Is this another run cheat?

120 revs per minute is a bit on the high side for the cadence of a normal cyclist but it's definitely doable if someone is riding with low gears and just spinning to try to simulate a run cadence with a foot pod or watch attached to a leg.

If I can get a Strava link, I can quickly run some of his Strava uploads through my tool to spit out an Excel report that includes histogram cadence, speed, and stride length to see if it looks reasonable or not and compare with his initial runs.

scam_watcheroo wrote:

If I can get a Strava link, I can quickly run some of his Strava uploads through my tool to spit out an Excel report that includes histogram cadence, speed, and stride length to see if it looks reasonable or not and compare with his initial runs.

Ooh now it gets interesting!

But hey OP, according to the informal policing from the likes of Smoove on here, you can't scrutinize somebody for cheating unless you publicly oust yourself for scrutinization as well. Apparently nobody gave Smoove the memo that this is an anon forum, but I'm just warning you before the douche brigade comes in.

I would like to believe the cycling theory. The problem with that is though that the runner would not have done it himself, I find it unlikely, and a risk prone strategy since the risk of identification would be high, since it's a big city and most runs are on prime city roads, used by other runners.

So, I would suspect an alibi. Is there another easier way to achieve this data you think without going through the cycling routine?

It could always be that the data was spliced together from two different recordings of two different people. That's simple enough to do without needing anything sophisticated.

Eyeballing that bad Garmin plot and noting that it looks to be in metric for the pace, I see that he looking to be "running" at around 8 mph with a stride length of about 11.7 feet at 120 spm cadence. That stride length is very suspicious since normal runners have much shorter stride lengths :

https://www.livestrong.com/article/438560-the-average-stride-length-in-running/

Any and all garmin/strava data can be faked. You prove a cheat by providing a photograph of them doing something other than running at the same time their data says they were running.

Seriously dude. Get a freakin life. Worry about how you come off before going after others transgressions and you better be sure you life a near perfect life.

To call if "explosive" is the epitome of hyperbole.

A cure for cancer is explosive news, Trump resigning is explosive news. Some dude who may or may not be honest on his runs is hardly news.

That's how you live your life? Doing precisely nothing about anything wrong you see in the world. Man up.

faker wrote:

Any and all garmin/strava data can be faked. You prove a cheat by providing a photograph of them doing something other than running at the same time their data says they were running.

That is also another possibility besides the bike or splicing two files together. From the bad Garmin graph, there are a lot of instances where his cadence is zero yet he is still running at around 8 mph. And there is very little variance around the 120 spm, it's confined to a very narrow band of cadence unlike his running at the start. This is either a sign of funny business or Garmin's online smoothing algorithm gone absolutely haywire. I need to get access to this runners Strava so I can download the unsmoothed data to analyze with known methods.

OP, if you don't want to link to this guys Strava account publicly, perhaps you could download his Strava data with the tool below and go into the GPX files or generate and delete the names and Strava link inside so it. You could then share the GPX file.

Another nobody with no life wrote:

Seriously dude. Get a freakin life. Worry about how you come off before going after others transgressions and you better be sure you life a near perfect life.

To call if "explosive" is the epitome of hyperbole.

A cure for cancer is explosive news, Trump resigning is explosive news. Some dude who may or may not be honest on his runs is hardly news.

^ hobby jogger and/or old, somebody is salty lol

Another nobody with no life wrote:

Seriously dude. Get a freakin life. Worry about how you come off before going after others transgressions and you better be sure you life a near perfect life.

To call if "explosive" is the epitome of hyperbole.

A cure for cancer is explosive news, Trump resigning is explosive news. Some dude who may or may not be honest on his runs is hardly news.

...spoken from the mouth of a cheater.

You're going down, bro.

scam_watcheroo wrote:

120 revs per minute is a bit on the high side for the cadence of a normal cyclist but it's definitely doable if someone is riding with low gears and just spinning to try to simulate a run cadence with a foot pod or watch attached to a leg.

In this case it would be 120 steps per minute = 60 rpm - typical cadence for someone who is not a cyclist and is riding at slow speed.

EU cyclist wrote:

In this case it would be 120 steps per minute = 60 rpm - typical cadence for someone who is not a cyclist and is riding at slow speed.

Yeah, you are right. The Garmin graph shows the cadence in steps per minute so it should be halved to get the crank revs per minute for a cyclist. 60 rpm is common cadence on the bike for a leisure rider.

Scam Watcheroo:

It would be good to know what equipment he is using as the quality of the data is certainly a function of the quality of the measuring device. My initial thoughts are:

1) In the 'good' run the cadence occasionally drops to ~115 and zero with corresponding spikes in pace. In the 'bad' run the the cadence occasionally drops to ~115 and zero with corresponding spikes in pace for the first ~35 km then a switch point occurs and the cadence seems to oscillate between ~115 and zero and only occasionally goes back to ~175. Also, once the data switches, the pace drops to 35 min per km become far more frequent. This looks like bad measurement rather than fake measurement.

2) Do other 'bad' runs show the same tendency? If so , is this switch point consistent in terms of time into the run? Could it be a function of body heat, sweat or battery strength?

3) What is the average speed based on overall distance and time and how does that compare to the average speed based on integrating the pace measurements. Actually, for a first look at this, what are the km split times before and after the switch point?

4) I assume pace is a derived measurement based on the direct measurement of time and position. Therefore it will show greater swings as it is trying to correct for inconsistencies in the direct measurements.

5) What is the route the guy is running? If he enters a built up area after 35 km then he could be experiencing an increase in position measurement error due to signals bouncing off buildings etc. This is probably a long shot, especially as the data doesn't clean up as he gets towards the end of his run, presumably the same point as where he started.

6) If the guy is cheating he is not very good at faking the data.

7) If the guy is cheating why is he running 35 km legitimately and then faking, why not fake the lot.

8) I agree ~115 is a very high cadence for cycling. Most recreational cyclists have a cadence of 60 - 70. Competitive racers are about 80 and professionals are about 90. Over 100 is something of an outlier.

I will be interesting to see what the true story behind this data is.

Yep, it could also just be really bad GPS signals introducing noise and he was actually just walking most of the way. It's impossible to say based on any graphs from the GPS watch companies because they all apply weird proprietary smoothing algorithms to their data when presenting them on graphs that can produce artifacts or hide information. The only way to investigate further is to get the Strava links to download the raw data.

Want more details, like actual Garmin/Strava links and WHO it is and exactly what they are claiming and why.

Are they claiming this to get sponsors, records, media attention? Or just boasting to buddies?

Come on, spill

Wait, what?

So we're getting mad online about someone possibly fudging their training? They're not cutting a course for a BQ or anything?

This is wack, I'm out.

I have uploaded data to a pdf file as a first attempt. Its 15 days of data (day 1 missing though in Pdf). These are 15 continuos days. Each day's run has some notes annotated by me about that particular run.

File link:

https://we.tl/Wp19p0o035

(pdf, 5mb)

For each day, the file has same data as shared earlier by me via the imgur links.

If somehow can help me out on how to remove the geolocation data (and person identify if any) from a Garmin Connect GPX file, I can share that too, to keep the concerned persons identify out of limelight (for the time being, till we have better understanding of the data).

The initial Strava entries just show "GPX", and from my communication, these were done with FR 310XT. Later runs were done with FR235, but the data I have shared map to 310XT in my opinion.

Dunno, but by posting screenshots containing the Garmin Connect activity ID, I think you just outed the person whose identity you were trying to keep private.

activity id wrote:

Dunno, but by posting screenshots containing the Garmin Connect activity ID, I think you just outed the person whose identity you were trying to keep private.

I can only see a number next to the Garmin Connect activity, not a name.

Come on, just post the raw data then we can examine properly.