I think in a week if they're on pace to miss the record by less than 2 days they will try to cheat. They're all in and didn't cheat all the way to Kansas for nothing!
rollerofsausage wrote:Breer, I'm from Iowa wrote:So if he averages a very optimistic 50 miles a day, then he still comes up 2 1/2 days short of the record.
Regarding current countdown, I imagine someone is keeping a more accurate tally but my back of envelope calculation shows that where he was at 11:30am EST (near Indy Airport) it looks like:
771 miles to Times Square (using Google maps with "avoiding highways" option to eliminate interstates and choosing shortest option)
About 12 Days 20 Hours to beat record
This comes out to 60.06 miles per 24-hour period for the next 308 hours.
Right-o and the point of this exercise. I specifically said 24 hours because many can do that, very few the sub-4.
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:Rob Dylan wrote:The key in your question is "Non-runners" i.e. the ignorant.
It would be an interesting poll to see what most non-runners would think about this:
A) Run 100 miles in 24 hours.
B) Run 1 mile in 3:50:00.
A is persistence - just over 4 mph for 24 hours
B is talent
Ha, ha. I think Al Gore hadn't yet invented the internet.
1980 record expert wrote:larkimm wrote:I was on Letsrun during that 1980 Transcon run. It was epic too. 1856 pages of debate. We did not believe a word that tool said and run him through the ringer. There were also intense debates between Ultra dudes and Milers. It was awesome.
Do we know that the 1980 record wasn't faked? Where are his GPS trace files...?
Aye, spot on.
brown odor wrote:Natty Dread wrote:They are supposed to be different bars, there is obviously a correct answer and every one on this board will say 'B'.PrairieRunner wrote:Those are two completely different bars - one is world class and the other can be achieved by many "descent" runners with training.Rob Dylan wrote:A lot of non-elite ultrarunners can run 100 miles in 24 hours - I'm thinking flat loop course. Breaking 4:00 in the mile takes much more than training, i.e., genetics.
It would be an interesting poll to see what most non-runners would think about this:
Which is the more impressive running feat to you:
A) Run 100 miles in 24 hours.
B) Run 1 mile in 3:50:00.
The times could vary bu you get the picture. My gut says "A" will be the overwhelming top pick.
I pick 'B', by far.
A more relative comparison would be:
A) Run 100-miles in (less than or equal to) 12hrs
B) Run a mile in (less than or equal to) 3:50
Now you are comparing two world-class performances.
{Note: previous posting of this was eaten by the antiquated parsing monster}.
The general non-running public might find 'A' more impressive. That is why the OP said it would be an interesting survey, to see if the non-running public is as ignorant as we think they are.
Like what you do Doublr, you can count me as a supporter, but you've been caught using an alias in this thread, makes people wonder.
doubler wrote:
and because I get accused of doing this under aliases, I'll do it myself.
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com
btw, traffic from letsrun contributes to about 2.5% of my total pageviews.
In the context of history I agree. In the context of life today, the other correct answer.
DRobertsIMG wrote:Rob Dylan wrote:There's actually a historically accurate answer to this question, and it is A. [puts Brooks-branded flame retardant suit on]. It was the ability to cover 100 miles in a day that distinguished our ancestors from their prey. Running a mile in 3:50 might allow you to outrun your fellow cavemen, but it wouldn't get you anywhere near an antelope. But a sustained run that allowed you to pursue it until it collapsed from exhaustion? That's where we found our evolutionary advantage in being bipedal. That's how we became the dominant species on the planet. That's our bag, baby, historically speaking.
It would be an interesting poll to see what most non-runners would think about this:
Which is the more impressive running feat to you:
A) Run 100 miles in 24 hours.
B) Run 1 mile in 3:50:00.
The times could vary bu you get the picture. My gut says "A" will be the overwhelming top pick.
Running a 3:50 mile is certainly a much rarer skill, arguably even a more valuable one today (since chasing an antelope to the point where it collapses from exhaustion lost some of its cachet after that Whole Foods opened up down the street), but looking at which one has made the bigger impression on our history, the answer is clearly A.
Wow. I can't believe I actually wrote that out. This is what spending days obsessively following runner snark has reduced me to.
U lister wrote:
Which major media outlets think this?
Links or it never happened.Loser Runner Cult wrote:Stay classy LRC..Ultra Rad wrote:LRC is definitely coming away from this thread looking like a bunch of ugly weirdos to a lot of outsiders, new first time visitors and major media outlets. The "fast runner"'s homophobic anti-ultrarunner hate post some pages back was two days after the Orlando nightclub shooting.
Stings doesn't it. You know it does. Deep down inside you know your best days (like breaking an hour for a 10K) are far behind you. All you have left now is to pull on that fannypack, strap on that bandana and go out in the woods and do what most people call a hike, and call it a "ultra-marathon."
You go for it, oh walker of the woods. You go!
"LetsRun.com is a community of the most amazing group of people united by their love of running. "
LRC is not making itself look like an amazing group of people here and there is a stronger thread of hate on here than there is love.[/quote]
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/f...7&page=204
6/15/2016 4:09PMI conclude from that video that to be a great ultra runner you have to run like a sore assed gay.
fast runner wrote:
[quote]CaptainandtheToenail wrote:
Frank is a legend around here (I live about an hour from his store). This video shows the running style you need to have to get across the US quickly. He floats like a butterly without any energy exterted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIeDWc6KFIk
understood. But I am part of a very small minority that is not anonymous 100% of the time. But rest assured, I do not start threads promoting my blog posts any more.
brown odor wrote:doubler wrote:Like what you do Doublr, you can count me as a supporter, but you've been caught using an alias in this thread, makes people wonder.
and because I get accused of doing this under aliases, I'll do it myself.
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com
btw, traffic from letsrun contributes to about 2.5% of my total pageviews.
Whether you promote under an alias or not, makes no difference, your blog is good stuff.
turning the metaphor on its head, lazarus and co. are raising RY from the dead!!!
ray gun to my head wrote:
It seems like Ray fixing his shoes made him move 20 extra miles today.
The brojos have never taken the time to upgrade the site in a way that would allow users to quickly flag and delete these types of comments. Same goes for the ridiculously offensive racist threads that have nothing to do with running. I can only conclude that it's because they don't care.
Roberto Abooey wrote:
LRC is definitely coming away from this thread looking like a bunch of ugly weirdos to a lot of outsiders, new first time visitors and major media outlets. The "fast runner"'s homophobic anti-ultrarunner hate post some pages back was two days after the Orlando nightclub shooting.
As a registered psychologist who works with victims of child abuse, it common for survivors of abuse to develop strong adverse reactions when placed in situations that are similar to what occurred in the abuse. For example, a child regularly locked in a closet will develop a fear of closed in spaces. However, there are many examples that are less obvious and more subtle; a certain smell can trigger a panic response in some survivors of abuse and they may not even remember at first why that smell is eliciting that response.
Question..? wrote:RYinvestigator wrote:Why is a story of child abuse 'weird'?
Very weird: http://imgur.com/pR2dU8e
“Well the pain of running beats getting a nail hammered through my foot. Not really anything is as painful as that.†He remembers being zipped in a suitcase and pushed down the stairs, and being hanged with a cord attached to a coat hanger.
Have you seen Facebook comments on any site? It's the same everywhere. Grow some thicker skin.
113 wrote:
The brojos have never taken the time to upgrade the site in a way that would allow users to quickly flag and delete these types of comments. Same goes for the ridiculously offensive racist threads that have nothing to do with running. I can only conclude that it's because they don't care.
If they cut that stuff out of the forum and a higher percentage of threads were running-related, I'd read and post here a lot more. As it stands, I sure as hell don't want my name associated with this site, even when there is a good thread like this.
thanks. I said none of that, however.
doubbler wrote:
I never, ever promote my own web site because it is wrong. In case you are wondering what web site I am referring to. here it is
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/
But I am not promoting it whatsoever.
carry on.
this is me, please dont look
doubler wrote:doubbler wrote:thanks. I said none of that, however.
I never, ever promote my own web site because it is wrong. In case you are wondering what web site I am referring to. here it is
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/
But I am not promoting it whatsoever.
carry on.