ritz could break an hour for 13.1 mi?

rid me wrote:

Help me out with the History. What did PRE, LINDGREN or CHAPA run in the marathon.

Lindgren ran sub 2:00 for 26 miles before collapsing in the last 185 yards!

Just because Alan Webb has turned in world class times, doesn't at all have anything to do with Dathan Ritzenhein. Ritz is still a HUGE talent who in my estimation (and that of many others) still hasn't come close to his potential. People didn't think Kennedy was capable of sub 13:00 either.

Whether or not Ritz breaks the AR in the 5,000 is completely determined by his focus. If he changes that focus to longer distances (marathon) then he won't. If that's a record he wants, then it's his for the taking. Ritz has shown to be at least as talented as Kennedy, and I believe he is more so.

So, my predictions for him stand -- 12:50 for 5,000 and 26:50 for 10,000. 2:07 talent or better in the marathon. I think the 5,000 and 10,000 times are limits for him, so I'd be surprised if he did better. For the marathon, it's too early to tell what his limit may be.

webb will run 12:50 before ritz does. even if it takes webb 8 years to do it, that's a lot sooner than NEVER! that said, i think webb can hit that time in 3-4 years.

ritz will never break 13. he just doesn't have the wheels. what i find interesting is that you give him a superior predicted time in the 5k than in the 10k. do you really think he's a better 5k runner than 10k runner?

12:50?Back to earth Mr.

Webb,Broe,Hall,Dobson will all finish their careers with a better 5k PR than Ritzenhein.

I also doubt that Ritz is gonna break 27:20 and if he does, only by some secs, he's not gonna break Mebs AR.

The Marathon is another topic.

No, milk does not do the body good. Do some research. And I'm not even one of those queer Whole Foods, trendy glasses wearing, bland colored clothes possessing people either. What makes you think humans are so special as to be the only animal that needs milk beyond early childhood? We don't need it, it's a product of marketing and it's all bull shit.

Get off milk for a month of so, have none of it. Then, drink yourself a glass. You'll notice how utterly f***ing disgusting, bloated, and awkward you feel. Does the body good?

Hey wrote:

The reason why he developed that much was because he began running much more mileage

Just an observation, but I think Toddy Williams got to the level he did because he was intrinsically motivated to do it. Sure, he made big bucks later on, but damn, Ritz was handed a wad of cash the second he uttered the word professional. See this quote from the LetsRun interview a few years ago:

LR.com: Moving on, you talked a little about this, but when you came out of college what was it like for you financially? Were you able to train full-time? I'm sure there are a lot of visitors to the web-site who dream of running professionally and I bet they want to know.

Twill: I had to sacrifice. I told my girlfriend at the time (now his wife) Stephanie, when we moved into a little shack off the campus at the University of Tennessee, that this is what we're going to have to do - sacrifice and live in a little shack.

I had run 28:18 and 13:40 and 7:58 coming out of college but I was running on only about a $4,000 contract for the whole year.

(If you're interested you can find the rest of the interview here:

and here:

You can say that about a lot of foods. If you don't eat them for a while then go back and eat/drink them your body isn't going to be as used to it as it used to be. That said, the whole milk thing is a bit overrated, it's not that good for you and you don't really need it beyond childhood. Although, If I lost my morning cerial with milk, heads would roll.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

12:50 for 5,000

Mottram is a Webb-like miler who finished 12th in the world 12K XC championships. He hasn't even run that fast.

Bringing up BK's 12:58 is taking the exception to the rule and blowing it up. BK wasn't a great miler but ran 7:30 in the 3K, which even Goucher in his 3:54/3:33 prime couldn't do. Point is, Ritz shows zero signs of breaking 13:00 in the future, other than, "it's not impossible".

Do we need it? Maybe, I'm really not someone who'd know. But to say it's all marketing? People have been drinking milk, from cows, goats, and other animals, for thousands of years. The Masai don't drink milk because of ads with Daniel Komen with a little milk mustasche.

Who cares!

The people you are referring to drank milk because that was all they knew. It's what they believed in because of all the shit they heard their entire lives about milk being necessary. While certainly not contemporary marketing, their drinking milk still came about because of a cultural bombardment of "milk is good." They did not think milk had some super special ability to "build strong bones, etc.", they viewed it as just another alternative to oftentimes unsafe water.

They also drank tons of wine and beer, certainly not because it was good for their body, but because it was something to drink. Taking a beverage is not objectionable if you're drinking it because you enjoy the drink, but YOU drinking YOUR milk today is probably due to the thousands of times statements like "builds strong bones" and "does a body good" have been poured onto your life.

My concern is with people drinking their glasses, like clockwork, at breakfast and before bedtime because they think it gives them some better chance at beign healthy. This sentiment is CLEARLY a product of the milk industries battle to retain its market against its competitors that have developed over the last few decades.

We haven't always had gatorade, bottled water, teas, soda, super light beer, coffee on every corner, and on and on.

Aside from my problem with it being entirely a manufactured need, milk is just weird to drink. Like I said, no other animal drinks milk after childhood. For humans to do so, frequently throughout life, is odd. There's something else in the mix, and it's not that milk is super healthy.

so shall he did wrote:

There's something else in the mix, and it's not that milk is super healthy.

Well...

1) Skim milk has no fat and loads of protein (protein helps keeps hunger pangs away so that you don't over eat).

2) Milk has lots of calcium which IS required for strong bones, although it's not the only thing, so keep reading.

3) Milk is fortified with Vitamin D (at least in the US), and it is that Vitamin D combined with the calcium that leads to strong bones. (vitamin D also obtained from exposure to the sun without sun screen. Recommended time is 10 minutes of mid-day summer sun every day without sunscreen).

4) Calcium and Vitamin D have been shown not only to improve bone density and strength, but to ward off certain cancers.

So, does milk do a body good? Sure. Is some of that PR crap? Sure. However, 8 oz. of skim milk on your cereal in the morning is probably a good idea. No need to have 12 oz. three times a day. Some people feel bloated because they have lactose intolerance issues. Milk NEVER makes me feel bad at all.

There's your health lesson for the day.

Skim milk also tastes like chalk dust mixed with water. I 'll admit it is much better than homogenized milk of any kind. Homogenized milk can actually claim the title of inventing heart disease. There really wasn't much of it until people started eating homogenized milk products. You can still find whole milk that isn't homogenized in some specialty stores. Sure it has high fat but we don't eat enough good fat today in my opinion.

With Ritz's luck at trying to break records or making standards, he would probably run a 60.01

rudy chapa ran 211 at the new york city marathon in his debut at the distance.

Lance vs Ritz in a unicycle race!!!

michigan runner wrote:

Todd Williams ran 60:06 back in the mid 90s so i think ritz could be just under an hour.

I knew Todd Williams... and Ritz is no Todd Williams. Not yet.

Flagpole your head is so far up Ritz's ass that he is getting an enema. Alan Webb has accomplished things that would permit world class speculation. Ritz has not. And no shit he will do good in what he focuses on. people tend to do good when they focus on something. You state the obvious more then any ass on here. Lets talk about Ritz going sub 13:20 first, sound good? And maybe, before we talk of him going sub 26:50, we should hope he goes sub 27:20.

meow wrote:

Flagpole your head is so far up Ritz's ass that he is getting an enema. Alan Webb has accomplished things that would permit world class speculation. Ritz has not. And no shit he will do good in what he focuses on. people tend to do good when they focus on something. You state the obvious more then any ass on here. Lets talk about Ritz going sub 13:20 first, sound good? And maybe, before we talk of him going sub 26:50, we should hope he goes sub 27:20.

Nope. No need for me to wait for Ritz to run those stepping stone times before I declare his career PRs. What's with bringing up Alan Webb every time someone talks about Ritz? Alan Webb is awesome. So what? This topic was about Ritz. I would not be surprised to see Webb win GOLD in the Olympic 1500 some day (that's a tactical race that opens it up for a lot of people), but I WOULD be surprised to see Ritz win gold.

That being said, assmuming Ritz doesn't go to the marathon before his shorter distance prime is over, he has the ability to run 12:50 and 26:50 (or even faster there). Dude ran 27:38 his very first time on the track for a 10,000. To think he can't improve 48 seconds (7.7 seconds per mile) seems a little silly. One day he'll have the perfect race on the perfect day at peak fitness and he'll bust a 26:50 (or better).