Discussion
MC Bodge said:
The point is that people should really be active enough throughout their lives to allow them to run like that. Running is a natural human motion that most have done since childhood.
The fact that so many people think that a 25min 5k is some sort of elite performance indicates that this is not the case
People have different goals in life. Personally I couldn't do 5k in 25 mins, I have zero endurance and go faint, but I haven't willingly run in many years and never do any real cardio.The fact that so many people think that a 25min 5k is some sort of elite performance indicates that this is not the case
That being said, I could out-walk most people in terms of speed and distance and also lift more. Pushing / pulling stuff is a natural human motion, but I don't think everyone should be able to do 10 pull-ups without training.
MC Bodge said:
The point is that people should really be active enough throughout their lives to allow them to run like that. Running is a natural human motion that most have done since childhood.
The fact that so many people think that a 25min 5k is some sort of elite performance indicates that this is not the case.
]
My brother in law has been doing triathlons quite seriously for quite a few years and is now a sub elite triathlete, if that is how it is expressed?The fact that so many people think that a 25min 5k is some sort of elite performance indicates that this is not the case.
]
He says on a very good day he will do it in just under 20mins and over 22mins on a bad day.
(Running in his weakest event but he does quite a lot of it)
So, in my opinion, to suggest that me, a couch potato, should be able to do it in 25mins is quite frankly, farcical !
Shuvi McTupya said:
My brother in law has been doing triathlons quite seriously for quite a few years and is now a sub elite triathlete, if that is how it is expressed?
He says on a very good day he will do it in just under 20mins and over 22mins on a bad day.
(Running in his weakest event but he does quite a lot of it)
So, in my opinion, to suggest that me, a couch potato, should be able to do it in 25mins is quite frankly, farcical !
People seem to be missing the point somewhat.He says on a very good day he will do it in just under 20mins and over 22mins on a bad day.
(Running in his weakest event but he does quite a lot of it)
So, in my opinion, to suggest that me, a couch potato, should be able to do it in 25mins is quite frankly, farcical !
We shouldn't be couch potatoes. We should be in good physical condition.
Of course an inactive, overweight abd unconditioned person can't run, do pullups or carry a man 50m. They probably panic at the thought of walking up a few flights of stairs or would be wrecked by a day of gardening.
Many more people would be capable of doing what I suggested if they changed their lifestyle a bit and tried hard. It feels good to know that you are fit and capable of things, as well as being better for long term quality of life.
Ps. I did say men to run 5k in 25min, not women. Although I do know mothers in their 40s who can do 25min (most are a bit slower) at their local Park Run.
Pps. Walking briskly will produce a 15min mile. An 8 minute mile is less than twice as quick, it is certainly not fast.
Edited by MC Bodge on Saturday 28th April 18:36
I remember watching a programme with Matthew Pinsent in it where he was pretty slow running around a 5k distance, I don't think he'd be classified as unfit at the time.
The 5k run (as with many other single stats) is not that helpful, we could say a minimum of a 1/4 tonne deadlift or you're not a 'real man', but that would also be a pointless measure (although would make fatties like me feel better).
I hated running when I was fit for rugby, but loved things like repeat 300m or fartlek stuff or shuttle sprints, perhaps a short attention span.
Being active and challenging yourself is more important than picking a certain activity, seriously though, do you even lift bro? (
)
The 5k run (as with many other single stats) is not that helpful, we could say a minimum of a 1/4 tonne deadlift or you're not a 'real man', but that would also be a pointless measure (although would make fatties like me feel better).
I hated running when I was fit for rugby, but loved things like repeat 300m or fartlek stuff or shuttle sprints, perhaps a short attention span.
Being active and challenging yourself is more important than picking a certain activity, seriously though, do you even lift bro? (
)wsurfa said:
I remember watching a programme with Matthew Pinsent in it where he was pretty slow running around a 5k distance, I don't think he'd be classified as unfit at the time.
The 5k run (as with many other single stats) is not that helpful, we could say a minimum of a 1/4 tonne deadlift or you're not a 'real man', but that would also be a pointless measure (although would make fatties like me feel better).
I hated running when I was fit for rugby, but loved things like repeat 300m or fartlek stuff or shuttle sprints, perhaps a short attention span.
Being active and challenging yourself is more important than picking a certain activity, seriously though, do you even lift bro? ( )
I did just pick a few standards off the top of my head. The 5k run (as with many other single stats) is not that helpful, we could say a minimum of a 1/4 tonne deadlift or you're not a 'real man', but that would also be a pointless measure (although would make fatties like me feel better).
I hated running when I was fit for rugby, but loved things like repeat 300m or fartlek stuff or shuttle sprints, perhaps a short attention span.
Being active and challenging yourself is more important than picking a certain activity, seriously though, do you even lift bro? (
)Hoping it might prompt a bit of debate and might even encourage a few people to try them.
It was more about normal people (rather than elite athletes) having a range of conditioning that might indicate cardio vascular capacity, muscular strength and overall health as well as possibly useful capability. You could substitute equivalent swimming or similar.
I am genuinely suprised by the number of people who think a 25min 5k is impressive, though. Sub 20min has always been the benchmark that I'd been told about, so I thought I was being generous with 25
-Maybe all Park Runner men should now aim for 25mins?
Do I even lift? Yes, a bit, but not as an end itself or chasing numbers, bro (it would detract from my other activities).
If we are going down that route:
Being able to deadlift and squat sets of 5 reps of 1.5-2x bodyweight and sets of say 10 reps of say 1.2-1.3x bodyweight demonstrates some "useful" strength/work capacity (although I prefer kettlebells/sandbags/loaded carries/hill sprints and the like) Of course, you could go further, but this takes commitment to the lifting for its own sake and increases risk of joint/back injury.
MC Bodge said:
Being able to deadlift and squat sets of 5 reps of 1.5-2x bodyweight and sets of say 10 reps of say 1.2-1.3x bodyweight demonstrates some "useful" strength/work capacity (although I prefer kettlebells/sandbags/loaded carries/hill sprints and the like) Of course, you could go further, but this takes commitment to the lifting for its own sake and increases risk of joint/back injury.
Upper body strength can be useful in many situations, whereas being able to run far / fast only helps if you're being chased or late for the bus. Running takes just as much commitment and has the same chance of injury if not more so on both counts.Strudul said:
MC Bodge said:
Being able to deadlift and squat sets of 5 reps of 1.5-2x bodyweight and sets of say 10 reps of say 1.2-1.3x bodyweight demonstrates some "useful" strength/work capacity (although I prefer kettlebells/sandbags/loaded carries/hill sprints and the like) Of course, you could go further, but this takes commitment to the lifting for its own sake and increases risk of joint/back injury.
Upper body strength can be useful in many situations, whereas being able to run far / fast only helps if you're being chased or late for the bus. Running takes just as much commitment and has the same chance of injury if not more so on both counts.I also mentioned proper pullups and pressups. Personally, I like things like rows burpees and getups too.
Upper body strength on its own isn't really that useful, although pumped up biceps seem to be the thing for young lads to attract a mate with.
5k is a good distance because it does not require massive commitment to achieve something like 25min. Or 30 min if we are being more lenient
-running injuries often result from poor form/mobility or compounding existing injuries.Edited by MC Bodge on Saturday 28th April 21:26
Always liked the 1000lb combined weight for the bench, deadlift and squat as a reasonably achievable but good measure of strength.
Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
ChocolateFrog said:
Always liked the 1000lb combined weight for the bench, deadlift and squat as a reasonably achievable but good measure of strength.
Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
Not a good level of fitness. Ive seen guys deadlift massive amounts, unfortunately they're often sporting a lifting belt with their massive bellies hanging over it, then looking around the gym after grunting obnoxiously loudly to see who was admiring them (spoiler: no one)Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
Much healthier to eat a balanced diet, be between 9-13% bodyfat and can comfortably manipulate your own bodyweight for reps.
Hence why I said BMI is dumb, NHS should advocate bf% and find cheaper ways for people to measure it.
EazyDuz said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Always liked the 1000lb combined weight for the bench, deadlift and squat as a reasonably achievable but good measure of strength.
Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
Not a good level of fitness. Ive seen guys deadlift massive amounts, unfortunately they're often sporting a lifting belt with their massive bellies hanging over it, then looking around the gym after grunting obnoxiously loudly to see who was admiring them (spoiler: no one)Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
Much healthier to eat a balanced diet, be between 9-13% bodyfat and can comfortably manipulate your own bodyweight for reps.
Hence why I said BMI is dumb, NHS should advocate bf% and find cheaper ways for people to measure it.
EazyDuz said:
Not a good level of fitness. Ive seen guys deadlift massive amounts, unfortunately they're often sporting a lifting belt with their massive bellies hanging over it, then looking around the gym after grunting obnoxiously loudly to see who was admiring them (spoiler: no one)
Much healthier to eat a balanced diet, be between 9-13% bodyfat and can comfortably manipulate your own bodyweight for reps.
Hence why I said BMI is dumb, NHS should advocate bf% and find cheaper ways for people to measure it.
Waist to height ratio is the best way to easily measure visceral fat.Much healthier to eat a balanced diet, be between 9-13% bodyfat and can comfortably manipulate your own bodyweight for reps.
Hence why I said BMI is dumb, NHS should advocate bf% and find cheaper ways for people to measure it.
zygalski said:
Waist to height ratio is the best way to easily measure visceral fat.
Disagree, posture and bone structure can throw that off. Bodyfat % is the same guideline for everyone. Whether you have 100lb more muscle than someone else, if you're both 20% bodyfat you're both fat. EazyDuz said:
Disagree, posture and bone structure can throw that off. Bodyfat % is the same guideline for everyone. Whether you have 100lb more muscle than someone else, if you're both 20% bodyfat you're both fat.
That's not strictly true. Healthy women have a higher body fat percentage than men. 15-20% body fat is considered athletic for women.ChocolateFrog said:
Always liked the 1000lb combined weight for the bench, deadlift and squat as a reasonably achievable but good measure of strength.
Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
1000 lb combined is a reasonably achievable measure of strength!!!!Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
1000 lb
Honestly that is the sort of figure less than 1% of people would get near.
1000lb !!!!! Ha ha you need to look at people, even regular gym goers are not going to get to that.
Powerfully built company directors would barely squat, bench and deadlift 400lb.
Thankyou4calling said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Always liked the 1000lb combined weight for the bench, deadlift and squat as a reasonably achievable but good measure of strength.
Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
1000 lb combined is a reasonably achievable measure of strength!!!!Doesn't account for bodyweight so a bit tougher if you're 50kg wet through.
The other one is 1.5, 2 and 2.5 x bodyweight for bench, squat and deadlift respectively.
1000 lb
Honestly that is the sort of figure less than 1% of people would get near.
1000lb !!!!! Ha ha you need to look at people, even regular gym goers are not going to get to that.
Powerfully built company directors would barely squat, bench and deadlift 400lb.
You're not gonna wake up tomorrow and crack that out, but I assume "reasonably achievable" infers most people could achieve it after a few years if they went to the gym regularly (maybe 3 days a week).
I'd agree less than 1% of people will get near it, but that doesn't mean they couldn't.
Thankyou4calling said:
1000 lb combined is a reasonably achievable measure of strength!!!!
1000 lb
Honestly that is the sort of figure less than 1% of people would get near.
1000lb !!!!! Ha ha you need to look at people, even regular gym goers are not going to get to that.
Powerfully built company directors would barely squat, bench and deadlift 400lb.
A regular gym goer wouldn’t barely manage 400lb, they’d easily surpass that even if they didn’t get to 1000lb. A non lifter could probably do 400lb combined. 1000 lb
Honestly that is the sort of figure less than 1% of people would get near.
1000lb !!!!! Ha ha you need to look at people, even regular gym goers are not going to get to that.
Powerfully built company directors would barely squat, bench and deadlift 400lb.
I found this book quite inspiring
Natural Born Heroes: The Lost Secrets of Strength and Endurance https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/178125012X/ref=cm_sw_r...
Natural Born Heroes: The Lost Secrets of Strength and Endurance https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/178125012X/ref=cm_sw_r...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff