posted
So a friend of mine is trying to join the Air Force as an officer, and one of the requirements is to run 1.5 miles in 12.5 minutes. He says he can almost do it. I would be pleased if I could do this test, although I have no ambition to become an officer. Yesterday I ran 1.35 miles in 12.5 minutes. (On a treadmill.) Need to improve by 11 percent. Grr.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i dont know your current fitness level or your training regime but you could easily attain your goal in 2-3 weeks with just moderate training. you were 240 meters short of the goal, roughly 19 meters per minute. ideally, you should be doing such a test on a track as its the most accurate. if this is the case i recommend using a repeating countdown timer (a common function on most stop watches) and breaking the distance into 200 meter sections. give yourself 1 minute for every 200 meters and when the timer goes off you will see where youre at and you will know if you need to speed up, keep steady or slow down. 1min/200m is good because it gives you a 30sec buffer on your overall time. its also likely youre running too fast the first 600 meters and too slow between 1200 and 2000 meters. usually its mental focus thats required to overcome such tendencies.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll agree with cap that pacing has a lot to do with running times. Just a little better pacing can greatly improve an overall time. But given that KoM ran on a treadmill, I imagine the pacing was actually pretty consistent.
edit - so all I'm really saying is that while KoM can definitely reach that benchmark with just a little bit of work, two weeks might be a bit short.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does treadmill running compare to track running? Is one less strenuous than the other? I can imagine that a treadmill forces you to run at a more constant pace, but I'm not sure whether I think this would translate to more apparent endurance or less.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah. treadmills are usually pretty consistent. i dont know how i missed that..
my estimate of 2-3 weeks is based on the current performance level and relatively short distance of 2400 meters. for a runner who averages 8min/mile pace, an 11% increase in 14-21 days is reasonable with proper training. the same cant be said for a 6min/mile runner or for someone wishing to run more than 5K, for example. still i find myself agreeing with you. i have to acknowledge the fact that im not looking at this from the view of a casual runner.
the best advice i could give is try regular training and avoid the treadmill. after 10 minutes on a treadmill im tired and bored. everything i love about running cant be experienced on a treadmill.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amazing what the fear of God would put into you.
In the Navy, I knew quite a few people who couldn't run the 1.5 miles under 12.5 minutes. But with the threat of mandatory extra "PT" training (or losing rank, or stop loss) over their head, almost anyone can do it in time.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the Navy, I knew quite a few people who couldn't run the 1.5 miles under 12.5 minutes. But with the threat of mandatory extra "PT" training (or losing rank, or stop loss) over their head, almost anyone can do it in time.
posted
About 7 months ago I joined the Air Force and couldn't quite make the time. A week or 2 into basic I was doing it just fine, and now last week I ran it in 9 minutes or so. The jump was really sudden though...it really just depends on how much you're willing to push yourself.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
At that pace, you may need to put the treadmill on a 1-1.5% incline to more closely simulate the track.
Mills are great for pacing, though.
Also, keep at it--the first minute (or few minutes, if you're particularly slow) aren't too difficult to shave off from your time. You can probably do it within a few weeks, at most.
It should be noted, though, that we expect beyond the bare minimum for officers in the military. Yes, there are some fat bodies out there, but they're not the norm. For the early-to-mid twenties age group, about a 14:00/2mi. is somewhat respectable in the Army. We shoot for 13. I don't know how the Air Force compares, but I'd imagine they have similarly high expectations. You don't want to be the officer who falls out from his own unit run.
Still, you're better than most.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At that pace, you may need to put the treadmill on a 1-1.5% incline to more closely simulate the track.
I had it at 1%.
quote:For the early-to-mid twenties age group, about a 14:00/2mi. is somewhat respectable in the Army.
I'm 31. In any case I have no ambition to be a US officer; I just want to tell my friend I could pass the test. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm an Air Force Officer in the Canadian Forces and we do the beep test instead of the 1.5 mile run. But the level you have to run to to pass the test is very low, so most people pass. I think this would be a tougher test. Can you still go to Basic training if you don't pass the run? And they'll give you some additional training there?
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
How difficult it will be for you to get that 11% improvement depends a great deal on what kind of training you have been doing up to know.
If you haven't been running regularly and aren't in particularly good shape, then I would anticipated it would be fairly easy to get that 11% improvement by starting a regular training program.
If on the other hand, you are in great shape and have been running regularly for sometime, getting an additional 11% is go to require some hard work and fairly specific training to improve your speed.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So today wasn't so good. I strained a muscle around the eight minute mark, and had to stop. Should have warmed up a bit more.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't be too disappointed if you don't see any progress for a week or two. You might even seem to notice negative progress. It takes time for your body to recover and rebuild muscle, and it takes time to build endurance. Keep at it, and you'll notice improvement.
When I've taken a break from running, I usually feel great on my first week back. The second week is horrendous, and the third week can be difficult, too. After that, I start to feel better. Those two weeks of agony are a good motivator for me to keep up the workout routine year-round.
I hope the muscle pull isn't too bad.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
wings, you can get into Basic with any score, but you can't leave Basic until you can pass the run. I am really, really slow......always have been, running.
My best run time, 17 years ago when I was a medic in the US Army, was a 14:35 for 2 miles. I could ace the push ups, and the sit ups were never hard for me, but I always just barely passed the run.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but why should I do any work when there's perfectly good women around to do it for me? Now get me a beer.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
i dont know how i missed that..![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
