Another run across America underway - is it legit? Boots currently on the ground

The last 6 days of that run my pace averaged 8.06, 7.59, 10.16, 8.43, 7.44, 7.30
WG's last 6 days have been 7.37, 8.41, 8.11, 7.36, 7.40, 7.43
So I'm not sure where you are getting the light years from.
The other example I sent you was from a multiday, where I was running 70 miles a day. I sent you the last 50 miles where I was doing 10min/km but hr averaged 104. My only point was that I was surprised it was so low, as someone who generally has a high hr and that I doubted my watch was showing a true reading.
I also sent you data from someone I was running with on a multiday last year who was running at 5.30 pace with hr of 112 and your response - well he's probably an amazing runner so it doesn't count.
And as for the 45s maybe you're right, but I'll send you video of me at the time. I felt good most of those 17 days. There is a line in the sand, and 45 would definitely be on the edge of what I think I could have done in those moments but my point is always that I have done these things as a very average runner. I've never run a marathon quicker than 3.30 and so I am far more in awe of your 2.24 than of what WG is suggesting he's doing here.

And Livory you are definitely right about the minroity comment. That was based on a few people I had seen posting and friends I have talked privately to so, in fact similar to the sort of sweeping statement I have felt Will has been making. So I take that back, I have no idea what the majority of multiday runners are thinking of this.

So you're now comparing Balenger running 100miles in 18 hours to an elite running a 6 day race? isn't this exactly the sort of comparison which you have said shouldn't be made in previous posts? The way these two completely different runs are approached are completely different and can't be compared. For 100 miles you're running to be depleted and broken by 100 miles. For 6 days, you don't want to be broken by 100 miles! its all about consistency.

His HR 'fade' throughout the run is exactly what i'd expect in a 100 mile run. Happened on every 100 mile race i've ever done. yes the sudden increase in HR at the end is odd. but can easily be explained by watch picking up cadence which IS pretty common.

What do you mean "that run" Andy? Tell us which it was. Sometimes you do challenges that are nothing like this and use them as evidence. Everything I check of yours you're all over the place, just as it SHOULD be. You present an orgy of evidence of multiday hell, pain, flagellation, suffering, depreciation and loads and loads of 8k splits of 60-85. Just like 99% of everyone else.

Over and over you say about how what WG is doing is easy and that you could do it. This is a mistruth. You're as good an ultrarunner runner as him [I think better] and yet to compare your stats is to compare night and day.

And your statement about how often you negative split is stillborn. I'm asking for negative splits with serious running, not a crawl. Show me a 5 hour marathon Andy, and then a 4:50 and you'll have my attention.

Goodge is now regularly destroying Dan Lawson's Jogle in the daily stats and you're just waving it through. Yesterday, another totally bonkers days of a crashing pulse and superb, world-class Transconning. How many in history have logged a day like that so late across America? Maybe half a dozen. I wonder if it's that, espcially in such quick time. But the comeback is always the same: "Meh, 60 miles in a day, we can all do that." Really? on day 46? With 2,500 miles in the bank? with a running time of 12:22?

When Lawson did his late 60 at Jogle his running time was 14:20 and he was out there from 5am to 11:30pm. Goodge took from 7am to 8pm.

In summary, this is what we always get from Balenger and Goodge:

1) No tracker

2) No human pulse

3) No bad days.

4) No bad sessions. [except for intergalactic crash and burns for both at RBs Transcon day 3, and WGs Jogle days 3 and 4, after which neither every had even the faintest of trouble].

5] Incredible second half of days which regularly see him go as quick as 4:30 for 40k and now as we know 45 for 8 [which is exactly 4 hour marathon pace].

Aside from those 30 k when Balenger ran with him, his clean heart rate with me was some 98% out of 420k. Without me watching, it is around 10%. But once again, you see nothing wrong with that. You just blamed Garmin, and now you're blaming Coros.

I'm just asking why his heart completely crashes for that second 40 miles. Earlier he's doing stuff like a 6:59k at 152 and a 7:50 at 148 and a 7:05 at 162, and then later he's doing a 6:05 at 133... and a 6:03 at 132, and a 5:50 at 136 and a 5:46 at 139.

To be clear he's run a km 2 mins quicker, but brought his heart down by 12 bpm. And you're saying that's totally normal and that I'm an idiot for raising it.

If RB is running "100 miles to deplete" then surely his heart should be going up or maintaining as he's belting it all day long, or at least showing signs of stress. It's Rakonczay who should be protecting his heart at all costs, but no, it's just beating at nigh on identical levels. You seem to have made a choice non-sequitur. Everyone else's heart has to work terribly hard in the second half of races, so why not RBs? Instead he runs 65k with his heart going above 140 just 4 times, compared to 58 times for the first 65k.

And then back to 170s for the last 27k of the run.

-------------------

And yes, it's been pointed out that this Central Park run is a totally contrived event with a pathetic initial target [110k in 18 hours - Sorokin would do way over double that]. What's the record laps for Hyde Park in a day? Nobody knows or cares. It's just like Goodge's run around Como. It's JUST a lake. But they paint themselves as amazing for doing it. Why can't they just race like the rest of us and shoot for conventional quality? When they do, they get devoured and are made to be seen for what they are: dead ordinary.

To affirm with even more clarity about RB's Central Park run:

First 70K: HR 158.5
Second 70K: HR 128.
Last 20K: 165.9

I get that he has run a little slower in the second 70k, fine, but his heart should still be having to work, aside from anything, he was much fresher early doors. And that last 19.5 k was by far the slowest sequence of the lot - 2:40, but still the huge spike in HR.

Anyway, I'm sticking this on their tab, as the discrepancy is off the scale. People can say this normal all they like. Prove it.

But thats what happens on a 100 miler. You get cardiac drift (increasing heart rate) over the duration of a run on shorter distances. But in ultra mode you get a natural decline in HR over time. I've never seen an example of a 100 mile race where someones HR increased throughout the duration of the 100miles. Maybe in elites, if they pace it properly? Or if someone starts out reeeealllly slow, but certainly not in the rest of us if were setting out to race the thing.

All well and good you pulling out isolated km splits and HR data which suit what you're trying to say but thats a false representation. You have picked out his slowest km splits in the first half, surrounded by much faster ones (e.g. 7:50, bookmarked with a 4:39 and 5:10), so it completely skews things to suit your narrative.

You need to look at the wider picture to get an accurate narrative - look at the graph data of HR trend and pace. His average pace slightly decreases over the duration of the run, as does his heart rate. This is exactly the same trend that I see in my previous 100 milers. I can send you examples if you want, though i'm sure you will find a way of saying 'oh thats different because', or 'I think you were cheating' ;)

I'm not trying to defend these guys on some of the valid questions which have been raised on this particular run. But I get frustrated when I see posts with inaccurate or biased data, backed up with comparisons against people and race distances which you won't accept as evidence when others have tried to raise things with you. Lets just keep it to facts

The 4s and 5s are even higher HRs, I've not cherry-picked at all. I've just compared 8 splits or so. Yes, he's not running 4s and 5s at 180s in the second half, I have no problem with that. But you don't seem to have an issue with much quicker Ks later with a much lower HR, you just dismiss it as cherry-picking.

I get cardiac drift, of course I do, but nothing like on this scale. If you click on his HR graph it's a monstrosity. The really high red line for 70k, then flatlines for 70k, then really high again. Once again, it's all about crossing the line. You're not saying his second 70 is tech fail, you're saying cardiac drift... I honest wonder how much lower his rate would need to go for you NOT to say cardiac drift!

He probably went out too quick on this day and blew, fine, but there are still loads and loads of 6s in that second 70k at HRs that are far too low, sometimes by 40bpm, and you're just waving it through.

The only point you've said I've landed is that his heart explodes again for the last 20k, despite slowing down even more. Baby steps...

PS, I have no issues with WG equivalent run at Como at all. Yes there's some cardiac drift, but his graph is perfect and rock steady all through... In the first half he's running 125-140bpm for about 6:30s and the second half as he starts dabbling in 8:30-9:30s his heart coming down to 110. No probs with that at all. He had a massive slowdown of some 3 hours.

Look, be realistic.

It all points to cheating. It's always cheating.

Why waste your time desperately trying to defend something you probably know is cheating but for some reason think that it's the noble thing to do because there is no 'definitive proof'?

It's for your own benefit. People like Goodge always get caught in the end and all you mindless defenders end up looking like proper knobheads. You're not in too deep yet.

OK so take these three as examples. Same race, average pace doesn't slow down much at all. But average HR drops by 20-30bpm over the course of the run. Plenty of fast kms in the second half with low HRs. I'd say its pretty similar patterns to what we see on Balengers run. except for the last spike of course. But as i said, that can be explained by cadence lock, particularly if its a wrist based monitor - but your only possible explanation is, oh his HR spikes at the end therefore thats definitive proof that hes cheating. Death by heart rate data.

I expect you could randomly pick any persons run and micro analyse it and come up with a number of 'anomalies' in the run which don't make particular sense. Doesn't mean they are cheating

strava.com

Lakeland 100 - Rory H.'s 105.0 mi run

3rd

Link:www.strava.com/activities/5685426496

strava.com

Lakeland 100 - Rob B.'s 104.7 mi run

Rob B. ran 104.7 mi on Jul 23, 2021.

Link:www.strava.com/activities/5680811335

strava.com

Lakeland 100 5th place/1stv40 (22hr53min official time) - Dougie Z.'s 104.9 mi run

Worked hard for for that. Absolutely red hot 32degrees for the first evening, Had a moment on black sail pass and was feeling sick. Was going to pull out at buttermere but gave my head a shake. Absolutely buzzing 😍😍

Link:www.strava.com/activities/5680103516

There are at least four completely obvious ways that you can dispel this man's run. The first is to get him to hand over his COROS data and have an expert analyze it. The second is to have someone go out and monitor this guy's runs in person through the finish. The third is to produce video/photographic evidence of cheating. The fourth is to come up with an eye witness that's observed misconduct.

The reliance on Strava and pseudo-mathematics and pseudoscience is completely bogus, and it detracts from what you are trying to accomplish.

KMs vs HR in isolation are useless.

It's important also the KMs that have gone before that may have risen the HR for the start of the KM, or vice versa. Also elevation, temperature etc.

Have you reread the contradictory nonsense you have just posted?

I'm not defending them, what i'm defending is data which I think has been incorrectly analysed and used to bolster a particular narrative. I make my own mind up on data rather than blindly accepting what someone else is telling me. And why not challenge it in a healthy debate - isn't that what this forum is for? Otherwise aren't we all sheep following a shepherd?

In my opinion theres nothing in Balengers Central Park run which suggest cheating is going on in that particular run. Transcon however, is a different story

Spell it out for me.

You're simply saying that history and statistics have no place in this investigation. I have studied this stuff for many years and you're just dismissing it all. No one has shot less than 61 at St Andrews, but if a 10 handicapper shoots 57, we're supposed to lap it up and say, well we have to accept it because there's no video, and we can't rely on the stats because they're pseudo-science and pseudo-maths.

You really don't think him averaging 158 for 70k, then 128 for 70, then 165 for 20 is odd? Despite the middle 70k having loads of quick stuff?

The MUT community is generally a pretty humble group. What’s rankling a lot of people is the arrogance of these guys. They are pretty average runners, claiming to be “world record” holders based off obscure feats that other more accomplished runners simply haven’t bothered to attempt. If it really is so easy and their heart rate is actually that low, why not test yourself going for a legitimate record or in a race against truly elite competition? The answer is because it would shatter the fantasy they’ve created for themselves and their social media followers. Not saying only elites should be able to make a living off promoting themselves, but a little humility goes a long way. I think it’s sort of the same thing turning people off with Seth Demoor right now (who actually is a pretty good runner when he’s not beating himself into the ground).

I would not trust this runner and his team farther than I could throw them. However, based on what's been produced in terms of evidence I am not confident enough to declare this thing fraudulent. This thing is ongoing and better evidence can be obtained fairly easily.

Looks like they are in Ohio and will be passing through tomorrow-ish? Are you going?

And to all you going on about heart rate, stop posting so much junk and focus on getting people out to watch this dude and figure out whether he’s running or not. Blabbering on about ‘transcons’ 50 years ago and K segments and whatever else is obviously not convincing enough to determine whether he’s really doing this.