35:53, 13:03, and 4.6

UPDATE 9/17: I'm not going to redo all the statistical calculations in this post, but I wanted to mention that I managed to shave another 4 seconds off my time, so it's down to 35:49 now. If I could somehow lose another 4 seconds then I'd be at exactly 13 minutes/mile for the course. That's really the only minor improvement goal I have left now as I don't see how any other significant threshold for any component of the time calculations is feasible for me.
_____________________

This summer I've been striving to walk "around the block" most evenings if possible (or at least more evenings than not). I try to set as fast a pace as possible yet still keep it strictly as a walk, not a jog.

My local "block" (not really a block per se) happens to be 2.75 miles as I measured it by car odometer once. I'm sure that's not perfectly precise, but it's as good as I could do and accurate enough for my purposes.

At first I struggled to try to maintain a 41/42-minute pace and often couldn't do it. Gradually, I've gotten better. Now I struggle while trying for a 36-minute pace. Today I jumped that time hurdle for the first time, posting a 35:53. (It was actually the first time I did the walk circuit since 5 days ago due mostly, though not entirely, to rain or threatening rain for several of those days.)

I still can't really figure out why sometimes I may do really well and other times I may struggle for a pace that's still 30 seconds to a minute off my best. I guess some nights you just have a little something extra in the tank for no discernible reason. Chalk it up to bio-rhythms? Sometimes it seems as if taking a couple days off really helps to freshen the legs, but there have also been times when I set new best times on consecutive evenings.

I've reached the point where it's getting much harder to set new personal bests and when I do I find the margin of improvement is getting less and less. I doubt I'll ever be able to shave much off this current best time without resorting to at least short bursts of jogging, but honestly I'm pretty sure jogging is not for me. I'm of the opinion that walking fast (AFAP!) is every bit as beneficial as jogging, yet without subjecting the body (especially the feet and knees) to much more intensive wear and tear from (literally) pounding the pavement.

I probably won't continue the walks long term (or at least as regularly) as Fall and Winter loom, but for now I'm at least semi-proud of myself for having stuck with the routine this far and setting paces that I never dreamed I'd be capable of achieving. I'll also admit the route has become somewhat monotonous, seeing the same scenery every time, but that can't really be helped.

Just for kicks I did some simple math...

35:53 = 2153 seconds,
2.75 miles / 2153 seconds = .001277287 miles per second, and
.001277287 miles per sec x 3600 secs per hour = 4.598235021 miles per hour.

(For those with metric brains the 2.75 mile "block" becomes 4.42569 kilometers and the calculation then yields 7.400131909 kilometers per hour.)

More or less. Let's just call it 4.6 mph (7.4 kph). Looking at it another way, my new best pace works out to 13:03 per mile (8:06.5 per kilometer).

Of course, the one minor glitch in that mph (kph) calculation is that I'm quite sure I couldn't actually keep that pace up for the full hour. I'm going all out just to finish the known course right back where I started. Not that I'm collapsing exhausted at the finish or anything like that, but another 23, 24 minutes of that pace would just be extremely difficult to maintain. Besides, I'm not going to get super-fanatical about this walking thing. My current course and times are sufficient exercise in my opinion.

I'll admit it has gotten a little bit monotonous seeing the same sights every time I walk. I have some mental 10-minute guideposts to judge my pace by so I have some idea if I'm close to my best pace or not. If I am, the thought can spur me to keep going or even to try to step it up that much more. If not, well, then I still try to keep a decent pace, but I don't worry if I'm a little off and I can sort of "relax" a bit.

While walking I wear a headset radio and try to find some decent walking music. I often end up listening to my local oldies station. If I can find some decent up-tempo tunes being played it helps with the pace. I also carry some water with me in case I feel the need for some hydration, but with the temps cooling significantly that may not be as necessary (though I'm somewhat accustomed to carrying it now).

I was curious to get an idea how my pace may compare with competitive walkers. This page on racewalking provides the 2009 records for comparison...

DISTANCE       MEN'S TIME   MEN'S PACE   WOMEN'S TIME   WOMEN'S PACE
5000m (3.11M)    18:07.08   3:37 (5:50)    21:11.90     4:14 (6:49)
10000m (6.22M)   37:53.09   3:47 (6:06)    41:56.23     4:12 (6:45)
20K (12.43M)   1:17:26.xx   3:52 (6:13)  1:25:41.xx     4:17 (6:54)
50K (31.07M)   3:34:14.xx   4:17 (6:54)      n/a           n/a

All stats are based on meters or kilometers (with miles-based numbers in parentheses). Pace times are of course minutes:seconds per meter (mile).

So based on the 5000m (3.11M) times the top men's walker could do my 2.75 mile route in just over 16 minutes and the top women's walker in 18 minutes, 45 seconds. That'd be just a hair under 10.3 mph for the men and a bit over 8.8 mph for the women. Wow!

Some of the other pages at that linked site were of interest to me as well including one on "looking funny", one on "Why Not Just Run?", and this one discussing "Efficiency" (walking vs. running).

I also like that that site doesn't seem to make too much of a point of taking sides in the walking vs. running debate (even though obviously it is promoting and providing information about walking). Mostly they just tend to say do whatever works best for you, but here are some reasons why fast walking is good for you and may even be a preferable method of exercise given certain circumstances and conditions.