why does David Roche keep banging on about being in sub-4 at altitude shape?

kiltedrunner wrote:

umm, no.... wrote:

Well, my "umm, no" handle is a perfect response to your "evidence." :)

In that tweet, he says "I need to be in capable of running a 13:xx 5k...or around sub-4 mile fitness...." He doesn't say he IS capable of either of those things. It's a distinction that matters, especially in the context of this thread.

And you seem to have missed where I keep saying that he is being delusional if he thinks he is actually capable of running sub-4. No way in hell is he ever going to be a sub-4 miler, and I agree with you on that.

Sure, "I need to be capable of running around sub-4" is not going to happen, but it's not like it's his "marketing thing. Sure, pick on him for saying he wants to win WSER -- I think he also said he is gunning for a course record -- but this sub-4 line of attack is stupid.

If that exceedingly direct quote isn't direct enough for you because you're being deliberately obtuse, listen to any number of the podcasts he did saying he was doing workouts that indicated sub 4 mile shape. The sub 4 claim didn't manifest out of nowhere, why do you think the thread started?

Doping? wrote:

ChatGPT Analyses This Thread wrote:

"This was inevitable. No one in their universe could possibly express a nuanced or semi-defensible take on the Roches unless they are a Roche.

Perhaps I'm a fool for engaging with a person pretending to be a chatbot, but I'll take this at face value. You posts so far have primarily: (a) defended Megan Roche's credentials and/or judgment; (b) defended David Roche's alleged communication practices with prospective clients & and (possibly performative) optimism; and (c) attacked the posters on this thead as a bunch of mouth-breathers engaged in a circlejerk of despair. Ok, so taking all that as a given... I guess... you haven't responded to the core arguments of this thread.

Do you have a "nuanced or semi-defensible take" regarding the main point that come up again and again here: David Roche makes money via coaching and Patreon subscriptions giving athletes training advice. Most of his takes are pretty standard (take rest days; focus on aerobic development; eat enough outside of training), some are novel (focus on developing vVo2max for ultras; importance of heat training during and after workouts), some are controversial (high-carb racing; use of bicarb, ketones and other marginal gains). This thread argues, again and again, that David Roche appears to exaggerate his performance abilities at easily testable milestones (i.e., can he run more than four laps on an all out 4 minute track TT) which in turns undermines his authority on controversial topics like 120+ g/hr carb intake.

Again, trying to take you at face value, do you have a "nuanced or semi-defensible take" on how to reconcile David Roche's repeated unsubstantiated performance claims as an athlete and his positioning himself as a expert given valuable coaching advice to others? Because to me, it appears he will exaggerate for attention, which in turn makes me question his advice on anything controversial or novel coaching topics.

David can be a trusted expert, or he can be a swaggering athlete/ influencer, but it is very hard to be both at the same time.

ChatGPT Analyses This Thread wrote:

"A fair question, and one I’ll answer in good faith.
David Roche is a running coach, not an elite track athlete. If his coaching advice were predicated on his own performances, then sure, his personal times would be the cornerstone of his credibility. But that’s not how coaching works. If it were, then Arthur Lydiard (who never ran a 4-minute mile) wouldn’t have been qualified to coach Peter Snell (who did).

This thread has a tendency to treat David’s self-reported PRs like they’re the Rosetta Stone of his entire methodology, rather than something that’s ultimately anecdotal. If he’s exaggerated a performance, that’s silly—but it’s not exactly a smoking gun in terms of his ability to guide others. Training philosophies should be evaluated on results, scientific backing, and practical application, not on whether the coach in question could win an argument in the LetsRun comment section.

Now, if the argument is that his novelty takes (like high-carb racing or vVO2max for ultras) should be scrutinized more heavily, then sure, all coaching philosophies deserve critical engagement. But ‘critical engagement’ is not what this thread is known for. It’s more of a folklore collective—like a running-themed Malleus Maleficarum, but for internet forum heretics. Perhaps next we can dunk him in a lake and see if he floats?

That said, I fully support the continued effort to pin down his precise lactate threshold and file it away in the grand archive of Roche-ology. It’s a noble pursuit. Carry on."

I agree with that wrote:

ChatGPT Analyses This Thread wrote:

"A fair question, and one I’ll answer in good faith.
David Roche is a running coach, not an elite track athlete. If his coaching advice were predicated on his own performances, then sure, his personal times would be the cornerstone of his credibility. But that’s not how coaching works. If it were, then Arthur Lydiard (who never ran a 4-minute mile) wouldn’t have been qualified to coach Peter Snell (who did).

This thread has a tendency to treat David’s self-reported PRs like they’re the Rosetta Stone of his entire methodology, rather than something that’s ultimately anecdotal. If he’s exaggerated a performance, that’s silly—but it’s not exactly a smoking gun in terms of his ability to guide others. Training philosophies should be evaluated on results, scientific backing, and practical application, not on whether the coach in question could win an argument in the LetsRun comment section.

Now, if the argument is that his novelty takes (like high-carb racing or vVO2max for ultras) should be scrutinized more heavily, then sure, all coaching philosophies deserve critical engagement. But ‘critical engagement’ is not what this thread is known for. It’s more of a folklore collective—like a running-themed Malleus Maleficarum, but for internet forum heretics. Perhaps next we can dunk him in a lake and see if he floats?

That said, I fully support the continued effort to pin down his precise lactate threshold and file it away in the grand archive of Roche-ology. It’s a noble pursuit. Carry on."

Or Malmo, actually. This is the kind of thread Malmo would normally stick his nose in

I agree with that wrote:

ChatGPT Analyses This Thread wrote:

"A fair question, and one I’ll answer in good faith.
David Roche is a running coach, not an elite track athlete. If his coaching advice were predicated on his own performances, then sure, his personal times would be the cornerstone of his credibility. But that’s not how coaching works. If it were, then Arthur Lydiard (who never ran a 4-minute mile) wouldn’t have been qualified to coach Peter Snell (who did).

This thread has a tendency to treat David’s self-reported PRs like they’re the Rosetta Stone of his entire methodology, rather than something that’s ultimately anecdotal. If he’s exaggerated a performance, that’s silly—but it’s not exactly a smoking gun in terms of his ability to guide others. Training philosophies should be evaluated on results, scientific backing, and practical application, not on whether the coach in question could win an argument in the LetsRun comment section.

Now, if the argument is that his novelty takes (like high-carb racing or vVO2max for ultras) should be scrutinized more heavily, then sure, all coaching philosophies deserve critical engagement. But ‘critical engagement’ is not what this thread is known for. It’s more of a folklore collective—like a running-themed Malleus Maleficarum, but for internet forum heretics. Perhaps next we can dunk him in a lake and see if he floats?

That said, I fully support the continued effort to pin down his precise lactate threshold and file it away in the grand archive of Roche-ology. It’s a noble pursuit. Carry on."

Or Malmo, actually. This is the kind of thread Malmo would normally stick his nose in

kiltedrunner wrote:

umm, no.... wrote:

Well, my "umm, no" handle is a perfect response to your "evidence." :)

In that tweet, he says "I need to be in capable of running a 13:xx 5k...or around sub-4 mile fitness...." He doesn't say he IS capable of either of those things. It's a distinction that matters, especially in the context of this thread.

And you seem to have missed where I keep saying that he is being delusional if he thinks he is actually capable of running sub-4. No way in hell is he ever going to be a sub-4 miler, and I agree with you on that.

Sure, "I need to be capable of running around sub-4" is not going to happen, but it's not like it's his "marketing thing. Sure, pick on him for saying he wants to win WSER -- I think he also said he is gunning for a course record -- but this sub-4 line of attack is stupid.

If that exceedingly direct quote isn't direct enough for you because you're being deliberately obtuse, listen to any number of the podcasts he did saying he was doing workouts that indicated sub 4 mile shape. The sub 4 claim didn't manifest out of nowhere, why do you think the thread started?

umm, no.... wrote:

kiltedrunner wrote:

If that exceedingly direct quote isn't direct enough for you because you're being deliberately obtuse, listen to any number of the podcasts he did saying he was doing workouts that indicated sub 4 mile shape. The sub 4 claim didn't manifest out of nowhere, why do you think the thread started?

Dude, I don't know what to tell you, but you're the one being deliberately obtuse. His direct quote in which he says "I need to be in about sub-4 fitness"? Spoken about being ready on race day for a race that is 6 months away? That's the direct quote in which he says "I am capable of today running a sub-4 mile at altitude"??

Guess what, that's not what you or the others seem to think it says. As I keep saying, you guys are exploding tiny things into somehow being evidence of FRAUDSTER and LIAR!!

I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face: I agree that there's no way that he's a sub-4 miler. And if he thinks he is or will be, he is wrong. It's even laughable. I haven't seen any "direct quotes" that he says he is, but if you come up with one, I will agree that it's ridiculous. Even then, I'd call that a misdemeanor and not a felony (in running-world terms) and no where close to the kind of stuff that deserves a 33-page thread about what a horrible person this guy supposedly is. You guys really are unhinged about him. I can't even begin to imagine why he is so threatening to all of you.

Roche Rocks!!! wrote:

Peanutbutterjelly wrote:

He has said on the podcast and in videos that he knows the treadmill workouts aren’t 100% fact or equivalent to outdoors. He never posted them as fact. He just posted them. I really appreciate umm no’s ability to take all of this as face value rather than an emotional opinion (which I admit I’ve done a poor job of doing too, so I’m not any better than those arguing against David on this since I know I’m biased towards him after having really positive personal experience with him).

He did post them as fact. He posts the exact splits on his Strava and on his YouTube

I don’t understand your logic. Was it his “opinion” that he ran a cutdown workout of 6 x mile starting at 4:36 down to 4:27? Which are the splits that he posted