Do you guys think this is legit? He does show his watch afterwards but the running clips look slower than 6 minute pace.
Do you guys think this is legit? He does show his watch afterwards but the running clips look slower than 6 minute pace.
Didn't look like he was going any faster than that old guy at 1:53
1600 meters is not a mile and he used gps on a track . Shirley if he timed hims self and ran the complete distance the time would not be 5:35. But yeah not really impressive after 5 months of training but it’s not like he trying to claim he’s a fast runner
5 months of training at a lot heavier BW than you.
I think that’s a pretty respectable time even if it’s 1600m for someone his size
.InjuryProne. wrote:
5 months of training at a lot heavier BW than you.
I think that’s a pretty respectable time even if it’s 1600m for someone his size
Yeah dude does not look like a runner but that’s not his time. Factoring in that Tri runs are short as well I guess it can stand.
Idk I’ve watched a few of his vids and he goes out on runs at paces faster than I’d expect him to.
I had a similar build when I was in college and no way in hell would I be running a 5:30 1600.
Idk why anyone here cares though, he is using YouTube to expand his brand. I’m not actually fixating on what his times are.
This must have been posted by Preston...
He only posts 3 tiny segments of him running. He looks like he's moving way slower. There's no way to actually verify he ran that fast. And he has financial motives to say he ran faster than he did...so I call BS.
Also, with a time like that, I would expect him to be right around 10 hours for an Ironman. A big dude like that should be much better at biking than running, so maybe even faster. If he can make it under 10 hours in an officially timed ironman, I'll believe this mile time.
Yes...he is legit...
Dude was an Army Ranger. As part of their PT requirements you have to run 5 miles in 40 minutes or less but obviously have to be fitter than just the minimum. But in addition to that you have the push ups and other exercises.
5:35 isn't an exceptionally fast time or anything.
Only the top guys from their Army units are even tabbed as candidates for the Ranger program so his PT scores had to be pretty stellar just to get selected as a trainee.
Little bit short wrote:
1600 meters is not a mile and he used gps on a track . Shirley if he timed hims self and ran the complete distance the time would not be 5:35. But yeah not really impressive after 5 months of training but it’s not like he trying to claim he’s a fast runner
Agree. What rookie uses the GPS data to give a mile split.
1. It was 1600 meters.
2. His watched showed 1.01 for the 1600.
5:35 pace is not accurate but still below 6 min pace.
I've had weird results on the track for GPS stuff. Phone GPS definitely doesn't work. I did a track 10K tempo once and the GPS had me at 10K at 39:00, actual 10K was 40:40, so it was more than a lap off. The curves seem to confuse it. Not sure if watches are that bad--I think they are better than phones. But it still seems weird not to just run 4 laps and eyeball another 9 meters.
bartholomew_maxwell wrote:
Yes...he is legit...
Dude was an Army Ranger. As part of their PT requirements you have to run 5 miles in 40 minutes or less but obviously have to be fitter than just the minimum. But in addition to that you have the push ups and other exercises.
5:35 isn't an exceptionally fast time or anything.
Only the top guys from their Army units are even tabbed as candidates for the Ranger program so his PT scores had to be pretty stellar just to get selected as a trainee.
He has run 2 legit, timed marathons in the past 18 months. 3:58 and 4:15. You honestly think someone THAT slow can come anywhere near a 5:35 mile? Not even close. I could maybe see 6:35...but even that is a massive stretch.
It's not reasonable to use standard extrapolation for somebody built like he is.
I think he and I weigh about the same (220lbs, though I am much taller - 6'4). I ran a marathon recently at 3:59 and change, but completed a 1 mile time trial at 5:41, with at least a few seconds left in the tank. And this is despite the fact that I do zero speed work; my training is HEAVILY endurance-based (I spent most of spring/early summer training for an ultra).
Because I am a former powerlifter "speed" (relatively speaking, of course) comes much easier than improving my times at anything past 5k.
runnER/DR wrote:
bartholomew_maxwell wrote:
Yes...he is legit...
Dude was an Army Ranger. As part of their PT requirements you have to run 5 miles in 40 minutes or less but obviously have to be fitter than just the minimum. But in addition to that you have the push ups and other exercises.
5:35 isn't an exceptionally fast time or anything.
Only the top guys from their Army units are even tabbed as candidates for the Ranger program so his PT scores had to be pretty stellar just to get selected as a trainee.
He has run 2 legit, timed marathons in the past 18 months. 3:58 and 4:15. You honestly think someone THAT slow can come anywhere near a 5:35 mile? Not even close. I could maybe see 6:35...but even that is a massive stretch.
It is definitely possible, I am a 40 years old hobbyjogger and ran a 5:32 time trial on the track last week at 5’11 192lbs but I couldn’t break 4 in a marathon, I would probably get injured trying. I am happy running 20 minute 5ks and 45 minute 10ks. Muscle mass let’s you down big time in anything over middle distance. Having said that, my speed is good - I was a 49.6/1:53 guy at age 20 and I could still run about 60/2:15 right now if I wanted, so you can see how a mid 5 mile is doable for a bigger buy with muscle but not a sub 4 marathon. Marathons are for the slimmer types.
No way! It takes a lot of aerobic fitness to run a mile that fast at that weight. That is an aerobically FIT person that can run 5:35 at 220 lbs. We're talking extremely well trained AND talented.
It just doesn't match that someone who is working really hard on aerobic fitness would have that huge of a gap from mile to marathon pace. Not a chance.
Why is everyone acting like a 5:35 mile is that fast. Let's say 5:38 for extra 9m. Dude is obviously not a couch potato, I think that's pretty good for him.
And it's obvious he will have worse performance the longer he goes, those muscles are heavy
Also he ran a 5:38 for 1600, that's at least 5:40 for a mile
AdrianCh wrote:
Why is everyone acting like a 5:35 mile is that fast. Let's say 5:38 for extra 9m. Dude is obviously not a couch potato, I think that's pretty good for him.
And it's obvious he will have worse performance the longer he goes, those muscles are heavy
Exactly!! Plus, as I stated earlier, he's an Army Ranger who clearly had to have well above average endurance just to make it past the 1st few days of training where they run the PT test.
I'm pretty confident that someone like Michael Johnson or even Usain Bolt can easily go sub 6 in the mile though they're probably toast beyond that point.
Where did people come up with this weird logic that someone who can run a 4:30 mile for example is automatically going to go out there and run sub 3 in the marathon??? Last I checked you had to do specific training to get the times you want. If someone is running and completely gassed after doing a 5:30 mile, chances are good that they are unable to break 12:00 for the 2 mile run....But it doesn't change the fact that their maximum effort in the mile run is a 5:30....
To use a strength analogy:
Someone who can max lift 500 pounds isn't automatically going to be able to rep 50 pounds 200 times...But you might have a guy who can rep 50 pounds 200 times who can't bench press 500 pounds 1 rep max.
After watching the video, he's not THAT overly muscled....Sub 6 is definitely doable.