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

ultra ultra ultra wrote:

None of his workouts suggest that he's even in sub-4:10 or 14:40 shape. Only in a bizarro world in which you've never interacted with an elite male track athlete would you think that running 12x400 in 64/5 or 10x600 in 1:42 (even in Boulder) would translate into sub-4 shape. Maybe the goal is just to stir the pot, but he could just say I'm going to show up to States in 14:30 sea-level 5k shape. That puts him on the same straightaway as current-form Hawks and Walmsley and maybe a bit ahead of Jornet and Farvard. Instead, for someone who is all about the science, he comes across as an idiot.

roche is a conman wrote:

ultra ultra ultra wrote:

None of his workouts suggest that he's even in sub-4:10 or 14:40 shape. Only in a bizarro world in which you've never interacted with an elite male track athlete would you think that running 12x400 in 64/5 or 10x600 in 1:42 (even in Boulder) would translate into sub-4 shape. Maybe the goal is just to stir the pot, but he could just say I'm going to show up to States in 14:30 sea-level 5k shape. That puts him on the same straightaway as current-form Hawks and Walmsley and maybe a bit ahead of Jornet and Farvard. Instead, for someone who is all about the science, he comes across as an idiot.

He's a con man, used car salesman, however you want to phrase it

Rocherun wrote:

has he ever actually ran the times he claims he was “in shape” for?

ultra ultra ultra wrote:

None of his workouts suggest that he's even in sub-4:10 or 14:40 shape. Only in a bizarro world in which you've never interacted with an elite male track athlete would you think that running 12x400 in 64/5 or 10x600 in 1:42 (even in Boulder) would translate into sub-4 shape. Maybe the goal is just to stir the pot, but he could just say I'm going to show up to States in 14:30 sea-level 5k shape. That puts him on the same straightaway as current-form Hawks and Walmsley and maybe a bit ahead of Jornet and Farvard. Instead, for someone who is all about the science, he comes across as an idiot.

Albie Santamoravia wrote:

Rocherun wrote:

has he ever actually ran the times he claims he was “in shape” for?

Last year's Leadville 100 springs to mind.

why we hate ultra runners wrote:

this is why people hate ultra runners. Its a different sport from track or even road running and it needs to be treated as such. They are not elite in the events that award olympic medals, and if they were, they'd be at the olympics instead of trudging away in the forest all day. The egos on display are out of control.

Rocherun wrote:

has he ever actually ran the times he claims he was “in shape” for?

his training theory is nothing new either. Bruce Fordyce (9 time winner of Comrades) also advocated speedwork and hills.

old time ultra runner wrote:

Rocherun wrote:

has he ever actually ran the times he claims he was “in shape” for?

his training theory is nothing new either. Bruce Fordyce (9 time winner of Comrades) also advocated speedwork and hills.

Comrades is basically half of a 100 miler and it's on roads. You can't compare that at all.

Rocherun wrote:

old time ultra runner wrote:

Comrades is basically half of a 100 miler and it's on roads. You can't compare that at all.

I was talking about Roche’s training theories and those of Bruce Fordyce’s. You can look up Fordyce’s ideas in Lore of Running and it reads pretty similar to the ideas Roche presents. I was not comparing the events, rather i was comparing training methodologies for ultras.

This quoted post has been removed.

ultra ultra ultra wrote:

None of his workouts suggest that he's even in sub-4:10 or 14:40 shape. Only in a bizarro world in which you've never interacted with an elite male track athlete would you think that running 12x400 in 64/5 or 10x600 in 1:42 (even in Boulder) would translate into sub-4 shape. Maybe the goal is just to stir the pot, but he could just say I'm going to show up to States in 14:30 sea-level 5k shape. That puts him on the same straightaway as current-form Hawks and Walmsley and maybe a bit ahead of Jornet and Farvard. Instead, for someone who is all about the science, he comes across as an idiot.

ultra ultra ultra wrote:

None of his workouts suggest that he's even in sub-4:10 or 14:40 shape. Only in a bizarro world in which you've never interacted with an elite male track athlete would you think that running 12x400 in 64/5 or 10x600 in 1:42 (even in Boulder) would translate into sub-4 shape. Maybe the goal is just to stir the pot, but he could just say I'm going to show up to States in 14:30 sea-level 5k shape. That puts him on the same straightaway as current-form Hawks and Walmsley and maybe a bit ahead of Jornet and Farvard. Instead, for someone who is all about the science, he comes across as an idiot.

not my real name. wrote:

This quoted post has been removed.

Steve Magness just put a video recently where he said he thought he could run a 4:20 mile and high 11 100m doing nothing but stroller jogs with his daughter. Trying to stay relevant by saying outlandish things is a thing nowadays.