Snobby Hollywood Actress Claims She Ran 22 MPH While Training For A Movie

But she is an actress so she can’t be a liar. I wish she would have been asked about the max speed of the treadmill. I doubt that it goes up to 30mph.

runn wrote:

I remember Robby Benson made a movie about Billy Mills and he thought he was a good distance runner (from making the movie).

He entered some race and got on the front line with some REAL runners and his running career ended about 10 seconds after the gun went off.

And there was the time when Sylvester Stallone thought he could spar with Earnie Shavers.

Exactly! "Running" on a treadmill is really just standing in place and lifting your feet up and down.

How is she snobby? She's Canadian, and obviously Tom Cruise has confused her on the MPH to KPH conversion. Whatever the case, I'd wager she's still fasterthan any of the people posting here, and definitely better looking, so you lose either way.

No way Jose wrote:

I tried it today. Treadmill max is 15mph which I held for 10 seconds but got scared. There is no way other than a limited number of women in the world could hit 22mph on a treadmill. I was a 50 second 400 runner a few years back and I can’t do it. We should recruit her for the US team next year. Oh and 50+ yer old Cruise couldn’t hit 22 mph let alone 30 mph, even 20 years ago.

+1

Did she do it with a foam landing mat behind the treadmill in case she flew off, like they do in those other treadmill speed world record attempts?

This woman has an advanced B.S. from the Amy Hughes Academy of Treadmill Mendacity.

C.S wrote:

Whatever the case, I'd wager she's still faster than any of the people posting here

Again, I am willing to bet up to $50K that she cannot beat me in either a 60 or a 100 meter sprint. I have never run faster than 21 mph, and I'm sure there are tons of people on here whose 100 time is better than mine (11.7 hand timed, 11.9 FAT). Organize a time and place where I can race her, and we'll see who wins. I won't even bother to taper for this.

Put up or shut up.

C.S wrote:

I'd wager she's still faster than any of the people posting here, and definitely better looking, so you lose either way.

Better looking? I think jamin's hotter than her.

reality... wrote: A top speed of 22 mph would equate to 11.5 100m or thereabouts.

it's actually 10.16 for 100m. exactly.

cheers.

Cottonshirt wrote:

reality... wrote: A top speed of 22 mph would equate to 11.5 100m or thereabouts.

it's actually 10.16 for 100m. exactly.

cheers.

False. Note the distinction between top speed, as specified by the poster you attempted to contradict, and average speed, which is what your figure refers to.

17 minute 5K guy wrote:

Since there's no wind resistance, running 22 mph on a treadmill is like running with a 22 mph tailwind.

Heck, I'm a no-talent distance runner, and I can probably run 22 mph if I had +9.8 m/s wind assistance. All I need to do is find an uncalibrated treadmill that can display that speed.

This. The power needed to run 22 mph on the treadmill is a small fraction of that needed to go that fast on the ground without a tailwind. I played around with some numbers on Analytic Cycling. On a bike at that speed, power needed to overcome wind resistance is five times more than that to overcome rolling resistance. A bike and rider's drag coefficient is about 0.5, while a runner's is about 1.0-1.1 and probably a larger frontal area too, so a runner going that fast is doing double the work against wind as a cyclist going that speed. Obviously a runner does a lot more non-wind breaking work than a cyclist, but is probably pushing 600 watts just on the wind resistances part.

You'd still need great quickness to get the legs going that fast, but it isn't like running a 10.x or 11.x 100 and you don't need nearly that kind of power and ability.

you're right. I hadn't realised he was refering to "top speed."

cheers.

Cottonshirt wrote:

you're right. I hadn't realised he was refering to "top speed."

cheers.

You should try to keep up.

cheers.

reality... wrote: You should try to keep up.

you'd be surprised how often my coach says that.

cheers.

Even if it’s kilometers, if that’s a steady state pace and he is running 30km/h that’s him running 12 seconds per 100 (for however long) but a guy his age and build running 12 seconds is kind of impressive.

fjfjakakkakalal wrote:

You dragged out a video from October 2016 to complain about this?

I think the real question is how accurate treadmills are, and the answer is not very.

The treadmills in our college fitness center were! (I calibrated them every 6 months---the exciting things grad students get to do!).

Oh, clearly actors with enormous box office potential will be paid peanuts in the future. It's already happening.

Here are the miserable figures for the top eight in 2017:

Shah Rukh Khan: $38M. Tom Cruise: $43M. Robert Downey Jr.: $48M. Jackie Chan: $49M. Adam Sandler: $50.5M. Vin Diesel: $54.5M. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson: $65M. Mark Wahlberg: $68M.

Nope. The PLATFORM doesn't determine what actors get paid. Whether theatrical, cable or streaming, what performers get paid is determined by SAG/AFTRA (the actors union), and if above the line, what they and their reps negotiate. Streaming giants like Netflix have a lot of money to throw around. Before his downfall, Kevin Spacey was making $500,000 per episode of House of Cards.

Kevin Spacey one ran 20.5 mph