JK- what’s the most rational explanation for how Sara Hall runs significantly faster at age 37

newredsun wrote:

Alright, I have to say it; watch the legislative hearings from the swing state that must still be online and then tell us with a straight face that the elections were not stolen. There is a universe of proof from people who have literally risked their lives.

Otherwise, just admit you like the result that we little turds do not have control but are born to obey. Just f-in admit that you do not want a nation run by the little guy.

But we just elected the little guy. Biden has to be like 70 pounds smaller than trump. nice to replace some silver spoon, east coast elite (seriously the dude lived in Manhattan all his life) with a nice middle american guy with middle class values.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

newredsun wrote:

Alright, I have to say it; watch the legislative hearings from the swing state that must still be online and then tell us with a straight face that the elections were not stolen. There is a universe of proof from people who have literally risked their lives.

Otherwise, just admit you like the result that we little turds do not have control but are born to obey. Just f-in admit that you do not want a nation run by the little guy.

But we just elected the little guy. Biden has to be like 70 pounds smaller than trump. nice to replace some silver spoon, east coast elite (seriously the dude lived in Manhattan all his life) with a nice middle american guy with middle class values.

"There is a universe of proof from people who have literally risked their lives."

There is no proof of anything - except in the asylum of Trump and his supporters. No court (even with Trump appointees) has accepted their claims - and neither has Trump's number one stooge Bill Barr. He has said there is no voter fraud. The losers have well and truly lost.

Above in response to comment by newredsun.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

In the women's event 2.20 has been good enough to win championships races.

2:10:30 has been good enough win men's championships. A guy with a 2:10:30 PR is unlikely to win those championship races though given how bad the conditions tend to be.

2:20 isn't what it used to be with 12 people breaking it in 2019 and 9 in 2020 despite there only being a handful of races.

So in your eyes a woman running a 2:20 is about the same as a guy running a 2:10:30...or is that just a horrible analogy?

You can give all the “women’s running has no depth” excuses as you want, but Hall’s 2:20:32 is the 88th fastest marathon time ever run by a woman. The 88th fastest men’s time for the marathon is 2:04:52 by Feyisa Lelisa at the 2012 Chicago Marathon. In no way shape or form does a 2:20 by a woman equate to a 2:10:30 or even a 2:08 by a man, it is a much, much higher quality time than that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

But we just elected the little guy. Biden has to be like 70 pounds smaller than trump. nice to replace some silver spoon, east coast elite (seriously the dude lived in Manhattan all his life) with a nice middle american guy with middle class values.

"There is a universe of proof from people who have literally risked their lives."

There is no proof of anything - except in the asylum of Trump and his supporters. No court (even with Trump appointees) has accepted their claims - and neither has Trump's number one stooge Bill Barr. He has said there is no voter fraud. The losers have well and truly lost.

You have to understand that my response was not actually meant for you. It was to plant a seed that some other readers will actually go watch the hearings and see the evidence; the evidence that you think is a mirage because the tech giants have blacked it out.

Remember, you will not actually be voting also in the future.

You missed his point.

I said nothing of them being equivalent.Not sure where your brain got that from. I just pointed out that you can win a men's championship race in 2:10:30. I leave it to you to figure out why the guy with the 2:10.00 PR wasn't the one who won the race.

And yes it is about a 2:07/2:08. 2:20 is nice round number but let not forget it is 6 mins off the world record these days.

Also Championship races are not won in 2:20 basically ever.

armstrongmorans wrote:

Also Championship races are not won in 2:20 basically ever.

The last WC race was won in 2.32 (in the heat of Doha) but the last two Olympic titles were won in 2.23 and 2.24 respectively.

In women's marathon running 2.20 is a top performance.

No woman running 2.14 and 2.15 was 37. But there was every likelihood they were doped.

newredsun wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"There is a universe of proof from people who have literally risked their lives."

There is no proof of anything - except in the asylum of Trump and his supporters. No court (even with Trump appointees) has accepted their claims - and neither has Trump's number one stooge Bill Barr. He has said there is no voter fraud. The losers have well and truly lost.

You have to understand that my response was not actually meant for you. It was to plant a seed that some other readers will actually go watch the hearings and see the evidence; the evidence that you think is a mirage because the tech giants have blacked it out.

Remember, you will not actually be voting also in the future.

It hasn't been blacked out. It has been refuted. Trump has tried to claim voter-fraud in court after court but his cases have been thrown out because of no proof. He has been unable to provide any evidence - just empty claims. Like you.

No women's world championship or Olympic title since 2012 has beaten 2.20. Most have been won between 2.23-2.27.

2.20 is an outstanding time for women and as I have said would have won all the championship titles in the last decade. It is easily comparable to 2.05 or better for men.

You don’t understand the difference between Championship races and TT type races.

People keep saying that she is running 110 mile per week. She isn't. She's running 130-140. Sara says this in the interview on the Letsrun podcast. Her performance is a combination of the training and the shoes. The question is how is she able to absorb all the training, stay healthy, recover, etc. running 130-140 miles per week?

Deena was light years ahead of Sara in the 5000, 10000 and marathon. Deena was also running extremely well as a master. So let's say the shoes are worth 2-3 minutes. How come Deena, who is immensely more talented than Sara, could not run 2:22-2:23 at age 37?

vwkjbvwiehfbew wrote:

People keep saying that she is running 110 mile per week. She isn't. She's running 130-140. Sara says this in the interview on the Letsrun podcast. Her performance is a combination of the training and the shoes. The question is how is she able to absorb all the training, stay healthy, recover, etc. running 130-140 miles per week?

At 37.

armstrongmorans wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No women's world championship or Olympic title since 2012 has beaten 2.20. Most have been won between 2.23-2.27.

2.20 is an outstanding time for women and as I have said would have won all the championship titles in the last decade. It is easily comparable to 2.05 or better for men.

You don’t understand the difference between Championship races and TT type races.

There are world records that have been set in championship races. There is no rule that says they must be slower than any other race.

The same reason that 90% of elite runners drop off in their mid 30s. Do you think most people maintain forever? Sara looks great. Her body looks 27. We all have different genes. And don't forget that she was national champ at 18. Hard to somebody is much more talented than a national champ.

Deena fan wrote:

Deena was light years ahead of Sara in the 5000, 10000 and marathon. Deena was also running extremely well as a master. So let's say the shoes are worth 2-3 minutes. How come Deena, who is immensely more talented than Sara, could not run 2:22-2:23 at age 37?

Because she had a baby.