Women runs 520 miles on treadmill in 7 days but doesn't get WR as Guinness says her witness doesn't count

Male 2:35 != Female 2:35 wrote:

Furthermore, Amy is not a 2:35 marathoner by any means. She just runs FURTHER (endurance), not faster.

You mean FARTHER.

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

I chose a date in the future deliberately so that someone couldn't just grab an existing run off Garmin.Connect and do no work to it. The date is simply data in an XML style file, there is no reason at all it cannot be in the future.

I think you just proved how easy it is to fake. Even a smart 5-year old would know to copy from her neighbour. And a 6-year-old would know enough to fudge the data a bit to make it less obvious.

Friend of 53 wrote:

I choose to believe her. You choose not to. Everyone has a right to think what they want. I really doubt Amy cares what a bunch of anonymous jerks on the internet think about her.

You're accusing her of lying and cheating. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? Unless you can prove she made all this up (and you obviously can't), it's better you keep your mouths closed. Of course you all can say anything when you're anonymous and behind a keyboard.

Erm, read this

, then read your own post again, then think about why random anonymous people don't believe Amy's claims.

The burden of proof is in Amy, not a bunch of reasoned sceptics on the internet.

Proof already exists wrote:

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

I chose a date in the future deliberately so that someone couldn't just grab an existing run off Garmin.Connect and do no work to it. The date is simply data in an XML style file, there is no reason at all it cannot be in the future.

I think you just proved how easy it is to fake. Even a smart 5-year old would know to copy from her neighbour. And a 6-year-old would know enough to fudge the data a bit to make it less obvious.

The 7-year-old would probably figure out a Gaussian (noise) massaging, with interpolation between multiple 2:35-ish runs, and at 8 be the head of the UK climate data manipulation crew.

Furthermore, Amy is not a 2:35 marathoner by any means. She just runs FURTHER (endurance), not faster.

Amy claims she ran 520 miles on a treadmill. We don't know how far she actually ran. My best guess is 520 Kilometers, which is still pretty far.

Proof already exists wrote:

I think you just proved how easy it is to fake. Even a smart 5-year old would know to copy from her neighbour. And a 6-year-old would know enough to fudge the data a bit to make it less obvious.

So what is stopping you demonstrating this?

There seems to be an endemic problem of not understanding that claims require evidence in this thread.

Amy forever wrote:

Furthermore, Amy is not a 2:35 marathoner by any means. She just runs FURTHER (endurance), not faster.

Amy claims she ran 520 miles on a treadmill. We don't know how far she actually ran. My best guess is 520 Kilometers, which is still pretty far.

Why would you guess 520 km? Isn't it just as likely (if they could fake the data as easily as LRC says, with settings for different treadmills) that she actually ran MORE than 520 miles by a factor of 1.62x rather than LESS? But the official record as submitted to Guinness was 521 miles (as found on her charity webpage (http://www.the53foundation.co.uk), so that's the correct number to cite.

No it's not. People say this every time but there are a number of very hard to fake details in a GPS file. For one example, satellite positioning.

It's why these fakesters never release GPS files.

Noter of pre-assumed bias wrote:

Amy forever wrote:

Amy claims she ran 520 miles on a treadmill. We don't know how far she actually ran. My best guess is 520 Kilometers, which is still pretty far.

Why would you guess 520 km? Isn't it just as likely (if they could fake the data as easily as LRC says, with settings for different treadmills) that she actually ran MORE than 520 miles by a factor of 1.62x rather than LESS? But the official record as submitted to Guinness was 521 miles (as found on her charity webpage (http://www.the53foundation.co.uk), so that's the correct number to cite.

Obviously they are not that smart. I doubt there where complicated scamming tactics involved.

Amy admitted already in interviews that she never knew how far she had run. So the treadmill ended up with 520 Kilometers. Did Amy ran it? I don't know, I haven't seen any prove yet.

Friend of 53 wrote:

I choose to believe her. You choose not to. Everyone has a right to think what they want. I really doubt Amy cares what a bunch of anonymous jerks on the internet think about her.

You're accusing her of lying and cheating. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? Unless you can prove she made all this up (and you obviously can't), it's better you keep your mouths closed. Of course you all can say anything when you're anonymous and behind a keyboard.

Belief has nothing to do with it. She claims to have done something publicly (run a distance on a treadmill which would make her one of the best multi-day females in the UK) yet she can't provide adequate proof of that, nor the 53 marathons in 53 days.

We are not "bullies" on this forum but we are relentless when it comes to checking the validity of claimed running records. Take a look at the famous Robert Young thread if you don't "believe" how thorough we are.

Male 2:35 != Female 2:35 wrote:

Furthermore, Amy is not a 2:35 marathoner by any means. She just runs FURTHER (endurance), not faster.

Hey Dave. That made me LOFL!

You know nothing about endurance running and just posted that on the forum that mocked Killian Jornet for running up Mount Everest at 25 hour marathon pace. Killian is really fvcking slow.

Please post more uninformed funny stuff, I'm really starting to enjoy this.

More Questions and great responses:

https://i.imgur.com/3rB50eB.png

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

Male 2:35 != Female 2:35 wrote:

This is another strawman. Obviously you can't fake data for the FUTURE, because it hasn't occurred yet. But it's trivially easy to fake 2:35 data for 2017, since the course, weather, etc., have already happened.

Furthermore, Amy is not a 2:35 marathoner by any means. She just runs FURTHER (endurance), not faster.

Again a huge comprehension problem (you can change your handle but not your lack of understanding), my request was nothing at all to do with Amy, it was to do with asking someone to prove their contention that faking GPS data is easy to do.

I chose a date in the future deliberately so that someone couldn't just grab an existing run off Garmin.Connect and do no work to it. The date is simply data in an XML style file, there is no reason at all it cannot be in the future.

How much are you willing to pay. I'll do it.

Hunger G wrote:

ExpertKipWatcher wrote:

I chose a date in the future deliberately so that someone couldn't just grab an existing run off Garmin.Connect and do no work to it. The date is simply data in an XML style file, there is no reason at all it cannot be in the future.

How much are you willing to pay. I'll do it.

It's more lucrative to hack GPS to cheat at Pokémon Go.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

We are not "bullies" on this forum but we are relentless when it comes to checking the validity of claimed running records. Take a look at the famous Robert Young thread if you don't "believe" how thorough we are.

I'm highly skeptical, even more so of "for charity" racers. Hell, if my mom ran a marathon for charity, I'd demand to see her Strava.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Another giver of +1 wrote:

We are not "bullies" on this forum but we are relentless when it comes to checking the validity of claimed running records. Take a look at the famous Robert Young thread if you don't "believe" how thorough we are.

I'm highly skeptical, even more so of "for charity" racers. Hell, if my mom ran a marathon for charity, I'd demand to see her Strava.

That's why I'm skeptical of all the 'fast' times and high mileage people claimed before results were posted on the internet

Most courses were short back then and there is no real proof that people actually ran high mileage before GPS and sites like Strava.

Hunger G wrote:

How much are you willing to pay. I'll do it.

I repeat, nothing, you want to be believed then prove it, if you don't I'm not bothered.

Brandywine wrote:

That's why I'm skeptical of all the 'fast' times and high mileage people claimed before results were posted on the internet

"Everyone got slower as soon as race results were readily available on the internet" is a favoured maxim of an older runner in my club

Friend of 53 wrote:

I choose to believe her. You choose not to. Everyone has a right to think what they want. I really doubt Amy cares what a bunch of anonymous jerks on the internet think about her.

You're accusing her of lying and cheating. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? Unless you can prove she made all this up (and you obviously can't), it's better you keep your mouths closed. Of course you all can say anything when you're anonymous and behind a keyboard.

She cares.

How do I know? Because she's released videos showing she cares.

But I can't expect Amy fans to recognise evidence...