Ben True Ran No Slower Than 13:12 for SEVEN Years Consecutively

snowdays wrote:

i got what OP meant but "at least" would be better wording than "no slower than"

Actually, "at least" would mean the opposite. Bigger numbers are slower times, so running at least 13:12 would mean that you ran 13:12 or slower. If someone runs 13:20, 13:40, and 13:27, each of those times are at least 13:12.

"At most" would be the correct phrase.

Cool stat. Does he break 2:10 on Sunday? Perfect weather conditions. I'm going with 2:10:42

Regonald wrote:

Nobody is asserting that Rupp and Lagat were not better runners than True. The point is that True has done something they did not do. The truth is that True was very close to Galen at 5000m. There is not much separation there.

Running a sub elite time for a lot long time is not post worthy. True has done something Rupp has not done.

I’m sure Malcolm Gladwell had run sub 5 in more years than Rupp has.

This is a huge accomplishment. Betting not more than 20 people in history have done it.

dumb op wrote:

Regonald wrote:

For those who aren’t very bright, and that appears to be most of you, if I said I ran no slower than a 4 minute mile for 7 consecutive years, even you dimwits would not assume that my jogs were at sub 4 minute mile pace.

I would say that statement is as stupid and inaccurate as this thread title.

+1

No slower than literally means he did not run slower than. For all we know he could run only 200s in 30 for all his workouts.

wortb wrote:

Regonald wrote:

Nobody is asserting that Rupp and Lagat were not better runners than True. The point is that True has done something they did not do. The truth is that True was very close to Galen at 5000m. There is not much separation there.

Running a sub elite time for a lot long time is not post worthy. True has done something Rupp has not done.

I’m sure Malcolm Gladwell had run sub 5 in more years than Rupp has.

13:13 is Olympic standard. You'd have to be a moran to think hitting an olympic standard makes them sub-elite.

Tortoise wrote:

wortb wrote:

Running a sub elite time for a lot long time is not post worthy. True has done something Rupp has not done.

I’m sure Malcolm Gladwell had run sub 5 in more years than Rupp has.

13:13 is Olympic standard. You'd have to be a moran to think hitting an olympic standard makes them sub-elite.

Is running a 2:11 marathon for 7 consecutive years equally as impressive? It’s the below the Olympic Standard as well. I certainly don’t think so.

13:12 — so he would by vying for top 3 at NCAAs every year?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Regonald wrote:

Galen Rupp and Bob Kennedy both ran under 13:12 SIX years consecutively so they might be the closest US runners to True’s SEVEN years.

Rupp ran 13:09 or faster in all those six years. How many years in a row did True run under 13:09?

And 5000m is Rupp's secondary event. 13:12 is about the same level as 27:38 in 10000, according to the WA scoring table. Rupp ran faster than 27:38 in TEN straight years, including seven years faster than 27:30.

And Rupp had testosterone creams, L-Carnetine drips, and every known prescription drug to help him along the way

Too bad woody kincade thought he could win two medals at the Olympics rather that give true a spot on the team where he could have made a run for a podium, maybe. Jerk move , woody imho

Regonald wrote:

Galen Rupp and Bob Kennedy both ran under 13:12 SIX years consecutively so they might be the closest US runners to True’s SEVEN years.

Woody Kincaid, three years and counting.

Grant Fisher, two years and counting.

Ben True is the ironman of our sport (in the US anyway). Think of the durability and consistent training required to maintain that level of fitness for that long.

bradley strider wrote:

the truth is also that Ben True is a perfect example of what this board WANTS from a runner.

So "this board" wants our pro runners to be lazy and mediocre? I guess I am not a part of "this board.

Pros should be ashamed of leaving any stone unturned. This guy brags about how he doesn't do any ancillary exercises or form drills, and does "just mileage." And yet he runs less mileage than other pros. He accuses his wife of being a drug cheat because she drinks beetroot juice, but his coffee is okay.

No. I want pros to train as hard as they could, and get as close to their potential. I want them to be more interested in getting faster than cultivating some fake persona. I want them to be competitive on the global stage. Ben True is exactly what I do NOT want from a pro runner. I am not part of "this board."

Tortoise wrote:

dumb op wrote:

I would say that statement is as stupid and inaccurate as this thread title.

+1

No slower than literally means he did not run slower than. For all we know he could run only 200s in 30 for all his workouts.

Except OP never said “literally”. Only a moron who is a miserable ignoramus would look at the title and not get it. You’re being deliberately obtuse and you know it.

So tell us, oh wise one, how much faster than Ben true are you since you do “all the right things” and he is just some lazy bum? Ever think that maybe those form drills are not going to help him shave time off his times? You probably think stretching everyday is a must too.

Ben is a guy who is not going to do things just because others think it's the right thing to do. Train with a coach all the time? Nope. Go live at altitude/with teammates/out west? Nope. Hours each day on form drills and scarfing down supplements? Nope.

I think we're too quick to say "this is the way a pro has to train." There's a lot of value in someone knowing what will work for them, to keep them committed and working hard. Maybe moving out west and training under a coach would just mentally drain him vs living where he's happy and coaching himself. Maybe spending more time focused on drills would mean he's less able to focus on his next workout.

The secret to this kind of longevity is finding what works for you and sticking to it. Maybe he could have run 5 seconds faster one time if he changed everything about how he trained and was miserable doing it. He would have quit the sport or burned out and become a no-one. Instead he is a consistent high performer and happy with life.

i would be entirely grateful if you were not part of this board.

1. doesn't do ancillary form drills and just does mileage

--> I am ok with this point, and agree that a pro runner with no other responsibilities should do everything in their power to hone their craft. that said, hard to argue that his formula isn't working. Maybe the reduced stress from cutting those things out makes his workouts better?

2. He accuses his wife of being a drug cheat...

--> Click bait BS, fake news headlines. yep, he thinks his wife is a doper. c'mon man, dude is just a hard-nosed, not "grey area" runner. get over this.

3. fake persona

--> Ben True is exactly the opposite of this. he hates attention. he hates social media. why do you think he got dropped by saucony? dude just wants to run!!

I'd really like to know who the runners are you DO support, because maybe its me who is really missing the true hard-workers out there who are running on their own merits, and not some lab, or team of scientists, or some hype-model-social-media-image... but i don't know them. so, please do let me know, who are these runners you support?

The amount of hate for both Ben True and this stat is hilarious. So much cope in the replies about other US athletes who could have done this. You're probably right, but they didn't. Guess who did? Ben MF True. An absolute legend of consistency. Also all the morons pedantically complaining about the wording in the OP is equally funny. The wording was completely clear, sorry you read at a 3rd grade level. lol

KoyPond wrote:

Tortoise wrote:

+1

No slower than literally means he did not run slower than. For all we know he could run only 200s in 30 for all his workouts.

Except OP never said “literally”. Only a moron who is a miserable ignoramus would look at the title and not get it. You’re being deliberately obtuse and you know it.

He didn't say that the OP said "literally". He said what the OP's words literally mean. It was a really idiotic way to falsely communicate what he was trying to say. Yes, everyone understands it. I can understand a lot of poor and false communications.

ugie wrote:

Too bad woody kincade thought he could win two medals at the Olympics rather that give true a spot on the team where he could have made a run for a podium, maybe. Jerk move , woody imho

Too bad True couldn't qualify. That's not on Woody.