Tara Langdon's 24 hour tread run to benefit JJ Safehouse

You can't make this stuff up:

https://imgur.com/a/mvq9A

There was a follow up video where she was acting all barred up which has been removed as well. I don't know why her "wow"ing her own posts about it irks me so much, BUT IT DOES.

Cadence running wrote:

You can't make this stuff up:

https://imgur.com/a/mvq9A

Well at least they are being forthright. Good luck to Tara on her future efforts.

Cadence running wrote:

You can't make this stuff up:

That seems like an eminently reasonable response to me. The problem here is that the people who were talking about unofficial records weren't really aware of how that sounded to other parts of the community. They were focused on the positive accomplishment. I can excuse Cadence Running. But Tara should know better.

Reasonable wrote:

That seems like an eminently reasonable response to me. The problem here is that the people who were talking about unofficial records weren't really aware of how that sounded to other parts of the community. They were focused on the positive accomplishment. I can excuse Cadence Running. But Tara should know better.

If you talk about records you have to know something about them. Hungarian Edit Berces was a world class ultrarunner, Tara is just an ultrarunner. Not bad but also not exceptional good.

Tara's treadmill was way off in their measurement and let's not forget that she had to take care of her kid for almost 2 hours and some people saw the treadmill running while she was not on it, one the now deleted video.

It sounds like she may make an actual, documented treadmill record attempt. That will be interesting. If she gets all her documentation and calibration ducks in a row and paces specifically to just break the 153.x record (with no long breaks) -- two big ifs -- I give her maybe a 25% chance. I know she hasn't come close before in an actual race. But this run did show something. No one knows how far she actually ran, but I'll guess over 140. Which given the controlled environment relative to crappy weather and terrain at North Coast where she ran 132 is plausible. Add in the time she was stopped and she's in the ballpark.

But I expect that if she tries, it's more likely she will shoot for closer to 160 and blow up.

Reasonable wrote:

It sounds like she may make an actual, documented treadmill record attempt. That will be interesting. If she gets all her documentation and calibration ducks in a row and paces specifically to just break the 153.x record (with no long breaks) -- two big ifs -- I give her maybe a 25% chance. I know she hasn't come close before in an actual race. But this run did show something. No one knows how far she actually ran, but I'll guess over 140. Which given the controlled environment relative to crappy weather and terrain at North Coast where she ran 132 is plausible. Add in the time she was stopped and she's in the ballpark.

But I expect that if she tries, it's more likely she will shoot for closer to 160 and blow up.

High 140's for a calibrated treadmill effort, lower 140's for a real race. Everything else is totally unrealistic.

It's not like you run a little faster and you get to the 160 mark. Who thinks that has not done a 24 hour race yet.

Her fastest mile was mile 120 Tara is on another level who even cares about stripping cadence from this run but not others she is the REAL DEAL

wejo wrote:

I received the request but am not going to delete the thread. I don't see anything wrong with people scrutinizing a run that would be a women's world record. If you find specific posts that are objectionable, please email me. Nothing wrong with people saying "the treadmill must not be calibrated or she kept it going when she stepped off and it shouldn't count."

She can still be a great person and still raise money for charity because this whole run sounds totally unofficial.

So why did you remove the Amy Hughes thread, just because her boyfriend clicked report?

You never even look at what you delete half the time.

Why did you remove a Robert Plagmann cheating thread SEVEN times, even when the RD came on and said he'd cheated, plus at other ultras too!

STOP removing threads. Yes, this should stay, like all the others should have.

what a pity wrote:

Such a shame that she chose to claim the 160+ miles instead of explaining the data in a more reasonable way.

Its tarnished an otherwise commendable effort.

Only herself to blame...and Doug Brandt for doing the same thing.

She clearly claims on Facebook she ran 161 miles. Utter nonsense. No way is she that good.

She must know she didn't, yet boasts that she DID, but that it ONLY won;t count as a record as not enough witnesses.

She has silly fanboys that will believe anything.

I don;t use Strava or treadmills so can someone please explain how she got that Strava data that says 161, and why there's no cadence on it?

Team Tara wrote:

Her fastest mile was mile 120 Tara is on another level who even cares about stripping cadence from this run but not others she is the REAL DEAL

Let's wait and see. Her next 24 hour result in a REAL race matters, not a weird stunt on a non calibrated treadmill.

Forest Gump again wrote:

Team Tara wrote:

Her fastest mile was mile 120 Tara is on another level who even cares about stripping cadence from this run but not others she is the REAL DEAL

Let's wait and see. Her next 24 hour result in a REAL race matters, not a weird stunt on a non calibrated treadmill.

How did she get Strava to say 161 miles though, when she simply didn't?

Total nonsense wrote:

How did she get Strava to say 161 miles though, when she simply didn't?

That's easy. She was using a footpod measuring cadence on a treadmill but Zwift doesn't actually need to acquire any data from a treadmill. In fact, you don't even need a treadmill. Zwift just bases hypothetical speed on a cadence reading from the footpod, not actually any real reliable measure of speed.

You are suppose to do some calibrations with the footpod so Zwift can estimate your speed from your cadence but this does nothing for variable stride length or if you do something like hanging onto the treadmill.

Total nonsense wrote:

Forest Gump again wrote:

Let's wait and see. Her next 24 hour result in a REAL race matters, not a weird stunt on a non calibrated treadmill.

How did she get Strava to say 161 miles though, when she simply didn't?

All of her treadmill runs appear to be ~50 seconds per mile faster than her outdoor runs. She either has no internal sense of pace at all (ignorance) or knows she is misrepresenting herself (deception). The fact that her Zwift runs before and after have cadence but this one doesn't unfortunately points to the second option.

My opinion is she did it for the fleeting social media praise which is kinda sad. But her life situation is kinda legit sad too, and if lying about a treadmill run gets her through the day I don't think it makes her a bad person.

Total nonsense wrote:

How did she get Strava to say 161 miles though, when she simply didn't?

She just posted the stuff on Strava. This wasn't even a real run outside. It was a projected virtual run on a fantasy island. That's why you see her running on water at Strava.

Also people saw in her video, which was deleted that she was not on the treadmill while the miles where adding up.

Any more questions?

scam_watcheroo wrote:

Total nonsense wrote:

How did she get Strava to say 161 miles though, when she simply didn't?

That's easy. She was using a footpod measuring cadence on a treadmill but Zwift doesn't actually need to acquire any data from a treadmill. In fact, you don't even need a treadmill. Zwift just bases hypothetical speed on a cadence reading from the footpod, not actually any real reliable measure of speed.

You are suppose to do some calibrations with the footpod so Zwift can estimate your speed from your cadence but this does nothing for variable stride length or if you do something like hanging onto the treadmill.

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/11/hands-upcoming-running.html

She's a total lying fraud. I wound her up on Facebook a bit and told her there's no way she did 161.

She has moronic fanboys like Amy Hughes that just defend her, who are clueless about running.

She still claims she did 161.

Sad and mentally ill

She is still saying she ran 161 miles, just saying the ONLY reason it won't be a record is because no witnesses.

She knows damn well she didn't run that far and is bullshitting people that don't know any better.

This goon keeps speaking up saying she did run 161, LOL.

https://www.facebook.com/bob.mohr2

scam_watcheroo wrote:

Total nonsense wrote:

How did she get Strava to say 161 miles though, when she simply didn't?

That's easy. She was using a footpod measuring cadence on a treadmill but Zwift doesn't actually need to acquire any data from a treadmill. In fact, you don't even need a treadmill. Zwift just bases hypothetical speed on a cadence reading from the footpod, not actually any real reliable measure of speed.

You are suppose to do some calibrations with the footpod so Zwift can estimate your speed from your cadence but this does nothing for variable stride length or if you do something like hanging onto the treadmill.

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/11/hands-upcoming-running.html

When I pointed this out on her Facebook her fanboys went nuts! LOL!

They would believe the earth was flat if she told them.

She's a cross between Rob Young and Amy Hughes!

Still claiming 161 wrote:

She is still saying she ran 161 miles, just saying the ONLY reason it won't be a record is because no witnesses.

She knows damn well she didn't run that far and is bullshitting people that don't know any better.

This goon keeps speaking up saying she did run 161, LOL.

https://www.facebook.com/bob.mohr2

Who is this Bob? Her coach? He gets pretty worked up if you dare state her data is BS