorough medical exam with a properly administered stress test before you begin your exercise program

step 2: Determine your "target heart rate"

step 3: Choose a basic aerobic exercise

step 4: Embark on a regular aerobics program

[razztazz]

It has not only been seen in studies but anyone who has lived in this world any amount of time has observed that "fitness" as indicated by "exercise output" does not equal "health".

Dr Henry Solomon: The exercise myth | ENCOGNITIVE.COM

His book is The Exercise Myth. He has enormous cred. I believe this is the guy who at one time, set a record for fastest mile for a man over 50. As they used to say back in the 70s when jogging was already being debunked "Exercise won't add years to your life but it can add life to your years." If it makes you feel better do it but don't think you're acquiring some sort of invulnerability or "Mortality Brownie Points". And not exercising is not a sign or cause of future bad health. Eat, drink, do some push-ups, and be merry

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lsbcal The article was not clear on the pace but I'd interpret this as meaning to run at an even pace (but the fastest you can do this) over the 12 minute period. You want to measure the aerobic threshold not the anaerobic threshold.

Yes, clearly you need to read the entire statement and not just "run as fast as you can". Really all they needed to say is "run as far as you can in 12 minutes".

I haven't specifically tried a 12 minute run, but taking my best 5K time from 2 years ago, a few days before I turned 49, the McMillan running time conversion calculator puts me at 12:30 for 2 miles, which would be 1.91 or 1.92 miles in 12 minutes. I'm still not fully recovered from knee surgery but I think I will get back to 1.8 next year.

I googled the Cooper 12 minute run test and it is a test of aerobic fitness, not overall fitness as the article claims.

I know some marathoners who run even more than I do, that couldn't cover as much distance. And some who run less who could do more. Some people just have more natural speed and endurance.

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R Seems to me that the main value of the article is not as a well designed scientific/statistical analysis, but just motivational. Maybe if someone reads the article he will work on his running capabilities.

I agree with that too. I don't really see why anyone would do this test on their own, unless they were setting out on an aerobic exercise program and wanted to measure progress. If you wanted to do this for medical purposes, you should probably go do a cardiac stress test so they can see what's really going on.

Plus, it does seem kind of dangerous for an unfit person to do this. If you do what they say, you should really be pushing hard by the end, and this could cause a heart attack. A friend of mine actually had a heart attack during a cardiac stress test, and she said there was no better place for it, because they were right on top of it like you see on any medical TV drama. Assuming your heart does ok, you will almost certainly be very, very sore afterward. At the very least, train for at least a month with jogging and power walking before trying this.

[Lsbcal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum ...(snip)... I know some marathoners who run even more than I do, that couldn't cover as much distance. And some who run less who could do more. Some people just have more natural speed and endurance.

I've never run a marathon but would be classified as in peak physical shape. But I've been running since high school.

There are plenty of ways to get in decent physical shape and there are plenty of threads on this subject. When I can't run I'll walk a lot. I've already started doing some of that between running days. You see a lot more nature when walking -- a side benefit. Also can bring binoculars and do some bird watching.

[eytonxav]

Seems to me this is a limited definition of one's fitness, as how fit your are is not just a function of how far you can run over a 12 minute period. For example:

How fast can sprint 100 yds?
Can you climb a 20 ft rope?
Can you bench your own weight?
Can you jump a track hurdle?
How about agility (football tire drill)?

I haven't run any distances in a few years, but I suppose I would end up in the good category if I tried, but that alone would not make me feel good about myself.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz It has not only been seen in studies but anyone who has lived in this world any amount of time has observed that "fitness" as indicated by "exercise output" does not equal "health". Dr Henry Solomon: The exercise myth | ENCOGNITIVE.COM His book is The Exercise Myth. He has enormous cred. I believe this is the guy who at one time, set a record for fastest mile for a man over 50. As they used to say back in the 70s when jogging was already being debunked "Exercise won't add years to your life but it can add life to your years." If it makes you feel better do it but don't think you're acquiring some sort of invulnerability or "Mortality Brownie Points". And not exercising is not a sign or cause of future bad health. Eat, drink, do some push-ups, and be merry

There is plenty of evidence showing that overtraining can indeed harm your health, Dr Solomon and others among them. Jim Fixx was a famous example when Solomon wrote his book. Some people become obsessive about exercise, and/or assume that more (and more) exercise is better. Where that threshold is subject to some debate (Solomon says it's anything beyond a brisk walk IIRC), but the overwhelming weight of the evidence is on the side of moderate, sensible regular exercise improving quality of life, cardiac health, longevity, etc. - vs being being sedentary or overtraining.