Is that suppose to be hard to believe?
I’m shorter and a lot less muscular, but I weigh in at 190-196 and can run 17:30s for 5k and 36:49 for 10k.
why does he keep putting 194 lbs in the title of his videos? The same weight from several weeks ago? I thought this dude was trying to cut weight???
It's like he's adding his weight as an excuse as to why he didn't go as fast as he wanted to
Dude is Matt London of distance running.
George213 wrote:
Dude is Matt London of distance running.
lol, amazing.
although he probably is in pretty decent cardiovascular shape. if you believe his weight and use the 1s/mile rule, he'd run something like 16:XX at 145ish.
He stopped by Garmin looks like, as opposed to mark on track.
I reckon about 4.85 kilometres was real distance allowing for Garmin over-measure on track.
So say 19 flat for full 5k maybe.
Still impressive for a guy that size.
He is selling his products and making money. His followers will eat up anything he says as the "Gospel of Running." If he said his marathon training involved nothing but 10x50 meter sprints everyday his disciples would start doing that to prep for their next marathon.
Guy clearly exaggerates. A couple weeks ago he said he ran an "easy 14 mile run" in 7:22/mile. Yet this guy ran 3:24:20 in February for a marathon. According to the VDOT translation, this equates to a 1:38:26 for half marathon, or 7:31/mile.
So he apparently can run "easy" at 7:22/mile for 14 miles but can only run 7:31/mile for 13.1 miles at all-out effort. Doesn't compute.
I ran a 2:59 for a marathon in February and would not consider 7:22/mile for 14 miles to be "easy." It would be a moderate run for me and I'm a minute faster per mile for a marathon.
He is a better than average runner for his size but nothing special. Graham Green is a beast at his size and age, 2:32:12 at age 50 and very muscular
I think he ran about 50 meters short. It looked like he did do 12 laps (he passes his wife before stopping), but instead of doing 12.5 he ended right in the middle of that straightaway when his watch dinged. That would put him at more like 18:40 ~ had he run the whole thing in, and not kicked early. I don't think it's too crazy, he's got decent wheels and has been training for some time.
Roger meyers wrote:
He stopped by Garmin looks like, as opposed to mark on track.
I reckon about 4.85 kilometres was real distance allowing for Garmin over-measure on track.
So say 19 flat for full 5k maybe.
Still impressive for a guy that size.
Good catch - but I think he's only about 50m short, as a 5k is 12.5 laps and it looks like he stops about halfway down the back straight, so he ran 12 laps + 150m instead of 12 laps + 200m.
Also to his credit he wasn't running on the line on the turns. I'd give him credit for that, as I saw a 1600 TT where a YouTuber was butchering the lines and probably running a good deal short.
He is pretty good, but he is no Andy Vernon or Paul MacMullen
Not really a fan of Nick but at the Austin marathon he ran a 20:45 for first 5k and a 1:31.xx half before blowing up. I’d say sub 19 is well within possible for him.
he ran a 5:14 mile on the track a couple of weeks ago. i find this believable
i think threads like this really expose the fragile egos of people who work really hard at running but can't comprehend that other people might be more talented than them. like 5:14 is not a particularly impressive time, is it that hard to believe that this guy could run that?
former d1 bench player wrote:
he ran a 5:14 mile on the track a couple of weeks ago. i find this believable
i think threads like this really expose the fragile egos of people who work really hard at running but can't comprehend that other people might be more talented than them. like 5:14 is not a particularly impressive time, is it that hard to believe that this guy could run that?
This. Though some of the comments are neutral, commenting on objective times and metrics, some of the comments bring out some of the most envious, jealous vitriol I've not seen in other running forums, ever.
Also seems like whenever a super-jacked dude like Nick Bare runs respectable times he's doping, somebody was his size and ran just as fast if not faster than him (100% of the time with 0 evidence), and/or he's a fitness marketing shill whose times aren't that impressive. The irony here is on purpose.
You said it perfectly. I discovered LetsRun today and it's the last time I'll be on its forums.. you said it perfectly, the fragile egos on here are unbelievable. Add to that 0 accountability and a whole bunch of "I coulda qualified for the Olympics if I were your age/weight/etc" you've got the potion for arrant toxicity.
Nick's PL numbers could easily place in running for USAPL state, if not national, records if he applied himself.. dude's a physical freak and uber-talented—but I guess admitting that somebody's more physically gifted hurts a bunch of the eggshell-egos on here.
It's definitely believable, even if he ran a little short due to GPS issues on the track.
I'm just surprised he hasn't cut weight yet because after the Austin Marathon several months ago he said that was a big goal of his, to cut weight so he could run faster. It looks like he hasn't done that at all, even though he clearly has the discipline to do so. Maybe he doesn't care as much about the whole "race weight" concept anymore?
As to the comments about people being "jealous haters"....I really don't think that's what is going on. I for one am glad to see him getting after it and putting in good training. Most people are impressed with his speed given how muscular he is
Yeah, I wonder if the weight goal has gone a bit out of the window. Anyhow, it appears he is getting better at running while keeping his weight. 5:14 1600, and 18:40ish type 5K effort here. No reason to hate, guy is open and honest as far as I can tell just maybe a bit naive when it comes to running.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
I think he ran about 50 meters short. It looked like he did do 12 laps (he passes his wife before stopping), but instead of doing 12.5 he ended right in the middle of that straightaway when his watch dinged. That would put him at more like 18:40 ~ had he run the whole thing in, and not kicked early. I don't think it's too crazy, he's got decent wheels and has been training for some time.
Yeah he definitely ran short, but he also paced bad so he probably could have run 18:29 for a full 5k if he ran a 5:50 first mile
coachcommentsnicely wrote:
Is that suppose to be hard to believe?
I’m shorter and a lot less muscular, but I weigh in at 190-196 and can run 17:30s for 5k and 36:49 for 10k.
So you're at most 5'9" and >190 lb, AKA close to being obese, and you think a 17-mid 5K is believable? Lmao. This might be the funniest post I've read on LRC.
Very believable. I know a guy who ran a low 34s 10k at 6'2 ~200 lbs
Jealous haters all around.. wrote:
Also seems like whenever a super-jacked dude like Nick Bare runs respectable times he's doping, somebody was his size and ran just as fast if not faster than him (100% of the time with 0 evidence), and/or he's a fitness marketing shill whose times aren't that impressive. The irony here is on purpose.
You said it perfectly. I discovered LetsRun today and it's the last time I'll be on its forums.. you said it perfectly, the fragile egos on here are unbelievable. Add to that 0 accountability and a whole bunch of "I coulda qualified for the Olympics if I were your age/weight/etc" you've got the potion for arrant toxicity.
Nick's PL numbers could easily place in running for USAPL state, if not national, records if he applied himself.. dude's a physical freak and uber-talented—but I guess admitting that somebody's more physically gifted hurts a bunch of the eggshell-egos on here.
OK Nick, you "discovered LetsRun today" but yet you somehow recall numerous instances of posters here diminishing other peoples' times... including referencing comments such as, "I could've qualified if I was your age/weight"... but those comments haven't shown up in this thread! And I don't think there have been threads like this (Nick Bare, other muscular runners) in a while.
You can't even make it more than two sentences before forcefully reiterating how great you are at spotting "eggshell egos". Is this some weird new form of virtue signalling? Pointing out how there's some large groundswell of negativity from other people, which makes you look like the cool rational accepting bro you want to be?