From the beginning of time (or at least since noon today), man (ok, just me) has wrestled with the question: Are 10-minute miles harder than 12-minute miles? Field testing today (although actually no field was involved) brings me to the conclusion: Yes. (for the love of God, please stop using parentheses. Thank you.)
I reasoned today that running faster would allow me to cover the same distance in a shorter period of time. Yes, those two statistical analysis classes from college are paying off. Plus, 10-minute pace is easier to do the math on than 12-minute miles. I never made it to the X 12 part of the multiplication tables in my misguided youth in the ’60s, rightfully assuming that calculators would be invented somewhere along the way. Yes, I am a prophet.
I set off to see how far I could get at a 10-minute pace.
The answer: A mile and a half. Then down to 12-minute pace for the duration. I tried to take HR on the TM at the peak, but it would not give me a reading for fear of possible legal repercussions. Those gym guys are more clever than they look. (insert joke here.)
But all in all, not bad. Didn’t fall off the back, didn’t barf on m, didn’t have a heart attack. I hope to continue extending it out till I can cover the entire three miles at 10-minute pace.
Then it’s on to my “is it really any harder to run a marathon at 4:45 pace” experiment. Here’s hoping the smart gym guys know cpr …
3 miles, tm, 1:30 p.m. (70)
10:00, 11:00, 12:00