They are probably breaking 40 mins for 10k though
They are probably breaking 40 mins for 10k though
You're giving ultra runners way too much credit. An 'elite level' ultra runner is basically just a hobby jogger who moved up distance because there was too much competition as shorter distances, The reason these stunt runners can break these records is because the current record holders are just slow, less talented runners like them. It's not like they are out there breaking 27 for the 10K. These are cheap "records."
You are right Don Ritchies 100k in 6:10:20h is slow.
That's why it got never beaten since 1978.
https://ultrarunning.com/featured/ultrarunning-magazine-all-time-lists/http://amarillo.com/stories/020300/spo_126-2589.001.shtml#.WYSU5VGQypoThere used to be great Brits wrote:
You're giving ultra runners way too much credit. An 'elite level' ultra runner is basically just a hobby jogger who moved up distance because there was too much competition as shorter distances, The reason these stunt runners can break these records is because the current record holders are just slow, less talented runners like them. It's not like they are out there breaking 27 for the 10K. These are cheap "records."
You are right Don Ritchies 100k in 6:10:20h is slow.
That's why it got never beaten since 1978.
https://ultrarunning.com/featured/ultrarunning-magazine-all-time-lists/http://amarillo.com/stories/020300/spo_126-2589.001.shtml#.WYSU5VGQypo
Did he post his Garmin data?
keep it on the mill wrote:
this interview was not long after Amy 'broke' the record. A few interesting points:
1) the treadmill reset itself after a certain amount of time.
2) Amy had only 1 shower in the week.
3) on the first day she was well behind schedule - I'm guessing that perhaps she managed 60 instead of the 75 average she needed.
4) She had bad blisters after day 1 (just like someone else).
5) On day 2 she had a row with Dave who wanted to pull her out. She ran for 20 hours that day.
6) She was still behind with a couple of days to go and Dave was constantly telling her she had to up the pace.
7) She managed to pop a few 'quick' 10K's to get back on track.
8) She got so far ahead that she could afford a nap and take it easy the last 4 hours or so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbQmEiQAFRU
There you have it. Pop a fast couple 10ks and you make up 30-40 miles?
Here's a common core math problem.
After running 60 miles on day one, if Amy were to increase her 10k Splits from 60 min to 50 min, how many 10ks would she need to run at that pace to make up and surpass her average of 75 miles per day?
Jjcfhbf wrote:
Why is anyone even weighing her if they are going to allow her to continue after losing so much weight? If she started at 130 pounds then she lost over 20% of her body weight.
Let's see......
If she lost 28 pounds of fat at 3500 calories per pound, that is 98000 calories.
A 130 pound person burns about 51000 calories on a 521 mile run.
Assuming NO food intake during the run, she burned almost twice the calories required for the fake run.
Cheaters have no concept for simple math or logic.
UltraListTracking wrote:
Jjcfhbf wrote:Why is anyone even weighing her if they are going to allow her to continue after losing so much weight? If she started at 130 pounds then she lost over 20% of her body weight.
Let's see......
If she lost 28 pounds of fat at 3500 calories per pound, that is 98000 calories.
A 130 pound person burns about 51000 calories on a 521 mile run.
Assuming NO food intake during the run, she burned almost twice the calories required for the fake run.
Cheaters have no concept for simple math or logic.
Probably didn't lose weight through hydration either. You calcs are spot on. You sleuths are geniuses.
Wizardlee wrote:
UltraListTracking wrote:Let's see......
If she lost 28 pounds of fat at 3500 calories per pound, that is 98000 calories.
A 130 pound person burns about 51000 calories on a 521 mile run.
Assuming NO food intake during the run, she burned almost twice the calories required for the fake run.
Cheaters have no concept for simple math or logic.
Probably didn't lose weight through hydration either. You calcs are spot on. You sleuths are geniuses.
If she lost 28lbs of water weight she'd be dead from dehydration.
Question, How much water weight can one lose before being forced to stop? 10lbs? 12lbs? If so, and the rest was muscle and fat loss, the point still stands.
Boxers can lose 14 pounds, sometimes slightly more overnight.
That's with a concerted effort, sweat suits etc
I'll do one better: If I was running an event like this, I'd have photos of:
1) Me at meals with carbs galore
2) Pictures of me drinking some energy drink (who would double as a great sponsor)
3) Me looking ragged at the end of the day.
4) Me passed out in pain.
5) My gross feet after each day's run.
6) The slow disintegration of my running shoes after all those miles. (sidenote: if this was done with just one pair of shoes, I'd have a video of me trying to return them to the store saying "yeah, I tried them for a week and they didn't hold up..." because that would be fun.)
7) Photos of me distributing stuff I bought with your contributions.
I never respond to these threads, I just generally read them with wonderment.
While reading through this particular one, I couldn't help but think what a relatively easy "stunt run". Early on in the thread I broke out my trusty excel sheet - I figured that 520 miles over 7 days would require ~20 min pace if you just constantly moved, no stopping whatsoever. It would require ~16 min pace if you went for 20 hours.
Since this is still going, I decided to conceive of a 24 hour period on how I best could attack this if I just decided to do it today (not pretending that I could do it, just what I think would be optimal). Let me just take this moment to admit I underestimated just what it would take to complete this.
I built it out that with just over 18.5 hours of moving a day, I could cover 75 miles by running 5 10ks at 7 minute pace, with a 3 hour walk at 20 minute pace for 9 miles after each one. That is 5 10ks and 5 9 mile walks, running at 7 minute pace, walking at 20 minute pace. This actually gets you to 76 miles. Of course, doing more running would allow you to cover more quicker, but this just seemed like a decent breakdown.
What I was most amazed by is that I would need to run 35 10ks in 7 days and that is with more walking than running to make up the distance. Is this possible? Sure as heck it is possible with dedication and preparation, the proper body type to not get injured, proper fuel intake, and a strong mental toughness. But this is still a ridiculously daunting task and I'm a former 14 minute 5k guy that has kept general running fitness and can still hammer out 16 and change 5ks today.
For the record: I don't think she did it.
1 2 3 Green wrote:
Wizardlee wrote:Probably didn't lose weight through hydration either. You calcs are spot on. You sleuths are geniuses.
If she lost 28lbs of water weight she'd be dead from dehydration.
Question, How much water weight can one lose before being forced to stop? 10lbs? 12lbs? If so, and the rest was muscle and fat loss, the point still stands.
I lost 12 pounds on a long run once.
Was that water, fat, muscle,..?
Think about it geniuses.
Incredible wrote:
I lost 12 pounds on a long run once.
Was that water, fat, muscle,..?
Think about it geniuses.
If true (which I doubt) it would have been water, glycogen and a small amount of fat. Thing is once you ate and drank you would quickly return to your pre-run weight.
Long winded Dave Keighley wrote:
I understand other people have been caught in last 12 months, ( one I called out way before you geniuses but I am not an ultra runner so don't get listened too!! But to compare Amy to them takes some sort of person.
Any body have an idea who Dave Keighley claimed to have called out? I've never seen him post anywhere. Is this like when Rob Young called out Mark Vaz on his LeJog? No honor amongst cheats?
Seems like Dave Keighley likes to claim a lot of hot air.
Dave Keighley's Long Rant wrote:
[quote] Long winded Dave Keighley wrote:
I understand other people have been caught in last 12 months, ( one I called out way before you geniuses but I am not an ultra runner so don't get listened too!! But to compare Amy to them takes some sort of person.
It takes a person who has a clue about multiday ultrarunning to see right through Amy's little World Record stunt.
I wonder if Dave and Amy did some google searching before their record attempt. At least they didn't read the GWR rule book, that's for sure.
Y'all forgetting one thing, it was for charity, y'know, that charity they created and administer, the one that for every £5 donated £3 of it goes in 'administrative' costs.
Yep, the old "but it's for charity" that Young, Reading's, etc used, although Terrie's really pissed off she didn't think of the create your charity angle.
I think it is pretty obvious why Amy Hughes and Dave Keighley are both so dead set that they got the world records. All of Amy Hughes many personal sponsorships are based on her being a world record holder. Without those world record claims, she would not have got close to anywhere near the number she got in the past and present (and she looks to have a lot of personal sponsors). Take a read through this April 2015 Daily Mail article on them:
The incredible world record has seen Amy raise £30,000 for charity and become the face of sportswear specialists Brooks and lingerie company Panache.
She is also involved with the Dame Kelly Holmes Trust and has teamed up with the iconic children’s programme Blue Peter.
Amy said: 'Following my 53 marathons in 53 days challenge last year, I’ve been approached and given some fantastic opportunities.'
Following her 53 marathons in 53 days challenge Amy is currently working with Blue Peter and the Dame Kelly Holmes Trust to encourage more children to get active
She continued: 'I have spoken at Running Expos which has been amazing and I am currently working with Blue Peter at the BBC.
'I have been training one of their presenters, Lindsey Russell, to run her first marathon at the London Marathon this year.'
'I’ve decided to take on the challenge myself, but I will not only be running the marathon, I will also be running the 220-mile journey from my hometown Oswestry to London ahead of the big day.'
'I will also be starting from the celebrity start line which is unbelievable.'
Amy is also attending the Running Awards 2015 at the O2 Arena in London on April 24 to receive her ‘best running moment of the year’ award.
Dave has been constantly by Amy’s side since she completed the 53 marathons as she attends major events and speaking engagements including the upcoming Running Awards 2015 at the O2 Arena in London where she will be presenting an award as well as receiving the 'best running moment of the year’ trophy
She added: 'I am also honoured to be presenting an award on the night.'
'One message I’m keen to promote is the importance of regular exercise and activities in schools.
'To add to all of this, I am currently working for The Dame Kelly Holmes Trust, and have a lot of exciting projects on the horizon.'
'In a few months I’ll be swapping my running shoes for a bike and cycling from London to Paris in aid of the worthwhile cause.'
'I was touched at the support and encouragement I received both during and after my 53:53 venture and it too has motivated and inspired me to start up my own charity, The 53 Foundation, which will raise money to help people with disabilities get active. '
'I completed my 53 marathons challenge in Brooks Running shoes and have always been a big fan so I’m delighted to have been given the opportunity to join the team as a Brooks ambassador.'
I built it out that with just over 18.5 hours of moving a day, I could cover 75 miles by running 5 10ks at 7 minute pace, with a 3 hour walk at 20 minute pace for 9 miles after each one. That is 5 10ks and 5 9 mile walks, running at 7 minute pace, walking at 20 minute pace. This actually gets you to 76 miles.
I haven't checked your math but I am sure it is correct. The point you make about it looking feasible is the reason so many non runners fall for these claims. Whether it's LEJOG, Appalachian Trail or treadmill running when broken down like this - a bit of jogging, a bit of walking - motivated by 'will power' and 'it's for charity' it looks possible.
The problem is the accumulated wear and tear on the body and mind. The vast majority of people cannot recover from 18 to 20 hours continuous effort in just 4 to 6 hours. My personal limit, based on a recent long distance bike ride, is 10 hours effort followed by 14 hours rest. Now I am far from elite so there will be many who can do better than that. But I am no slouch either - based on my running results I am in the top 10% of the population.
Unfortunately, most people never experience the effects of multi-day strenuous activities and so accept the bit of jogging, bit of walking logic.
Raddison wrote:
I built it out that with just over 18.5 hours of moving a day, I could cover 75 miles by running 5 10ks at 7 minute pace, with a 3 hour walk at 20 minute pace for 9 miles after each one. That is 5 10ks and 5 9 mile walks, running at 7 minute pace, walking at 20 minute pace. This actually gets you to 76 miles.
I haven't checked your math but I am sure it is correct. The point you make about it looking feasible is the reason so many non runners fall for these claims. Whether it's LEJOG, Appalachian Trail or treadmill running when broken down like this - a bit of jogging, a bit of walking - motivated by 'will power' and 'it's for charity' it looks possible.
The problem is the accumulated wear and tear on the body and mind. The vast majority of people cannot recover from 18 to 20 hours continuous effort in just 4 to 6 hours. My personal limit, based on a recent long distance bike ride, is 10 hours effort followed by 14 hours rest. Now I am far from elite so there will be many who can do better than that. But I am no slouch either - based on my running results I am in the top 10% of the population.
Unfortunately, most people never experience the effects of multi-day strenuous activities and so accept the bit of jogging, bit of walking logic.
Exactly right. Since the average speed is so low, most people think it's possible. But for most it's not, even for ultrarunners.
Most ultrarunners would be surprised how hard it is to maintain 60 miles per day for days. It sure looks easy on paper.
Raddison wrote:
The problem is the accumulated wear and tear on the body and mind. The vast majority of people cannot recover from 18 to 20 hours continuous effort in just 4 to 6 hours.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. At first glance, it is extremely plausible.
But even for me, a guy who has experienced seasons of 100mpw (albeit, back in the college days), doubles, consistent racing schedules, etc, 5 10ks at easy pace in a day would be extremely difficult even if I didn't have to walk for 3 hours in between all of them and only get 5.5 hours of down time. This type of event would catch up to me very quickly, most likely on the 4th run of the 1st day, and I would be questioning everything I had planned to accomplish during that week.
As I said in my earlier comment - is this doable? Absolutely. But the situation has to be 100% perfect, the planning and scheduling and training have to be spot on, and the individual has to have the body AND the mind to allow for such a beating.
Incredible wrote:
I lost 12 pounds on a long run once.
Was that water, fat, muscle,..?
Think about it geniuses.
And did you then continue to run 75 miles a day for a further 6 days at world record pace while losing 16 more pounds?
Incredible indeed.