David Roche GOES HOME DEVASTATED from Western States

pee bucket wrote:

Nikki C wrote:

I have heard that the extreme heat training that the Roches have been promoting have culminated in formal complaints to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. It's unsurprising. Complaints were always going to be the logical endpoint of their deliberate attempts to monetize the practice and sell more units of one of The Feed's most popular brands, Core. When hazardous practices are promoted as coaching tools and adopted in unsupervised settings, there will eventually be consequences.

The trajectory from attention-seeking online content to real-world harm follows a very familiar pattern. Performance extremes are showcased for engagement, stripped of context, and then repackaged as marketable coaching methodologies. In this case, the physiological
risks of heat exposure are not merely incidental - they are intrinsic to the practice being promoted.

When performed in controlled, medically supervised environments, limited forms of heat acclimation training are useful. However, what has been heavily promoted online by the Roches bears no resemblance to these protocols. Instead, David Roche has demonstrated prolonged, high-intensity workouts in poorly ventilated indoor spaces, layering multiple garments. This creates a perfect storm for heat-related illness, heat exhaustion, and in severe cases, heat stroke. Long-term health problems, including chronic fatigue-type issues have been reported.

The danger seems to have been compounded because the Roches have allegedly moved from merely showcasing such practices to prescribing them. A coach is different to a content creator. A coach has an implicit claim of expertise and duty of care. Yet the Roches operate outside of any formal regulatory or certification framework. Some of their clients, probably motivated by trust or aspirational identification, seem to have followed their prescriptions without understanding the risks or recognizing early warning signs of exertional heat illness.

The result is a clear asymmetry: the Roches benefit financially and reputationally, while their clients bear the health risks.

From a governance perspective, complaints to SafeSport are a predictable outcome. Their mandate includes addressing abuse and misconduct in sport, particularly where there is a power imbalance between coach and athlete. When a coach - certified or not - encourages practices that foreseeably endanger a client’s health, especially in the absence of informed consent or proper safeguards, it can reasonably be construed as a breach of their duty of care. The fact that these practices are disseminated publicly, often to large and impressionable audiences, only heightens the urgency of oversight.

Moreover, the incentive structures of social media platforms make the problem worse. Algorithms reward novelty, extreme behaviour, and visual spectacle. Moderate, evidence-based training rarely goes viral. Extreme, visually striking practices do. This creates a feedback loop in which coaches like the Roches escalate their content to maintain visibility, inadvertently normalizing dangerous behaviors. Over time, the boundary between entertainment and legitimate training advice becomes blurred, with tangible consequences for athlete health.

In this context, regulatory attention is not only unsurprising but necessary. The complaints to SafeSport signal a broader recognition that the informal, largely unregulated online run coaching ecosystem can produce harms similar to those seen in more traditional sporting
environments. Whether through formal enforcement, platform policy changes, or improved public education, some form of intervention is required to realign incentives and reassert basic standards of safety.

I'm looking forward to hearing what the Roche's have to say about these complaints. And if SafeSport imposes some form of sanction.

C'mon, let him cook

Nikki C wrote:

I have heard that the extreme heat training that the Roches have been promoting have culminated in formal complaints to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. It's unsurprising. Complaints were always going to be the logical endpoint of their deliberate attempts to monetize the practice and sell more units of one of The Feed's most popular brands, Core. When hazardous practices are promoted as coaching tools and adopted in unsupervised settings, there will eventually be consequences.

The trajectory from attention-seeking online content to real-world harm follows a very familiar pattern. Performance extremes are showcased for engagement, stripped of context, and then repackaged as marketable coaching methodologies. In this case, the physiological
risks of heat exposure are not merely incidental - they are intrinsic to the practice being promoted.

When performed in controlled, medically supervised environments, limited forms of heat acclimation training are useful. However, what has been heavily promoted online by the Roches bears no resemblance to these protocols. Instead, David Roche has demonstrated prolonged, high-intensity workouts in poorly ventilated indoor spaces, layering multiple garments. This creates a perfect storm for heat-related illness, heat exhaustion, and in severe cases, heat stroke. Long-term health problems, including chronic fatigue-type issues have been reported.

The danger seems to have been compounded because the Roches have allegedly moved from merely showcasing such practices to prescribing them. A coach is different to a content creator. A coach has an implicit claim of expertise and duty of care. Yet the Roches operate outside of any formal regulatory or certification framework. Some of their clients, probably motivated by trust or aspirational identification, seem to have followed their prescriptions without understanding the risks or recognizing early warning signs of exertional heat illness.

The result is a clear asymmetry: the Roches benefit financially and reputationally, while their clients bear the health risks.

From a governance perspective, complaints to SafeSport are a predictable outcome. Their mandate includes addressing abuse and misconduct in sport, particularly where there is a power imbalance between coach and athlete. When a coach - certified or not - encourages practices that foreseeably endanger a client’s health, especially in the absence of informed consent or proper safeguards, it can reasonably be construed as a breach of their duty of care. The fact that these practices are disseminated publicly, often to large and impressionable audiences, only heightens the urgency of oversight.

Moreover, the incentive structures of social media platforms make the problem worse. Algorithms reward novelty, extreme behaviour, and visual spectacle. Moderate, evidence-based training rarely goes viral. Extreme, visually striking practices do. This creates a feedback loop in which coaches like the Roches escalate their content to maintain visibility, inadvertently normalizing dangerous behaviors. Over time, the boundary between entertainment and legitimate training advice becomes blurred, with tangible consequences for athlete health.

In this context, regulatory attention is not only unsurprising but necessary. The complaints to SafeSport signal a broader recognition that the informal, largely unregulated online run coaching ecosystem can produce harms similar to those seen in more traditional sporting
environments. Whether through formal enforcement, platform policy changes, or improved public education, some form of intervention is required to realign incentives and reassert basic standards of safety.

I'm looking forward to hearing what the Roche's have to say about these complaints. And if SafeSport imposes some form of sanction.

Claude AI Analyses This Thread wrote:

Nikki C wrote:

I have heard that the extreme heat training that the Roches have been promoting have culminated in formal complaints to the U.S. Center for SafeSport. It's unsurprising. Complaints were always going to be the logical endpoint of their deliberate attempts to monetize the practice and sell more units of one of The Feed's most popular brands, Core. When hazardous practices are promoted as coaching tools and adopted in unsupervised settings, there will eventually be consequences.

The trajectory from attention-seeking online content to real-world harm follows a very familiar pattern. Performance extremes are showcased for engagement, stripped of context, and then repackaged as marketable coaching methodologies. In this case, the physiological
risks of heat exposure are not merely incidental - they are intrinsic to the practice being promoted.

When performed in controlled, medically supervised environments, limited forms of heat acclimation training are useful. However, what has been heavily promoted online by the Roches bears no resemblance to these protocols. Instead, David Roche has demonstrated prolonged, high-intensity workouts in poorly ventilated indoor spaces, layering multiple garments. This creates a perfect storm for heat-related illness, heat exhaustion, and in severe cases, heat stroke. Long-term health problems, including chronic fatigue-type issues have been reported.

The danger seems to have been compounded because the Roches have allegedly moved from merely showcasing such practices to prescribing them. A coach is different to a content creator. A coach has an implicit claim of expertise and duty of care. Yet the Roches operate outside of any formal regulatory or certification framework. Some of their clients, probably motivated by trust or aspirational identification, seem to have followed their prescriptions without understanding the risks or recognizing early warning signs of exertional heat illness.

The result is a clear asymmetry: the Roches benefit financially and reputationally, while their clients bear the health risks.

From a governance perspective, complaints to SafeSport are a predictable outcome. Their mandate includes addressing abuse and misconduct in sport, particularly where there is a power imbalance between coach and athlete. When a coach - certified or not - encourages practices that foreseeably endanger a client’s health, especially in the absence of informed consent or proper safeguards, it can reasonably be construed as a breach of their duty of care. The fact that these practices are disseminated publicly, often to large and impressionable audiences, only heightens the urgency of oversight.

Moreover, the incentive structures of social media platforms make the problem worse. Algorithms reward novelty, extreme behaviour, and visual spectacle. Moderate, evidence-based training rarely goes viral. Extreme, visually striking practices do. This creates a feedback loop in which coaches like the Roches escalate their content to maintain visibility, inadvertently normalizing dangerous behaviors. Over time, the boundary between entertainment and legitimate training advice becomes blurred, with tangible consequences for athlete health.

In this context, regulatory attention is not only unsurprising but necessary. The complaints to SafeSport signal a broader recognition that the informal, largely unregulated online run coaching ecosystem can produce harms similar to those seen in more traditional sporting
environments. Whether through formal enforcement, platform policy changes, or improved public education, some form of intervention is required to realign incentives and reassert basic standards of safety.

I'm looking forward to hearing what the Roche's have to say about these complaints. And if SafeSport imposes some form of sanction.

"This isn’t a serious analysis—it’s a chain of assumptions presented as fact.

'I have heard that…' is doing a lot of work for what are, in effect, allegations about formal complaints and athlete harm. Without a source, everything that follows is just speculation dressed up in governance language.

You’re also collapsing demonstration, coaching, and marketing into one thing and then treating the most extreme interpretation as the default. The Roches’ actual messaging around heat training has consistently included caveats about gradual exposure, individualisation, and safety. Ignoring that and then building a narrative about foreseeable harm is an unrepresentative and partial reading.

There’s a long tradition in media theory—Katz and Blumler, for example—that treats audiences as active interpreters rather than passive recipients. People don’t simply watch something and replicate it wholesale. They filter, adapt, or ignore it based on preference. What you’re assuming here is a much more direct, deterministic model of influence than that.

There’s a difference between saying 'this could be misapplied if taken out of context' and asserting that it has led to SafeSport complaints and systemic risk. One is a reasonable caution. The other requires evidence. And you don't have any to offer."

Nikki C wrote:

Claude AI Analyses This Thread wrote:

"This isn’t a serious analysis—it’s a chain of assumptions presented as fact.

'I have heard that…' is doing a lot of work for what are, in effect, allegations about formal complaints and athlete harm. Without a source, everything that follows is just speculation dressed up in governance language.

You’re also collapsing demonstration, coaching, and marketing into one thing and then treating the most extreme interpretation as the default. The Roches’ actual messaging around heat training has consistently included caveats about gradual exposure, individualisation, and safety. Ignoring that and then building a narrative about foreseeable harm is an unrepresentative and partial reading.

There’s a long tradition in media theory—Katz and Blumler, for example—that treats audiences as active interpreters rather than passive recipients. People don’t simply watch something and replicate it wholesale. They filter, adapt, or ignore it based on preference. What you’re assuming here is a much more direct, deterministic model of influence than that.

There’s a difference between saying 'this could be misapplied if taken out of context' and asserting that it has led to SafeSport complaints and systemic risk. One is a reasonable caution. The other requires evidence. And you don't have any to offer."

Why am I not surprised you don't remember me David, or recognize some of what I've reported above from my written feedback! You provided me with training plans for 18 months. I always got the feeling that my feedback was largely ignored. Apart from the odd compliment, you never answered any of my queries. By way of a reminder, the training you prescribed for me included multiple heat training workouts with no "caveats about gradual exposure, individualisation, and safety". Of course, it wasn't practical or even useful to do that training as I don't have a treadmill, I don't have access to a gym, and was not training for any hot weather races!

However, a number of the girls I chatted with on the WhatsApp group did follow your incredibly vague instructions for heat training and did suffer various degrees EHI as a result. I know of four athletes who have submitted reports of misconduct to SafeSport. Of course, it would be a breach of confidence to name any of the claimants, wouldn't it! What I am prepared to say though is that, as a former client, I am prepared to appear as a witness.

It will be interesting to see if the SafeSport preliminary inquiry leads to a formal investigation.

Out of interest, how many athletes do sell programs to? I estimate it was well into three figures, based on conversations through the WhatsApp group. How is it possible to oversee the training of so many athletes and ensure that each of them is training safely?

Runforthehillz wrote:

Nikki C wrote:

Why am I not surprised you don't remember me David, or recognize some of what I've reported above from my written feedback! You provided me with training plans for 18 months. I always got the feeling that my feedback was largely ignored. Apart from the odd compliment, you never answered any of my queries. By way of a reminder, the training you prescribed for me included multiple heat training workouts with no "caveats about gradual exposure, individualisation, and safety". Of course, it wasn't practical or even useful to do that training as I don't have a treadmill, I don't have access to a gym, and was not training for any hot weather races!

However, a number of the girls I chatted with on the WhatsApp group did follow your incredibly vague instructions for heat training and did suffer various degrees EHI as a result. I know of four athletes who have submitted reports of misconduct to SafeSport. Of course, it would be a breach of confidence to name any of the claimants, wouldn't it! What I am prepared to say though is that, as a former client, I am prepared to appear as a witness.

It will be interesting to see if the SafeSport preliminary inquiry leads to a formal investigation.

Out of interest, how many athletes do sell programs to? I estimate it was well into three figures, based on conversations through the WhatsApp group. How is it possible to oversee the training of so many athletes and ensure that each of them is training safely?

Behind all the poop and sex jokes, this is the more sinister side to the SWAP cult that needs to be brought into the center of discussion. Yes this thread is way too long and filled with nonsense (it’s just way too fun to laugh at his simpleton fans and David’s weird AI persona) but if you filter through the noise you can find many examples like this here. David and Megan mislead, ignore and injure their athletes and listeners and it’s all veiled in rhetoric, fake science and “hot takes”, with a big stinky pile of “love” on top. Hacking your hot tub to 109 degrees? Running 3 hours in a parka in 85 degree heat? Taking NSAID’s in races? Encouraging people to eat lots of red meat and processed foods? Telling 30 year olds to get colonoscopies? Analyzing blood work for random listeners? Ignoring and even disputing the counsel of medical professionals? It’s all quackery. Megan hides behind her fake “double doctor” credentials, David behind his failed JD credentials.. they are profiting off of idiots and no one sees a problem with it because they “love everyone” or whatever. It’s disgusting and makes me embarrassed for the sport as a whole. Nikki C I hope you are serious in filing suit for his ridiculous heat protocols. Whatever can take these clowns down is what needs to happen!

Sinister man wrote:

Runforthehillz wrote:

Behind all the poop and sex jokes, this is the more sinister side to the SWAP cult that needs to be brought into the center of discussion. Yes this thread is way too long and filled with nonsense (it’s just way too fun to laugh at his simpleton fans and David’s weird AI persona) but if you filter through the noise you can find many examples like this here. David and Megan mislead, ignore and injure their athletes and listeners and it’s all veiled in rhetoric, fake science and “hot takes”, with a big stinky pile of “love” on top. Hacking your hot tub to 109 degrees? Running 3 hours in a parka in 85 degree heat? Taking NSAID’s in races? Encouraging people to eat lots of red meat and processed foods? Telling 30 year olds to get colonoscopies? Analyzing blood work for random listeners? Ignoring and even disputing the counsel of medical professionals? It’s all quackery. Megan hides behind her fake “double doctor” credentials, David behind his failed JD credentials.. they are profiting off of idiots and no one sees a problem with it because they “love everyone” or whatever. It’s disgusting and makes me embarrassed for the sport as a whole. Nikki C I hope you are serious in filing suit for his ridiculous heat protocols. Whatever can take these clowns down is what needs to happen!

“Sinister”?? Haha of all the quackery podcasts this is light stuff you’re mentioning. Let’s be honest.

Runforthehillz wrote:

Nikki C wrote:

Why am I not surprised you don't remember me David, or recognize some of what I've reported above from my written feedback! You provided me with training plans for 18 months. I always got the feeling that my feedback was largely ignored. Apart from the odd compliment, you never answered any of my queries. By way of a reminder, the training you prescribed for me included multiple heat training workouts with no "caveats about gradual exposure, individualisation, and safety". Of course, it wasn't practical or even useful to do that training as I don't have a treadmill, I don't have access to a gym, and was not training for any hot weather races!

However, a number of the girls I chatted with on the WhatsApp group did follow your incredibly vague instructions for heat training and did suffer various degrees EHI as a result. I know of four athletes who have submitted reports of misconduct to SafeSport. Of course, it would be a breach of confidence to name any of the claimants, wouldn't it! What I am prepared to say though is that, as a former client, I am prepared to appear as a witness.

It will be interesting to see if the SafeSport preliminary inquiry leads to a formal investigation.

Out of interest, how many athletes do sell programs to? I estimate it was well into three figures, based on conversations through the WhatsApp group. How is it possible to oversee the training of so many athletes and ensure that each of them is training safely?

Behind all the poop and sex jokes, this is the more sinister side to the SWAP cult that needs to be brought into the center of discussion. Yes this thread is way too long and filled with nonsense (it’s just way too fun to laugh at his simpleton fans and David’s weird AI persona) but if you filter through the noise you can find many examples like this here. David and Megan mislead, ignore and injure their athletes and listeners and it’s all veiled in rhetoric, fake science and “hot takes”, with a big stinky pile of “love” on top. Hacking your hot tub to 109 degrees? Running 3 hours in a parka in 85 degree heat? Taking NSAID’s in races? Encouraging people to eat lots of red meat and processed foods? Telling 30 year olds to get colonoscopies? Analyzing blood work for random listeners? Ignoring and even disputing the counsel of medical professionals? It’s all quackery. Megan hides behind her fake “double doctor” credentials, David behind his failed JD credentials.. they are profiting off of idiots and no one sees a problem with it because they “love everyone” or whatever. It’s disgusting and makes me embarrassed for the sport as a whole. Nikki C I hope you are serious in filing suit for his ridiculous heat protocols. Whatever can take these clowns down is what needs to happen!

Nikki C wrote:

Sinister man wrote:

You think this is worse sh!t than the quackery health nuts, bro podcasts and manosphere? Give me a break. I’ve been coached before and we sign waivers usually. If you aren’t coached by him and take a stock training plan and do it 100 percent or do his dumb heat protocols you did it to yourself.

There's a huge difference between copying Bryan Johnson or some other biohacker and taking large doses of methylene blue, and paying someone who calls themselves a 'world class coach' money to coach them. Ethical standards change with professional coaches because authority amplifies consequences. What may be acceptable as consumer wellness advice becomes ethically questionable when presented - implicitly or explicitly - as elite-level physiological insight.

A coaching client may reasonably infer that their coach is providing high-quality, accurate advice that is compatible with elite-level decision-making. Moreover, it's not the responsibility of the client to acquire the scientific expertise to independently evaluate the training benefits and health hazards of a particular method of training; and nor should they be expected to.

Ethically, the higher the implied authority, the higher the burden of care. Someone who is an elite athlete AND a coach occupies a position of unequal influence. A coach is perceived not merely as a role model, they are also seen as an applied expert with a duty of care, a quasi-professional authority, and a decision-maker for others’ training and health. Coaches need not even be malicious to act unethically; ethical failure can arise simply from endorsing methods whose uncertainty is hidden behind exaggerated performance benefits.

The ethical aspect of Roche's behaviour is why SafeSport are likely to become involved. Roche has failed utterly in his duty of care to many of his athletes.

Also, I never signed a waiver. I just gave him money.

Nikki C wrote:

Runforthehillz wrote:

Behind all the poop and sex jokes, this is the more sinister side to the SWAP cult that needs to be brought into the center of discussion. Yes this thread is way too long and filled with nonsense (it’s just way too fun to laugh at his simpleton fans and David’s weird AI persona) but if you filter through the noise you can find many examples like this here. David and Megan mislead, ignore and injure their athletes and listeners and it’s all veiled in rhetoric, fake science and “hot takes”, with a big stinky pile of “love” on top. Hacking your hot tub to 109 degrees? Running 3 hours in a parka in 85 degree heat? Taking NSAID’s in races? Encouraging people to eat lots of red meat and processed foods? Telling 30 year olds to get colonoscopies? Analyzing blood work for random listeners? Ignoring and even disputing the counsel of medical professionals? It’s all quackery. Megan hides behind her fake “double doctor” credentials, David behind his failed JD credentials.. they are profiting off of idiots and no one sees a problem with it because they “love everyone” or whatever. It’s disgusting and makes me embarrassed for the sport as a whole. Nikki C I hope you are serious in filing suit for his ridiculous heat protocols. Whatever can take these clowns down is what needs to happen!

As I said, I can't put in an official complaint as I am not from the US and didn't take Roche's advice. However, I have several friends who were coached by him, were harmed, and have already contacted SafeSport. I'm sure more people will come forward as word gets around. It's misconduct at the very least, and could be seen as a form of abuse. SafeSport take abuse very seriously indeed. An audit of Roche's conduct and practice as a coach will surely follow.

Nikki C wrote:

Sinister man wrote:

You think this is worse sh!t than the quackery health nuts, bro podcasts and manosphere? Give me a break. I’ve been coached before and we sign waivers usually. If you aren’t coached by him and take a stock training plan and do it 100 percent or do his dumb heat protocols you did it to yourself.

There's a huge difference between copying Bryan Johnson or some other biohacker and taking large doses of methylene blue, and paying someone who calls themselves a 'world class coach' money to coach them. Ethical standards change with professional coaches because authority amplifies consequences. What may be acceptable as consumer wellness advice becomes ethically questionable when presented - implicitly or explicitly - as elite-level physiological insight.

A coaching client may reasonably infer that their coach is providing high-quality, accurate advice that is compatible with elite-level decision-making. Moreover, it's not the responsibility of the client to acquire the scientific expertise to independently evaluate the training benefits and health hazards of a particular method of training; and nor should they be expected to.

Ethically, the higher the implied authority, the higher the burden of care. Someone who is an elite athlete AND a coach occupies a position of unequal influence. A coach is perceived not merely as a role model, they are also seen as an applied expert with a duty of care, a quasi-professional authority, and a decision-maker for others’ training and health. Coaches need not even be malicious to act unethically; ethical failure can arise simply from endorsing methods whose uncertainty is hidden behind exaggerated performance benefits.

The ethical aspect of Roche's behaviour is why SafeSport are likely to become involved. Roche has failed utterly in his duty of care to many of his athletes.

Also, I never signed a waiver. I just gave him money.

Sinister man wrote:

Nikki C wrote:

There's a huge difference between copying Bryan Johnson or some other biohacker and taking large doses of methylene blue, and paying someone who calls themselves a 'world class coach' money to coach them. Ethical standards change with professional coaches because authority amplifies consequences. What may be acceptable as consumer wellness advice becomes ethically questionable when presented - implicitly or explicitly - as elite-level physiological insight.

A coaching client may reasonably infer that their coach is providing high-quality, accurate advice that is compatible with elite-level decision-making. Moreover, it's not the responsibility of the client to acquire the scientific expertise to independently evaluate the training benefits and health hazards of a particular method of training; and nor should they be expected to.

Ethically, the higher the implied authority, the higher the burden of care. Someone who is an elite athlete AND a coach occupies a position of unequal influence. A coach is perceived not merely as a role model, they are also seen as an applied expert with a duty of care, a quasi-professional authority, and a decision-maker for others’ training and health. Coaches need not even be malicious to act unethically; ethical failure can arise simply from endorsing methods whose uncertainty is hidden behind exaggerated performance benefits.

The ethical aspect of Roche's behaviour is why SafeSport are likely to become involved. Roche has failed utterly in his duty of care to many of his athletes.

Also, I never signed a waiver. I just gave him money.

Clue for next time: no training peaks and $145 a month means you won’t get analyzed. Don’t get caught up next time in the notoriety of the runner/coach. Also many of his athletes have been with him for years so I recognize his faults but it has worked for some.