Will Nick Bare (youtube weightlifting personality) break 3 hours today at Austin?

Interesting stats, so statistically possible but highly unlikely for him to break 3 without weight loss. His upper body just seems so massive. Seems like he performed well for his size though.

George213 wrote:

I must add though, that's still impressive for his size even if he doesn't finish.

i ran a full once with some guy that was probably six three and 240. built like an nfl safety. we cruised through the half at 132 and he finished around 308. amazing but it can be done.

I follow his channel and am a fan of his, because his background is relatable and I appreciate that he commits to his goals and puts it all out there. I've gotten some heat for this from some of my friends that follow him (after all, "he's a Ranger!!"), but I've been saying no way for a while now. Several reasons:

1) 2:59 isn't 3:05. It isn't 3:15. It's 2:59. Non-runners don't seem to understand that the curve for how hard running is isn't linear, it's exponential. I have watched some great athletes blow up on similar plans (I was a college triathlete and watched a number of guys do a 12wk build after a triathlon peak, and blow up religiously in the marathon). Yeah, there are talented guys out there who can go from a 25-30mpw low volume/high quality triathlon block with some biking and swimming and knock down sub-3, or sub 2:50, or occasionally sub 2:40. But, none of them weigh 195 (which is what Nick was reporting his weight as this past week). They weigh 140-155.

2) Firm believer that he runs his easy days too fast and his hard days too easy. He was running 7-7:20 pace on easy days and claimed it was a breeze. No way. If it was a breeze, he wouldn't have blown up at 30sec/mi faster than his claimed easy pace after just 6 miles. I'll add that I'm a bigger guy for a runner weight-wise, built more like a wrestler than a runner (5'8/170). I've run 1:20:xx for HM and low 36/high 35 for 10km at 170#, and I'm running my easy days closer to 8min, and sometimes 8:20-8:40. I think for bigger runners it's even more key to go easier on easy days to lighten the beating and save it for quality days.

3) He needs to ditch the bodybuilding if he wants to qualify. Another 5-10# of lost weight would go a long way. I've been up to 190# and ran better than I expected at that weight, but I sure as hell wasn't doing it for anything over 5-6mi, and being 170 is a world of difference. Look at David Goggins. Tons of pushups/pullups/lunges etc, still built like a machine, and can run respectably. If Nick ditches the meathead pump routine and trains like a savage like Goggins does, strips another 10# off, and does another 2-3 blocks of consistent training, I think he'll get it. He put the miles in, but didn't have the courage to lose some more muscle and commit 110%.

I just checked said 193 in a comment 3 days ago. He looked pretty lean and had some feathering on his quads so not much fat to shed...going to have to come off his chest back and arms

I think this is all correct. But to me #2 is the most important. He's not running enough easy miles to have a big enough aerobic engine. If I were him I'd spend a few months building a decent base and then start throwing in some workouts.

We'll learn a lot about Nick Bare by how he responds to this failure. Will he redouble his efforts or slowly give up on the marathoning thing?

The people on this site seem to have a vendetta against those making money on their fitness exploits. Sometimes it even results in legal action against the owners (see: AV).

How are these people bothering you? Are you so frail with your 15:00 5k that it wounds you to see someone with a 18 or 20:00 5k make money from his/her fitness or nutritional schemes?

A sucker is born every minute.

Bare makes a TON of money with his supplement company. He is just a dude who works out.

Alan

Also, stop assuming "He's a former Army Ranger" means anything other than he had the opportunity to attend an Army leadership school and he was successful. Congrats to him for his successful completion of that school.

He's a guy who works out and has the marketing and self-promotional skills to leverage that into his actual business of selling supplements.

Good for him.

Alan

barre critic wrote:

3:24 official.

If any normal person ran a 3:24 I'd happily congratulate them but for a former Army Ranger who makes a living recording shirtless videos on YouTube about his plans to go sub-3 he didn't even come close. He gave up his pace after mile 6 -- did he not know going into the race he couldn't hold that pace for longer than hour? Silly.

Nick Bare is 20 times stronger than you and could easily pin your head and neck between his thighs and fart in your face before cracking your skull between his thighs:

You wouldn't survive if he pinned your neck between this thighs:

I follow him on YouTube. I get that he does this for advertising but he doesn’t know much about running. That was a big miss. I just hope he gained some respect for the distance and the challenge of running a “fast” marathon. AND yes, as a middle aged former D1 runner, who works out with his shirt on I take some pride in running sub 3 hour marathons.

With that being said I hope he continues on. I would love to see that much muscle flying past me in a race. Maybe he should run some 10ks first.

"youtube weightlifting personality"

*cringe

Why do these gym rats think they can just put on running shoes and conquer the marathon? It's not like some top US marathoner is going into the gym and trying to show up weightlifters. Oh, yeah. Never mind.

Conditions were terrible in Austin yesterday. Very warm and humid. For a first time marathoner, the weather should have added 5-10 min on goal times.

Also, this guy is just too big. I know a guy who is pretty jacked and can run a 1:17 half. He is probably about 190 lb at 6' and a bit. He cannot make it through a marathon at a decent pace. It is just too hard to carry that much weight over 26.2 mi.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Also, stop assuming "He's a former Army Ranger" means anything other than he had the opportunity to attend an Army leadership school and he was successful. Congrats to him for his successful completion of that school.

I'll highlight this too. I've got a lot of friends that have made it through the school, and several who have made it in 62 days. Of them, maybe 1/5 has the ability to run sub-3 with a 12wk train-up...maybe. I'm training up for a potential shot at the school now and it's making me a worse runner in favor of becoming a better rucker.

Mental toughness? Absolutely..but don't assume that the school has anything to do with making great runners. It instills the ability to persevere through exhaustion and starvation. It destroys peoples' bodies and it takes months to recover...Ranger Regiment is a different subject almost entirely, and yes, some of those guys are monster runners (despite Ranger School, not because of it).

There are far more notable military officers/soldiers to have run marathons, and many of them faster than Nick..Gen McChrystal is sub-3, Gen Petraeus ran 2:50:XX long ago, SGM Bugarin was a beast in marathons and ultras, the list goes on and on.

Here is what the letsrun degenerates will never understand: Nick Bare knew damn well that he would not break 3 or even come close. He knew that his fans are semi-retarded and would think that 3:2x was “pretty close”. After all, it’s still way faster than P. Diddy or Tiki Barber, right?

Bare knew he had created a win-win situation. The letsrun degenerates eagerly lined up to feed his publicity stunt. Hook, line, sinker. Choke on it, losers.

He just did an Ironman last year. He has a massive bass of easy running, cycling and swimming. Sub 3 is the end goal. He will try again later in the year. Not sure if he ever admitted it in any of his videos but deep down I'm sure he knew he wasn't in sub 3 shape this time round. Paced properly I reckon he'd be sub 3:15. Another few months training and sub 3 next time.

I always love when someone runs like 3:04 and acts like they "almost" made 2:59, as if knocking like 11 seconds off your mile pace at that level is trivial.

I was at Austin to watch someone run and want to add my 2 cents.

First like someone mentioned the race did start about 45 minutes late for iirc a traffic/security reason. I'm sure this threw a a lot of runners' warmup and fueling off.

Second the weather was actually not bad at all. It was certainly a bit humid, but little wind and the sun didnt come out til the 5 hour mark.

Third this course is hilly as crap. Over 1000 feet of elevation gain total. First few miles are straight uphill then you give it all back by mile 6. Huge rolling hills through 12 and 18 and an incredibly sadistic climb up to mile 26 before a steep downhill finish.

Interesting side note. Leo Manzano hosted a 1 mile race the day before. A certain James Ngandu won in 4:14, then turned around won the half marathon the next day. Very impressive imo.

I've watched a fair number of his videos over the past year or so.

I respect what he was doing. He truly embraced marathon training - he didn't try to half ass some "run less, run faster" or crossfit endurance strategy. He started on a Pfitz plan but then switched to a personalized plan pretty quickly. He never got super into the details, but it seemed legit.

I think when he came up with the goal it was before his Ironman. At that point, I think he was looking at Austin as a tune up and then going for sub3/BQ in the fall. But his Ironman went better than planned, so he decided to go for it at Austin. Ultimately, he just didn't have the base for it IMO. If it stays consistent over the summer, the combination of the Ironman block, the Austin block, and the summer will likely get him there.

Dropping a couple more pounds wouldn't hurt, but isn't super necessary IMO. He is younger and lighter than me (though I am 6'0) with way less bf% (though much more upper body mass). I half-assed a sub3 this fall. His form on his tempo runs and long runs look fine and appears sustainable. You don't need a runner's build to go sub3, you can just athlete a time like that.

I'll be curious what his take on it, but I think a solid summer and a good course (with no start delays) gets him there in the fall if he wants. I'm sure he can figure out a training schedule that keeps his physique around where he is now as well. Though really, it is what is best for his company cause this all just an ad for that.

He isn't way too big. I ran 2:52 in my first marathon at ~197 lbs with a fairly large upper body (mid 300s bench press).

Runningart2004 wrote:

The people on this site seem to have a vendetta against those making money on their fitness exploits. Sometimes it even results in legal action against the owners (see: AV).

How are these people bothering you? Are you so frail with your 15:00 5k that it wounds you to see someone with a 18 or 20:00 5k make money from his/her fitness or nutritional schemes?

A sucker is born every minute.

Bare makes a TON of money with his supplement company. He is just a dude who works out.

Alan

Relax Alan. Nick is a professional social media influencer, not a hemophiliac with Stage 4 cancer who should be immune from criticism.

If you're going to be a professional self promoter/fitness guru on the internet it's fair to expect some objective criticism of your performances. Everyone's bonked in a marathon at some point but he gave up his pace after 10K.

It's funny, people on this board constantly rip Sage Canaday, another YouTube personality, but he's at least a 2:19 marathoner with some impressive trail achievements. But heaven forbid Saint Nick Bare be criticized for quitting on his goal after less than an hour into the race.