They are lauding him as a hero on the FB running group 'running the distance'
https://www.facebook.com/groups/941293069245570/?ref=ts&fref=ts
They are lauding him as a hero on the FB running group 'running the distance'
https://www.facebook.com/groups/941293069245570/?ref=ts&fref=ts
Loop me in wrote:
1) He is not doing hard miles so comparing it to an athlete in training is nonsensical.
2) The bulk if his miles are multiples, not 26 continuous miles. The exceptions are organised races and ultras.
3) Plenty of people have done marathons back to back over many days who aren't gifted athletes. If you can do it for 30 days you could probably do it for 300.
4) He has had injuries and done lower mileage days.
Niggles cause you to have a day off or reduced mileage. Injuries don't just miraculously clear up.
You can get injured however slow the miles are and over 100 miles a week is going to get you injured
The guy need to get a garmin.
Anyone know what he ran in London - site is down?
Loop me in wrote:
Obviously i do, the lack of GPS evidence is a big problem.
Don't you find it damning that some runs have GPS and some don't ?
For example I have just checked my mileage on an online site I use where every run has been logged by GPS - it happens to be a very ordinary 503 miles since Jan 1st. Now suppose I claim to have run another 2000 miles unlogged by GPS in the same time period, would you just accept this as fact?
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
Loop me in wrote:Obviously i do, the lack of GPS evidence is a big problem.
Don't you find it damning that some runs have GPS and some don't ?
For example I have just checked my mileage on an online site I use where every run has been logged by GPS - it happens to be a very ordinary 503 miles since Jan 1st. Now suppose I claim to have run another 2000 miles unlogged by GPS in the same time period, would you just accept this as fact?
No, i am entirely with you, it looks strange - if i ran that many miles i would really want the numbers even if i didn't need to 'prove' something to someone​ else.
I may just be a little old school, bit this seems insufficient to warrant such abuse - especially given the good intentions (if taken at face value).
Loop me in wrote:
No, i am entirely with you, it looks strange - if i ran that many miles i would really want the numbers even if i didn't need to 'prove' something to someone​ else.
I may just be a little old school, bit this seems insufficient to warrant such abuse - especially given the good intentions (if taken at face value).
Could you quote my abuse directed at Ben ?
Give up Ben, you are not convincing anyone here with that act.
Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Anyone know what he ran in London - site is down?
His website says that London didn't give him a place. He had assumed from communications with them that it was on the bag, but it wasn't.
Benisahero wrote:
They are lauding him as a hero on the FB running group 'running the distance'
https://www.facebook.com/groups/941293069245570/?ref=ts&fref=ts
Troll them for us and let them know he is a fraud.
That group is actually hilarious. Well worth a look for a laugh
Do some of you really use a GPS watch for all of your runs? Do you think that is normal?
Yes and yes, I would actually go further and say that I don't know a club runner who doesn't, even technophobes over 65
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
Yes and yes, I would actually go further and say that I don't know a club runner who doesn't, even technophobes over 65
I manage a club team. I'd say I interact with about 40 runners in a given month. Maybe 25% of them wear the GPS watch on every run. None of the former collegiate runners do this.
Crazy how different that is in different communities I suppose.
his eireness wrote:
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:Yes and yes, I would actually go further and say that I don't know a club runner who doesn't, even technophobes over 65
I manage a club team. I'd say I interact with about 40 runners in a given month. Maybe 25% of them wear the GPS watch on every run. None of the former collegiate runners do this.
Crazy how different that is in different communities I suppose.
I can understand runners not wearing GPS watches in every run and indeed it is a good idea as it stops them becoming dependent upon technology to know their paces.
The issue for me however is, surely if you're going on some sort of record hunt, setting up a whole internet running persona around your 365 marathons in 365 days you would want to chronicle the marathons in such a way as to provide evidence your runs were done.?
Run4Cock wrote:
his eireness wrote:I manage a club team. I'd say I interact with about 40 runners in a given month. Maybe 25% of them wear the GPS watch on every run. None of the former collegiate runners do this.
Crazy how different that is in different communities I suppose.
I can understand runners not wearing GPS watches in every run and indeed it is a good idea as it stops them becoming dependent upon technology to know their paces.
The issue for me however is, surely if you're going on some sort of record hunt, setting up a whole internet running persona around your 365 marathons in 365 days you would want to chronicle the marathons in such a way as to provide evidence your runs were done.?
I'd certainly have some proof if I was going for a record. Just found it fascinating that some find it outlandish that many runners don't wear their GPS on 100% of their runs.
his eireness wrote:
I manage a club team. I'd say I interact with about 40 runners in a given month. Maybe 25% of them wear the GPS watch on every run. None of the former collegiate runners do this.
Crazy how different that is in different communities I suppose.
I haven't had this discussion in about 5 years now so here it goes:
It is regarded as good practice to log all your mileage so you can look back and know what training worked well and what worked less well.
A GPS watch means that you don't have to estimate anything and now the logging is completely automated so why make work for yourself?
The old cliche about "runners who wear a Garmin don't know pace" comes from people who simply can't come to terms with the idea that it is entirely possible to press start when you start, press stop when you stop and not give the watch a thought in the run, I do all the time, I only care about what it has recorded not what it is recording. I really wish I'd had a quid for every time I've had to go over this point.
Most of the objections to wearing a GPS watch apply just the same to wearing an ordinary watch and are badly thought out, there really is no magic in running to feel.
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
[quote]
Most of the objections to wearing a GPS watch apply just the same to wearing an ordinary watch and are badly thought out, there really is no magic in running to feel.
Agree however it's truly amazing to see how many runners near fall apart if they forget their GPS watch at some race or other. I totally get the need to log your training and the data provided in the modern GPS watch can be a real help in understanding how the athlete is responding to the training stimulus however, like I said, *some* runners have lost the skill to run without constantly looking at their watch.
I was discussing what runners do and don't do and not really the merits of it.
But since you want to go there....I don't think there is much value in going back and reviewing a training log and knowing that a training run of 9 miles was at 6:48.36 average vs. knowing it was 9 miles at 6:40-7:00 pace. My concern in coaching is with athletes running too hard on their easy days while wearing a Garmin, or in jogging around with poor form/no worth in a parking lot to get the last .13 miles so they have 7 miles on the dot. Is it possible to just use the watch and not look? Certainly. But I have athletes who struggle with this and it is better for them to just not use the watch.
But again, my point was that it is fascinating that you live in a world where 100% of your running cohorts use a GPS watch for 100% of their runs. It really blows my mind.
his eireness wrote:
But since you want to go there....I don't think there is much value in going back and reviewing a training log and knowing that a training run of 9 miles was at 6:48.36 average vs. knowing it was 9 miles at 6:40-7:00 pace.
So there we differ, I do just on that point alone but there is much more to it than that.
Loop me in wrote:
Northener wrote:I think Ben has posted on here a few times now under different names, and going through the stages in predictable fashion for the LR community.
The "I'm going to try to make reasonable, devils advocate style arguments" stage in the hope this all blows over; to the "Oh shit, it's not working! I'm now going to angrily rant nonsense" stage, because HOW DARE people question my questionable ethics in all this.
Am I warm, Ben?
The next step, if you're interested, is creating fake FB accounts to defend your actions in sycophantic fashion. Looking forward to that!
I'm not sure if you were referring to my posts as being of "reasonable, devil's advocate" style, but either way I am not Ben. I am however a reasonably effective troll who doesn't like to see a good investigative thread fade away.
If it wouldn't take so long I would trawl through his looked runs to see if he has messed up anywhere (e.g. run in one place when he was actually somewhere else or whatever). But 365 days is a lot to check...this thing really needs a smoking gun.
I did initially think you were Ben, correct. Although now you've kept this thread going for a couple more pages, I'll happily retract that, as I don't see why you'd do that if you were him, AND, I've enjoyed the debate, if a little puerile at times.
For the record, I'm no longer as outraged as I was at first. It struck a nerve slightly when I heard how much he had profited through corporate sponsorship, but I strongly suspect his running/non-running will soon be forgotten about. Not just because of this controversy, but because clearly, after all this, he has not only shown himself to be NOT an athlete,but also a little bit boring in his social media posts.