More than happy to debate, I, and many others here welcome it. Can you at least admit a lot of the numbers he is logging don't make sense? With all the data available, from many thousands of runners, Goodge is an anomaly, but only when he is running 'unsupervised'.
Would Goodge be prepared to run supervised, in a proper tested scientific experiment so he can produce the same numbers? The answer is no, so you have to ask yourself why?
You lot can give it but can’t take it. Happy to throw out insults like crotch sniffers, flat earthers etc but don’t like anything else being said back to you. And yeah I don’t know any of your ages but you all sound pretty old and miserable from what I can tell.
Calling you a flat earther isn't an insult, it's the appropriate descriptor for someone who's happy to selectively ignore evidence and form an opinion based on a toxic cocktail of ignorance, groupthink and a total lack of self awareness. If you want us to call you a "Goodger" or something instead then that's fine - it'll mean exactly the same thing.
You're lashing out at people holding up a mirror because you don't like your own reflection. You can call people here old and we won't care - some of us are! Probably quite cynical too! But better that than gullible. Plenty of people end up in cults, plenty of people don't. Which side, do you think, requires claims to be backed by sufficient evidence?
Maybe have a think about some of the questions you've been ignoring all this time and come back when you've got any answers to them... The fact that you're having to drag the conversation off-topic like this rather than provide substance to your argument speaks volumes.
You lot can give it but can’t take it. Happy to throw out insults like crotch sniffers, flat earthers etc but don’t like anything else being said back to you. And yeah I don’t know any of your ages but you all sound pretty old and miserable from what I can tell.
Calling you a flat earther isn't an insult, it's the appropriate descriptor for someone who's happy to selectively ignore evidence and form an opinion based on a toxic cocktail of ignorance, groupthink and a total lack of self awareness. If you want us to call you a "Goodger" or something instead then that's fine - it'll mean exactly the same thing.
You're lashing out at people holding up a mirror because you don't like your own reflection. You can call people here old and we won't care - some of us are! Probably quite cynical too! But better that than gullible. Plenty of people end up in cults, plenty of people don't. Which side, do you think, requires claims to be backed by sufficient evidence?
Maybe have a think about some of the questions you've been ignoring all this time and come back when you've got any answers to them... The fact that you're having to drag the conversation off-topic like this rather than provide substance to your argument speaks volumes.
Goodge will soon finish his run and under record time. This will make him either one of the greatest multi-day runners of all time or one of the greatest running scoundrels / frauds of all time. There really is no in between on this one, which makes it fascinating.
Let’s be realistic approximately 95% of individuals engaged in this discussion are unlikely to change their stance, regardless of any additional data presented. Even if Goodge were to supply further evidence, which, importantly, he is not obligated to do given that he has met the accepted verification standards it would likely be dissected and dismissed by those already anchored in their position. The issue here is not a lack of data, but rather the tendency to apply inconsistent and subjective standards that go beyond what is required or expected in endurance verification.
The recurring argument that "his heart rate looks suspicious when unsupervised" fails to acknowledge the consistency of his physiological data across multiple multi-day efforts. His heart rate displays similar trends in every prolonged event, suggesting that this is simply how his body responds under sustained, low-intensity output. We're dealing with an athlete who can complete consecutive 70+ mile days, an extraordinary feat for which we have limited comparative datasets. The idea that an experienced ultra-endurance runner can maintain a low, steady heart rate during prolonged, controlled exertion is entirely plausible and supported by existing physiological principles, including aerobic efficiency, high mitochondrial density, and superior fatigue resistance.
Ultimately, scepticism is healthy, but it must be grounded in a fair and evidence-based framework. Moving the goalposts or demanding arbitrary forms of validation, especially when the athlete has already complied with established norms undermines both the integrity of the discussion and the legitimacy of extraordinary athletic performance. If the data is consistent, the methodology sound, and the achievements repeatable, the burden shifts from doubt to informed analysis.
Let’s be realistic approximately 95% of individuals engaged in this discussion are unlikely to change their stance, regardless of any additional data presented. Even if Goodge were to supply further evidence, which, importantly, he is not obligated to do given that he has met the accepted verification standards it would likely be dissected and dismissed by those already anchored in their position. The issue here is not a lack of data, but rather the tendency to apply inconsistent and subjective standards that go beyond what is required or expected in endurance verification.
The recurring argument that "his heart rate looks suspicious when unsupervised" fails to acknowledge the consistency of his physiological data across multiple multi-day efforts. His heart rate displays similar trends in every prolonged event, suggesting that this is simply how his body responds under sustained, low-intensity output. We're dealing with an athlete who can complete consecutive 70+ mile days, an extraordinary feat for which we have limited comparative datasets. The idea that an experienced ultra-endurance runner can maintain a low, steady heart rate during prolonged, controlled exertion is entirely plausible and supported by existing physiological principles, including aerobic efficiency, high mitochondrial density, and superior fatigue resistance.
Ultimately, scepticism is healthy, but it must be grounded in a fair and evidence-based framework. Moving the goalposts or demanding arbitrary forms of validation, especially when the athlete has already complied with established norms undermines both the integrity of the discussion and the legitimacy of extraordinary athletic performance. If the data is consistent, the methodology sound, and the achievements repeatable, the burden shifts from doubt to informed analysis.
So much wrong in this post it doesn't deserve proper reply.
Let’s be realistic approximately 95% of individuals engaged in this discussion are unlikely to change their stance, regardless of any additional data presented. Even if Goodge were to supply further evidence, which, importantly, he is not obligated to do given that he has met the accepted verification standards it would likely be dissected and dismissed by those already anchored in their position. The issue here is not a lack of data, but rather the tendency to apply inconsistent and subjective standards that go beyond what is required or expected in endurance verification.
The recurring argument that "his heart rate looks suspicious when unsupervised" fails to acknowledge the consistency of his physiological data across multiple multi-day efforts. His heart rate displays similar trends in every prolonged event, suggesting that this is simply how his body responds under sustained, low-intensity output. We're dealing with an athlete who can complete consecutive 70+ mile days, an extraordinary feat for which we have limited comparative datasets. The idea that an experienced ultra-endurance runner can maintain a low, steady heart rate during prolonged, controlled exertion is entirely plausible and supported by existing physiological principles, including aerobic efficiency, high mitochondrial density, and superior fatigue resistance.
Ultimately, scepticism is healthy, but it must be grounded in a fair and evidence-based framework. Moving the goalposts or demanding arbitrary forms of validation, especially when the athlete has already complied with established norms undermines both the integrity of the discussion and the legitimacy of extraordinary athletic performance. If the data is consistent, the methodology sound, and the achievements repeatable, the burden shifts from doubt to informed analysis.
You can't really "proof" journey runs like this one.
If Goodge does a proper 6 day or 10 day race and has similar results including his heart rate I would believe him but that will never happen.
There is a long history of these kind of "runners". Robert Garside, Robert Young... and now Goodge.
I bet you’re fun at parties with your bachelors degree and 105 IQ.
My point was that him trying to put down other people’s intelligence was just proof of a lack of his own intelligence.
Way too low with both guesses. The thing is that it is a lack of understanding to not be able to comprehend what the problem is with this person's HR. Whether that is not wanting to understand or not having the intellectual capacity to understand is something that is hard to say with certainty.
The goalposts have been in the same place for years now - he still hasn't kicked the ball through them.
It's incredible that the data pattern he claimed was technological failure in his transcon is now being used as evidence that he's a superhuman athlete. Do you see the issue with your argument?
And to say "We're dealing with an athlete who can complete consecutive 70+ mile days, an extraordinary feat for which we have limited comparative datasets" is laughably circular. It's like me telling you I've just run a mile in a minute down a freeway, with a 60HR, then showing you the strava stats and defending it by saying "you're looking at an athlete who can run a mile in a minute, an extraordinary feat for which we have limited comparative datasets." Now it's your job to prove I didn't run it - good luck!
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
You lot can give it but can’t take it. Happy to throw out insults like crotch sniffers, flat earthers etc
This again is self contradiction, are you saying that if you make a claim or an insult people are not allowed to respond? Because that is all anyone is doing. You seem to operate on very strange reasoning. Much like a flat earther which is why the comparison has been made several times.
You can call me a flat earther or a crotch sniffer all you like but don’t get butt hurt if I say f*ck you or call you a miserable old c*nt was the point I was making but if you only have a bachelors degree and a double digit IQ I understand how that went over your head.
Goodge deniers and Goodge apologists should be asking for the same analysis. A comparison of data between Coros and Whoop. The source data should be compared - not the data that winds up in Strava.
Following since the US transcon, agree with the majority that the data is suspicious, even more so when compared to supervised events. Ultimately, Goodge is meeting the criteria set my Guinness Book of Records to satisfy a valid record attempt. He clearly doesn’t care to provide further evidence or data, whether this be due to cheating or not, for a minority of sceptics on web forums which will ultimately make no difference to him advertising on his socials and in the media that he is the new record holder.
Without concrete evidence eg. Boots on the ground, it’s clear that going back and forth on suspect and lack of data has proved fruitless in forcing Goodge to hand over further metrics. In my opinion, this is the only way to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Goodge Superfans. I must admit it is a shame that with the quantity of people questioning these efforts that this has not happened.
You would also hope in the future that the Guinness Book of World Records required sufficient evidence of an attempt to avoid situations such as this.
Following since the US transcon, agree with the majority that the data is suspicious, even more so when compared to supervised events. Ultimately, Goodge is meeting the criteria set my Guinness Book of Records to satisfy a valid record attempt. He clearly doesn’t care to provide further evidence or data, whether this be due to cheating or not, for a minority of sceptics on web forums which will ultimately make no difference to him advertising on his socials and in the media that he is the new record holder.
Without concrete evidence eg. Boots on the ground, it’s clear that going back and forth on suspect and lack of data has proved fruitless in forcing Goodge to hand over further metrics. In my opinion, this is the only way to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Goodge Superfans. I must admit it is a shame that with the quantity of people questioning these efforts that this has not happened.
You would also hope in the future that the Guinness Book of World Records required sufficient evidence of an attempt to avoid situations such as this.
Guinness Book of "World Records" is actually part of the problem. They don't understand running and they don't care.
Mehh usual response from you lot, didn't expect any less tbh.
Yeah the "usual response" isn't it - asking the same questions, getting zero answers. As usual. One of you pops up, strawmans the case against Goodge, and scurries away into the ether.
If you want to move the debate on, why not try answering some/any of the questions being posed to you? You've landed yourself in the same position as Goodge, really - incapable of justifying your position, vaguely annoyed that you're expected to. But you are, I'm afraid!
Yes it’s exactly the same thing as you running a mile in a minute with a 60 bpm HR. Totally identical. The extrapolation in this place is wild.
I've done it and I've got a Strava post to prove it. Think I was in a car? You'd better be able to prove it you jealous, miserable old loser. Get a life. You're just jealous that I'm doing something positive in the world, you hater. LET'S F***ING GO! THAT ROAD GOT POUNDED BRO! Oh and buy this muscle oil if you too want to run a mile a minute - it's 100% real snake so you know it's good LET'S GO
If you think that running a 1 min mile with a 60bpm HR is anywhere near the same as what WG is doing then you're delusional. You still don't have any evidence that there's any cheating going on. A wrist HR is the most "evidence" you've got to go on.