This thread was originally titled, "Incredible development in the $612,000 Transcon Goodge run, currently ongoing" but the new title is more descriptive. The description of the run is here.
If you’ve followed Goodge over the years he always says he walks up any incline regardless of how steep. He has been walking parts of each day of the transcon.
If you’ve followed Goodge over the years he always says he walks up any incline regardless of how steep. He has been walking parts of each day of the transcon.
I can't believe I forgot that Goodge always says he walks up any incline regardless of how steep! Thanks for cracking the case!
The data. I was late coming to this thread, but I took a good look at it and understand exactly what Will C. is referring to. Anyone who dismisses this as "wrist based HR data is inaccurate" doesn't get it. I'll hold off on this discussion until Will returns with his report.
I have two theories. Theory 1 is that Willvlc is an insane loon who still can't give it up. Theory 2 required that the last few days of data are materially different from the first few weeks. Will see what I find when I analyze it.
I've download and analyzed Goodge's data from after the last time I looked at it and including the days where Willvlc was there observing. There is no material change in the data patterns and values. Goodge's data is normal and verifies his transcon.
My conclusion: Willvlc is an insane loon who can't give up his lunacy about wrist watch heart rate by posting a cryptic rant after he left America with nothing but some satisfying alone time with Goodge.
Edit: Meant to say you need to divide your cadence by 2. 170-180 would be the number of steps from both feet so you need to divide by 2.
Why divide?
Stride length is the length of each stride, left-right, right-left and so on. If it is 180, then each one is 90. So it is 180*x.
By the way, it is unlikely to be 7 feet! Good grief, that is 2:36min/km. A 7:30min/km runner is doing 133m/min, which is 75cm for 180 cadence, extremely unlikely. More like 1m stride at 133 cadence
Edit: Meant to say you need to divide your cadence by 2. 170-180 would be the number of steps from both feet so you need to divide by 2.
Why divide?
Stride length is the length of each stride, left-right, right-left and so on. If it is 180, then each one is 90. So it is 180*x.
By the way, it is unlikely to be 7 feet! Good grief, that is 2:36min/km. A 7:30min/km runner is doing 133m/min, which is 75cm for 180 cadence, extremely unlikely. More like 1m stride at 133 cadence
I already wrote earlier in the thread that the data files records cadence as 1 cadence = 2 steps because that is considered a full revolution. And instead of just multiplying by 2, I just left the cadence as the data file records it which means that the stride lengths in my charts is going to be the combined of both steps including when he is running fast and has some air time.
You are incorrectly assuming he is just running at one steady pace. As clearly seen in the dual humps in the charts, it shows distinct peaks for his running cadence and walking cadence. Goodge does a combination of run, walk, rest.
It's hilarious this guy actually started to run/walk now that the other guy is there.
My memory's a little hazy, but isn't that exactly what happened with Robby Y? I think he managed one huge day of actual running when Laz showed up, but it just about killed him, and after that he was wrecked, and soon dropped out (without telling anyone, I think). Am I remembering wrong?
Stride length is the length of each stride, left-right, right-left and so on. If it is 180, then each one is 90. So it is 180*x.
By the way, it is unlikely to be 7 feet! Good grief, that is 2:36min/km. A 7:30min/km runner is doing 133m/min, which is 75cm for 180 cadence, extremely unlikely. More like 1m stride at 133 cadence
I already wrote earlier in the thread that the data files records cadence as 1 cadence = 2 steps because that is considered a full revolution. And instead of just multiplying by 2, I just left the cadence as the data file records it which means that the stride lengths in my charts is going to be the combined of both steps including when he is running fast and has some air time.
You are incorrectly assuming he is just running at one steady pace. As clearly seen in the dual humps in the charts, it shows distinct peaks for his running cadence and walking cadence. Goodge does a combination of run, walk, rest.
OK, makes more sense looking at those images posted. Cadence and stride for running is never the 'revolution ' as it is for cycling ...it is for each stride. However, those images are actually meaningless for calculation purposes, as you need the average of each (cadence and stride). There shouldn't be any Bolt like data points of 8 ft at all, nor anything really below 80cm either.
They should try to catch this guy the way the RD of the Sydney to Melbourne tried, back when it was still held, more than 30 yrs ago.
Story (from a volunteer) has it that a runner was reported by other runners of using his wife (his crew member) to alternate running with him during the night. They were the same height and build and indistinguishable in a fleecy tracksuit of late 80's vintage. So the RD went ahead of runners, climbed a tree on side of road and waited for them to pass. However, they decided that the same pull off area would be a nice place to rest and fuel etc, and they parked under the same tree. RD was stuck up there as they slept .
There shouldn't be any Bolt like data points of 8 ft at all, nor anything really below 80cm either.
That's where you also assume wrong. There is a distribution of the lengths because GPS location itself is not perfect, as you can see in any in depth review of running watches. GPS location error can be up to several feet at times depending on signal. But over many samples over time like you get on Goodge's long runs, these GPS errors are not an issue and is a sign that that data is real. Even if you stand still, your GPS location drifts around. And 8 feet for the length of stride for both legs with some air time is within human possibility. Same with 80 cm because of either small steps when he is resting due to GPS drift.
There shouldn't be any Bolt like data points of 8 ft at all, nor anything really below 80cm either.
That's where you also assume wrong. There is a distribution of the lengths because GPS location itself is not perfect, as you can see in any in depth review of running watches. GPS location error can be up to several feet at times depending on signal. But over many samples over time like you get on Goodge's long runs, these GPS errors are not an issue and is a sign that that data is real. Even if you stand still, your GPS location drifts around. And 8 feet for the length of stride for both legs with some air time is within human possibility. Same with 80 cm because of either small steps when he is resting due to GPS drift.
Whatever I assume, the data is presented incorrectly as you yourself point out now.
a) it should be 'per stride'
b) it should be an average cadence vs stride, whilst moving.
The rest is inconsequential data of no value to anyone
I look at my garmin after say, a 5km, cadence is 175. If I ran 20min, then that is 250m/min and becomes a 1.43m stride. Why would you care what happens when this walking guy takes a bite of cheese at the side of road?
Whatever I assume, the data is presented incorrectly as you yourself point out now.
a) it should be 'per stride'
b) it should be an average cadence vs stride, whilst moving.
The rest is inconsequential data of no value to anyone
I look at my garmin after say, a 5km, cadence is 175. If I ran 20min, then that is 250m/min and becomes a 1.43m stride. Why would you care what happens when this walking guy takes a bite of cheese at the side of road?
a) Knock yourself out and divide by 2, doesn't change the relative graph distribution
b) You are wrong. Laymen only look at average cadence and stride. Cheat finders also look at the distributions because averages erase information that can be important (such as what happens why Strava pretties their numbers and graphs and introduce false artifacts). The distributions are key to telling what happened. The walking is just as important as the running and just as important when he is resting and not moving. Do you stop your watch if you have to take a crap during a marathon?
what’s the current status? is this now over after the visit from the governing body?
As ultra running is part of athletics, Max Siegel was so outraged that something like this was going on in his own backyard, he is personally coming out to do his own investigation to maintain the integrity of the sport......If you didn't get the hint, Goodge is still running like he has been all transcon and his journey continues because ALL the data shows it's genuine. Ignore the hysterics of Willvlc.
Here’s a new updated from Will C. on the Jogle FB page. It’s pretty damning.
“Hi all. My final report into my four week investigation into the four year operations of the Goodge-Balinger running partnership will be published soon. It will answer most or all of your questions, and give the matter far more illumination. I confirm there has been a huge development in the case. My firm advice is to stop squabbling on here, and wait for the report. It will be released for all, and then the global running community can make up its own mind. Until then, you are wasting time and energy discussing this matter in intricate detail, because you don't know what's in the report. I will attempt to give a precise time and date for publication within the next day or so. Rest assured that huge work is going on behind the scenes now and I am being assisted in the production of the document by many reputable parties. Rgds, Will”