Some fatboy coworker just buried me in the office charity 5k. WTF?

D1 walk on wrote:

P.S. There's a couple after thoughts I had. First, if you have a former state champ or even 9:30 HSer from the late 1990s like your co worker you have to give respect to that domain. A 9:30 during that late 1990s era was like today's 9:12-9:15 types. Secondly, a 9:30 two miler from 1997-98 likely won a lot of races. A kid gone adult still has that championship mentality and you can bet your ass that if it came down to a 250m kick, his intensity is probably going to be rekindled. You met the wrath of an ex champion.

Great post.

Wejo fits the bill of a 9:30 from the late 1990s. He said he was doing a 5k last weekend. Was it him?

But he doesn't have a gut like me....

Props to the trolleroos for this one -- got a Brojo Bite.

Ok, maybe this could actually be an interesting debate... but I want some proof (not even sure how): I want to see someone submit some sort of evidence to show the lowest 5k at the sloppiest height/weight.

ANYONE? I DARE YOU

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

One estimate is that you drop 20 seconds per mile for every 10 lbs that you lose (another calculator had a time drop of 19 seconds per 5k for 4 lbs lost). This would not be linear, otherwise, this guy would run 4:00 pace for 5k if he drops 60 lbs.

Or....OR>>>>>>> HE IS TROLLING. Yes, on letsun. Unbelievable, eh?

jjjjjjjjj wrote: What you saw, if you are not trolling, is .....

wow....just wow.

Yes, I said "if you are not trolling." That's right, I asserted that it might be a troll. Whether it is, you don't know. The above could well be a troll himself, using the same handle. In fact, it doesn't matter at all, because this kind of thing happens every weekend around the country.

9:30 is better than "sub-16", so the fat guy is better than this guy who ran "sub-16" in college. Unless that "sub-16" was 15:20 in XC.

I'm calling OP is full of shit, in fact i'm betting that he can't even run 18:30 even on tons of training.