[quote]tom63 wrote:
BTW, it doesn’t impress me if some fatass completes an Ironman in 16.5 hours.
[/quote]
I’m impressed by anyone who completes an ironman
[quote]Old Dax wrote:
tom63 wrote:
The hulk is the strongest. He can press over 100 tons when mad and jump over a mile. He is brutally strong and agile! He also does crossfit from what i was told.
Maybe, but he isn’t actualy functional. When in daily life do you need to jump 1 mile?
Also in the comics and films I’ve never seen him even close to a Bosu ball (and what I really hate is that he never has shoes on, making BF% estimation impossible!)[/quote]
Stoopid human. Hulk the strongest one there is!
HULK SMASH!
This is a debate that I often try to evaluate logically and has become an obsession of mine to answer the question of What determines how strong someone is esp. when cross referencing strength sports?
Hence Strongman meets were born to try and determine who is the World’s Strongest Man. In the early days of strongman you can argue the archaic equipment and practical events that involved competitors from very different arenas such as Bodybuilding, Wrestling, Powerlifting, Professional Football, and Olympic Athletes (Weightlifters, Javelin and Shot put throwers)all had strengths and weaknesses that were exposed through a series of events. Back then I think you can legitamatley declare who is the strongest individual.
However in today’s Strongman arena it has become so specialized with all the implements many of the athletes owning their own and training with them on a daily basis will be far more superiorly strong than some other strength athletes who are powerlifters, weightlifters, etc.
It is like comparing apples to oranges now and the debate will always be ongoing with no clear cut winner. However, some observations shall be discussed as typically looking at a powerlifter vs. a weightlifter the powerlifter will edge them out as powerlifting is more a total, full body sport ie. the bench press. Look at the ancestors of strongman ie. Bill Kazmaier a world class PL’er first who was the first man to bench 300 kgs raw. Compare this 3 time WSM legend to another notable WSM notable competitor Gerrit Badenhorst who comes from the weightlifting background.
Both of these individuals are elite athletes don’t get me wrong but comparing them to each other there really is no contest on who edges out who, Kaz, the ex-PL wins.
Now looking at today’s modern strongman and former world class Powerlifter, Zadrunas Savickas is really on top of his game in the Strongman world. But has all his strongman training de-evolved his three-lifts (squat, bench, deadlift)? I imagine his squat and bench are not quite as strong as they used to be, but overall he is a much stronger individual as he competes more than just three fundamental gym lifts, as conan wheel, inch dumbbell lifts, atlas stones, and farmer walks.
Conversely, look at the strongman guys in Cirque Du Soleil. They are truly strong individuals on the stunts they perform doing mind boggling body twists with multiple people being held up in the air. However, these certain athletes don’t actually lift any normal impliments to judge their strength?
Bottom line is if you are an elite athlete in your strength sport you can hold your own with anyone. You might not train the same way but your a strong individual period.
Just my two cents worth.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
It’s like when I worked at the Ironman races. Everyone had a big boner that they were the fittest athletes on the planet. One of my faggy triathlete buddies made fun of me because I was out of shape. In relation to doing something for 11-18 hours.
I asked him in the animal kingdom where he ever saw lions and wildebeest ever jog for 12 hours. i told him if I could catch him in 100 yards he was food. that’s the way it works.
BTW, it doesn’t impress me if some fatass completes an Ironman in 16.5 hours.
[/quote]
Have you ever done something like the ironman? If no, then do or train for one. If yes, then you know how tough it is.
While it’s great if you’re a lion in the jungle in your pretend world, in the real world you arent.
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked. So forget sprinting in the real world, it doesnt exist for us.
Regardless of biomechanics, doing an event for 16.5 hours is impressive shit. Something alot of people can’t do.
As for fittest, they sure are.
Sure, deadlifting 500 pounds, benching 500 and squatting 550 is all super awesome (seriously, i do think it is, not sarcasm), but to be able to push your body to it’s breaking points for up to 17 hours is some bad ass shit.
AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE 100 MILE WESTERN!! 
edit:
I don’t see the point in lifting big and being strong without good cardio. I’ve seen big guys get winded running up a flight of stairs. Pathetic.
I understand the attractive concept in being strong, but to downplay an event such as the ironman…that’s just showing to the world what little you know about athletism.
there is no way to ‘settle’ this argument, the term does not have one simple definition. It’s like asking who’s faster, a 100meter runner or a 400 meter runner? what’s tastier, lemonade or ice cream. ‘strong’ in the informal sense is a value judgement and people have different values. other than a common element of high amounts of force being produced by the muscles, the definition can be all sorts of things. just get strong in the way that appeals to you.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
tom63 wrote:
BTW, it doesn’t impress me if some fatass completes an Ironman in 16.5 hours.
I’m impressed by anyone who completes an ironman
[/quote]
I’m not anymore. I saw literally thousands of people complete one. all it means is that you’ve trained to do something for just under 17 hours. I saw so many people with very little athletic ability do this and I don’t think it’s impressive. some looked like pretty out of shape housewives and hubbies.
Now doing it in a competitive time is a different ball game. Just finishing isn’t a big deal. Think a marathon, 6 hours isn’t a great time at all. 2:15-3:30 is very good.
Funny thing, at this time I was doing a lot of bike training, but just for short rides. I had a resting pulse rate of 42, lower than many of these folk. But I was doing a lot of short high intensity rides, while they did stuff that took all day.
To me it was a huge waste of time. I achieved great conditioning in 45 minutes 3 x a week.
superman
but hes gay so he loses
[quote]blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
It’s like when I worked at the Ironman races. Everyone had a big boner that they were the fittest athletes on the planet. One of my faggy triathlete buddies made fun of me because I was out of shape. In relation to doing something for 11-18 hours.
I asked him in the animal kingdom where he ever saw lions and wildebeest ever jog for 12 hours. i told him if I could catch him in 100 yards he was food. that’s the way it works.
BTW, it doesn’t impress me if some fatass completes an Ironman in 16.5 hours.
Have you ever done something like the ironman? If no, then do or train for one. If yes, then you know how tough it is.
While it’s great if you’re a lion in the jungle in your pretend world, in the real world you arent.
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked. So forget sprinting in the real world, it doesnt exist for us.
Regardless of biomechanics, doing an event for 16.5 hours is impressive shit. Something alot of people can’t do.
As for fittest, they sure are.
Sure, deadlifting 500 pounds, benching 500 and squatting 550 is all super awesome (seriously, i do think it is, not sarcasm), but to be able to push your body to it’s breaking points for up to 17 hours is some bad ass shit.
AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE 100 MILE WESTERN!!
edit:
I don’t see the point in lifting big and being strong without good cardio. I’ve seen big guys get winded running up a flight of stairs. Pathetic.
I understand the attractive concept in being strong, but to downplay an event such as the ironman…that’s just showing to the world what little you know about athletism.[/quote]
As I said, I worked on the medical staff for 4 world championships and two Lake Placid Ironman races. I’ve seen tons of overuse injuries and a lot of people in poor shape strength wise and immune system wise get these things done. And many of these competitors had poorer cardio than me. Doing a slow bike ride for 7 hours doesn’t make you in better shape than me, if you can’t keep up with me for 30 minutes.
Endurance isn’t great cardio necessarily. Now if you’re competing an Ironman in just over 8 hours to maybe 12.5, I salute you. but barely finishing and enduring is no big deal. It’s like someone bragging about their 305 squat, 185 bench, and 315 deadlift in the 242 class. you’re okay strong for a regular guy, but you still suck.
Last I checked, there was one Ironman race run where the winner did it in under 8 hours. They had great conditions that day that helped the time. Most men winners finished in the 8:15-8:30 range as I recall. This is trememndous.
But if a hallmark of great fitness is sucking at something for 17 hours, I don’t buy it. I could have smoked so many of those folk in a 45 minute spinerval workout.
Fitness is always relative, but these people are not overall fit as they think. how is a 42 resting pulse rate unfit? Doesn’t it make sense to achieve that with 45 minutes 3x a week as opposed to hours and hours? And still have a functioning immune system , no overuse injuries, and a high levle of strength.
Believe me, I’m not talking about ignoring cardio, but he problem with cardio people is that they don’t realize you don’t need to go forever to achieve a high level of fitness. You see, they want to run or ride forever. I just wanted to be in the best shape. But they kid themselves that they are the fittest.
[quote]frodolives wrote:
What lift or event is the biggest indicator of strength? A person with shorter arms might have a great bench press but be less impressive in the deadlift; a longer armed indivdual might be the reverse. Is Iran’s super heavyweight Rezazadeh stronger than Poland’s strongman Marius Pudzianowski? A Kenyan marithoner could cross the finish line at the Boston Marithon, have dinner and be back in Kenya before I cross the line, but I bet I’d have a better front squat than him; does that make me stronger? Just food for thought. [/quote]
Mortal Combat would generally decide who is stronger. However sometimes you just have bad days when fighting to the death. So to make sure both parties are at the top of their game – they need to take the following before the match:
PCP, Cocaine and extreme amounts of Caffeine.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked. [/quote]
This is B.S. Lets see - humans do live in the real world! So far it is animals that have been “fucked” as you put it. Turns out it is the brain that gives us advantage…not our sprinting speed or endurance.
Now against other humans, out sprinting each other has saved countless lives, as well as being able to out run in distance. So when it comes to humans…our only competition in sprints or distance is ourselves.
Being able to outrun, in distance, your opponent isn’t always the healthiest thing to do either. I use a biblical example for that:
From 2 Samuel:
" He chased Abner, turning neither to the right nor to the left as he pursued him. Abner looked behind him and asked, “Is that you, Asahel?” “It is,” he answered. Then Abner said to him, “Turn aside to the right or to the left; take on one of the young men and strip him of his weapons.” But Asahel would not stop chasing him. Again Abner warned Asahel, “Stop chasing me! Why should I strike you down? How could I look your brother Joab in the face?” But Asahel refused to give up the pursuit; so Abner thrust the butt of his spear into Asahel’s stomach, and the spear came out through his back. He fell there and died on the spot. And every man stopped when he came to the place where Asahel had fallen and died."
[quote]tom63 wrote:
blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
It’s like when I worked at the Ironman races. Everyone had a big boner that they were the fittest athletes on the planet. One of my faggy triathlete buddies made fun of me because I was out of shape. In relation to doing something for 11-18 hours.
I asked him in the animal kingdom where he ever saw lions and wildebeest ever jog for 12 hours. i told him if I could catch him in 100 yards he was food. that’s the way it works.
BTW, it doesn’t impress me if some fatass completes an Ironman in 16.5 hours.
Have you ever done something like the ironman? If no, then do or train for one. If yes, then you know how tough it is.
While it’s great if you’re a lion in the jungle in your pretend world, in the real world you arent.
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked. So forget sprinting in the real world, it doesnt exist for us.
Regardless of biomechanics, doing an event for 16.5 hours is impressive shit. Something alot of people can’t do.
As for fittest, they sure are.
Sure, deadlifting 500 pounds, benching 500 and squatting 550 is all super awesome (seriously, i do think it is, not sarcasm), but to be able to push your body to it’s breaking points for up to 17 hours is some bad ass shit.
AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE 100 MILE WESTERN!!
edit:
I don’t see the point in lifting big and being strong without good cardio. I’ve seen big guys get winded running up a flight of stairs. Pathetic.
I understand the attractive concept in being strong, but to downplay an event such as the ironman…that’s just showing to the world what little you know about athletism.
As I said, I worked on the medical staff for 4 world championships and two Lake Placid Ironman races. I’ve seen tons of overuse injuries and a lot of people in poor shape strength wise and immune system wise get these things done. And many of these competitors had poorer cardio than me. Doing a slow bike ride for 7 hours doesn’t make you in better shape than me, if you can’t keep up with me for 30 minutes.
Endurance isn’t great cardio necessarily. Now if you’re competing an Ironman in just over 8 hours to maybe 12.5, I salute you. but barely finishing and enduring is no big deal. It’s like someone bragging about their 305 squat, 185 bench, and 315 deadlift in the 242 class. you’re okay strong for a regular guy, but you still suck.
Last I checked, there was one Ironman race run where the winner did it in under 8 hours. They had great conditions that day that helped the time. Most men winners finished in the 8:15-8:30 range as I recall. This is trememndous.
But if a hallmark of great fitness is sucking at something for 17 hours, I don’t buy it. I could have smoked so many of those folk in a 45 minute spinerval workout.
Fitness is always relative, but these people are not overall fit as they think. how is a 42 resting pulse rate unfit? Doesn’t it make sense to achieve that with 45 minutes 3x a week as opposed to hours and hours? And still have a functioning immune system , no overuse injuries, and a high levle of strength.
Believe me, I’m not talking about ignoring cardio, but he problem with cardio people is that they don’t realize you don’t need to go forever to achieve a high level of fitness. You see, they want to run or ride forever. I just wanted to be in the best shape. But they kid themselves that they are the fittest.
[/quote]
Ah, alright. I understood you meant the top athletes (that they arent fit either and you were bashing the IM in general).
I went to the hospital to see a doctor a few days ago and i heard one of the doctors there got third place in the womens at Kona. Sadly i didnt get to meet her.
While i do understand where you are coming from, you can’t deny that doing the ironman, period, still makes you fit. I’m sure when you’ve seen the top athletes as many times as you must have, that some fat guy and his wife doing it in 16 hours must not seem like a big deal. However i think it still is (they are still traveling the full 140 miles arent they?).
Where do you draw the line? Meaning , under what hour mark do you consider it to mean you are fit?
I would say 12 hours and sub is a good indication. Tell me so i can have a goal to strive forward to when i do the ironman (please dont say 9 hours 
)
[quote]mmllcc wrote:
blazindave wrote:
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked.
This is B.S. Lets see - humans do live in the real world! So far it is animals that have been “fucked” as you put it. Turns out it is the brain that gives us advantage…not our sprinting speed or endurance.
Now against other humans, out sprinting each other has saved countless lives, as well as being able to out run in distance. So when it comes to humans…our only competition in sprints or distance is ourselves.
Being able to outrun, in distance, your opponent isn’t always the healthiest thing to do either. I use a biblical example for that:
From 2 Samuel:
" He chased Abner, turning neither to the right nor to the left as he pursued him. Abner looked behind him and asked, “Is that you, Asahel?” “It is,” he answered. Then Abner said to him, “Turn aside to the right or to the left; take on one of the young men and strip him of his weapons.” But Asahel would not stop chasing him. Again Abner warned Asahel, “Stop chasing me! Why should I strike you down? How could I look your brother Joab in the face?” But Asahel refused to give up the pursuit; so Abner thrust the butt of his spear into Asahel’s stomach, and the spear came out through his back. He fell there and died on the spot. And every man stopped when he came to the place where Asahel had fallen and died."[/quote]
We were talking about running i believe? Not brains and the bible. Holy fucking thread derailed batman. Today i dont consider a city “the real world”. Especially since a bullet can outrun you.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
blazindave wrote:
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked.
This is B.S. Lets see - humans do live in the real world! So far it is animals that have been “fucked” as you put it. Turns out it is the brain that gives us advantage…not our sprinting speed or endurance.
Now against other humans, out sprinting each other has saved countless lives, as well as being able to out run in distance. So when it comes to humans…our only competition in sprints or distance is ourselves.
Being able to outrun, in distance, your opponent isn’t always the healthiest thing to do either. I use a biblical example for that:
From 2 Samuel:
" He chased Abner, turning neither to the right nor to the left as he pursued him. Abner looked behind him and asked, “Is that you, Asahel?” “It is,” he answered. Then Abner said to him, “Turn aside to the right or to the left; take on one of the young men and strip him of his weapons.” But Asahel would not stop chasing him. Again Abner warned Asahel, “Stop chasing me! Why should I strike you down? How could I look your brother Joab in the face?” But Asahel refused to give up the pursuit; so Abner thrust the butt of his spear into Asahel’s stomach, and the spear came out through his back. He fell there and died on the spot. And every man stopped when he came to the place where Asahel had fallen and died."
We were talking about running i believe? Not brains and the bible. Holy fucking thread derailed batman. Today i dont consider a city “the real world”. Especially since a bullet can outrun you. [/quote]
No we are talking about fitness. Your claim is that distance running is better somehow than sprinting…or somehow we are built for running long distances and not sprinting…just because we have two legs. Your position can not be defended.
[quote]mmllcc wrote:
blazindave wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
blazindave wrote:
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked.
This is B.S. Lets see - humans do live in the real world! So far it is animals that have been “fucked” as you put it. Turns out it is the brain that gives us advantage…not our sprinting speed or endurance.
Now against other humans, out sprinting each other has saved countless lives, as well as being able to out run in distance. So when it comes to humans…our only competition in sprints or distance is ourselves.
Being able to outrun, in distance, your opponent isn’t always the healthiest thing to do either. I use a biblical example for that:
From 2 Samuel:
" He chased Abner, turning neither to the right nor to the left as he pursued him. Abner looked behind him and asked, “Is that you, Asahel?” “It is,” he answered. Then Abner said to him, “Turn aside to the right or to the left; take on one of the young men and strip him of his weapons.” But Asahel would not stop chasing him. Again Abner warned Asahel, “Stop chasing me! Why should I strike you down? How could I look your brother Joab in the face?” But Asahel refused to give up the pursuit; so Abner thrust the butt of his spear into Asahel’s stomach, and the spear came out through his back. He fell there and died on the spot. And every man stopped when he came to the place where Asahel had fallen and died."
We were talking about running i believe? Not brains and the bible. Holy fucking thread derailed batman. Today i dont consider a city “the real world”. Especially since a bullet can outrun you.
No we are talking about fitness. Your claim is that distance running is better somehow than sprinting…or somehow we are built for running long distances and not sprinting…just because we have two legs. Your position can not be defended.[/quote]
I meant you and i.
I never said distance running was better than sprinting. Every sport has it’s merits. I do not deny that everything - from body building, to endurance running takes hard work and dedication. I just said that humans take more naturally to long distance running than sprinting.
Yes, because we have two legs.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Humans-Are-Hairless-and-Sweaty-52233.shtml
http://friendlydirt.blogspot.com/2007/11/humans-endurance-running-predators.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/9645a7ce154eb126
[quote]google group anthropolgy
Carl Zimmer Science 2004
“It may come as a surprise to hear that humans excel in running.
Obviously, a leopard can leave us in the dust in a short sprint. But
over longer distances leopards and most other mammals flag. “Most
mammals can’t sustain a gallop over 10 to 15 minutes,” says Lieberman.
Humans, on the otherhand, can continue running for hours while using
relatively little energy. “Humans are phenomanenal endurance runners,
in terms of speed, cost, and distance,” says Lieberman. You can
actually outrun a pony easily.” And yet, he points out, “no other
primates out there endurance run.” [/quote]
[quote]
Harvard Anthropology Professor Daniel Lieberman
While animals get rid of excess heat by panting, they can�??t pant when they gallop, Lieberman said. That means that to run a prey animal into the ground, ancient humans didn�??t have to run further than the animal could trot and didn�??t have to run faster than the animal could gallop. All they had to do is to run faster, for longer periods of time, than the slowest speed at which the animal started to gallop.
All together, Lieberman said, these adaptations allowed us to relentlessly pursue game in the hottest part of the day when most animals rest. Lieberman said humans likely practiced persistence hunting, chasing a game animal during the heat of the day, making it run faster than it could maintain, tracking and flushing it if it tried to rest, and repeating the process until the animal literally overheated and collapsed.
Most animals would develop hyperthermia �?? heat stroke in humans �?? after about 10 to 15 kilometers, he said.
By the end of the process, Lieberman said, even humans with their crude early weapons could have overcome stronger and more dangerous prey. Adding credence to the theory, Lieberman said, is the fact that some aboriginal humans still practice persistence hunting today, and it remains an effective technique. It requires very minimal technology, has a high success rate, and yields a lot of meat[/quote]
Incase you forgot, a marathon is about 43 km (26 ish miles).
Those who complete it in around 2 hours are maintaining a speed of about 20km/h (13 miles an hour) for those two hours. That’s ridiculously fast. Endurance running doesn’t mean you’re going slow.
Also, the 100 mile western is a running endurance event where a group of people run 100 miles on extremely hilly terrain. You have 24 hours to complete the event.
It started as a horse race, but one of the guys…i forget what, but something happened to his horse… decided to do this horse race by foot. Supposedly he even beat some of the horses. That’s how it started into a human foot race.
You probably know of Dean Karnazes, who ran over 300 miles in one shot none stop. He’s probably the most famous/known ultra marathonner to the general public.
This is getting way off track since this thread was a question of strength, but do not deny that humans, in terms of running, are endurance machines.
I could say with absolute confidence that if you put me and a cheetah on a field that spanned several thousand kilometers, that i would be the winner.
A cheetah can reach speeds of 60 miles an hour. However after half a mile of running that fast, they need several minutes to recover and are extremely weak. They can barely move. I could easily outrun the cheetah (Takes nothing for a human to cover half a mile,)kill it and eat it. THAT’s the real world.
Anyway im done.
Sorry about that.
Jeez,
I would think that we could at least agree that even(or especially) elite endurance athletes are not strong by any traditional definition of the term. Unless you’re talking about mental toughness, it’s a crazy assertion.
It’s the brain that makes us such accomplished predators and nothing else. If we weren’t able to use tools and hunt in groups, and had to rely on our physical abilities alone, we would never have evolved to this point. Try to imagine chasing, tracking, catching, and killing even a slowish hoofed animal(much less another predator) without tools and other humans, and you’ll see what I mean.
Who is the strongest? I think it’s the person who can put the most weight from the ground to overhead. That’s the most complete single demonstration of strength.
Mojo
[quote]blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
It’s like when I worked at the Ironman races. Everyone had a big boner that they were the fittest athletes on the planet. One of my faggy triathlete buddies made fun of me because I was out of shape. In relation to doing something for 11-18 hours.
I asked him in the animal kingdom where he ever saw lions and wildebeest ever jog for 12 hours. i told him if I could catch him in 100 yards he was food. that’s the way it works.
BTW, it doesn’t impress me if some fatass completes an Ironman in 16.5 hours.
Have you ever done something like the ironman? If no, then do or train for one. If yes, then you know how tough it is.
While it’s great if you’re a lion in the jungle in your pretend world, in the real world you arent.
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked. So forget sprinting in the real world, it doesnt exist for us.
Regardless of biomechanics, doing an event for 16.5 hours is impressive shit. Something alot of people can’t do.
As for fittest, they sure are.
Sure, deadlifting 500 pounds, benching 500 and squatting 550 is all super awesome (seriously, i do think it is, not sarcasm), but to be able to push your body to it’s breaking points for up to 17 hours is some bad ass shit.
AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE 100 MILE WESTERN!!
edit:
I don’t see the point in lifting big and being strong without good cardio. I’ve seen big guys get winded running up a flight of stairs. Pathetic.
I understand the attractive concept in being strong, but to downplay an event such as the ironman…that’s just showing to the world what little you know about athletism.
As I said, I worked on the medical staff for 4 world championships and two Lake Placid Ironman races. I’ve seen tons of overuse injuries and a lot of people in poor shape strength wise and immune system wise get these things done. And many of these competitors had poorer cardio than me. Doing a slow bike ride for 7 hours doesn’t make you in better shape than me, if you can’t keep up with me for 30 minutes.
Endurance isn’t great cardio necessarily. Now if you’re competing an Ironman in just over 8 hours to maybe 12.5, I salute you. but barely finishing and enduring is no big deal. It’s like someone bragging about their 305 squat, 185 bench, and 315 deadlift in the 242 class. you’re okay strong for a regular guy, but you still suck.
Last I checked, there was one Ironman race run where the winner did it in under 8 hours. They had great conditions that day that helped the time. Most men winners finished in the 8:15-8:30 range as I recall. This is trememndous.
But if a hallmark of great fitness is sucking at something for 17 hours, I don’t buy it. I could have smoked so many of those folk in a 45 minute spinerval workout.
Fitness is always relative, but these people are not overall fit as they think. how is a 42 resting pulse rate unfit? Doesn’t it make sense to achieve that with 45 minutes 3x a week as opposed to hours and hours? And still have a functioning immune system , no overuse injuries, and a high levle of strength.
Believe me, I’m not talking about ignoring cardio, but he problem with cardio people is that they don’t realize you don’t need to go forever to achieve a high level of fitness. You see, they want to run or ride forever. I just wanted to be in the best shape. But they kid themselves that they are the fittest.
Ah, alright. I understood you meant the top athletes (that they arent fit either and you were bashing the IM in general).
I went to the hospital to see a doctor a few days ago and i heard one of the doctors there got third place in the womens at Kona. Sadly i didnt get to meet her.
While i do understand where you are coming from, you can’t deny that doing the ironman, period, still makes you fit. I’m sure when you’ve seen the top athletes as many times as you must have, that some fat guy and his wife doing it in 16 hours must not seem like a big deal. However i think it still is (they are still traveling the full 140 miles arent they?).
Where do you draw the line? Meaning , under what hour mark do you consider it to mean you are fit?
I would say 12 hours and sub is a good indication. Tell me so i can have a goal to strive forward to when i do the ironman (please dont say 9 hours ) :P[/quote]
Anyone who does an Ironman has a good level of fitness , of course. But the whole fittest people on earth stuff, please.
How would you classify a district high school wrestling tournament? those lads are pretty fit, pound for pound strong, have agility and so on.
As for how do you know you’re good at an Ironman, 12 hours would be a great mark, with 13 for a gal. Adjust it up and hour or so for the masters crowd. I would say 40+, but you willsee many great athletes at 40-50.
Now, the Ironman stuff is rife with overuse injuries, immune system problems and so on. It’s a worthy goal, but to me a silly goal. I call it silly because I can get more than enough aerobic fitness with much less effort. but the goal of completion is great if you want to achieve that. Kind of like climbing a mountain I wouls say.
Now as for how great the goal of completing one is in athletic accomplishments, I don’t think it’s as hard to achieve as a 300 pound bench press raw, or a 600 pound deadlift. These are specific achievements based on a level of performance. Completing an Ironman to me is a little tougher than completing a lifting meet, but completing a meet doesn’t mean you lifted well.
My point was, and I think you got it, so many regular folk can do it, it’s not that special or hard. Doing it in 12-13 hours is like doing a double bodyweight squat raw I would guess. This is based on what I’ve seen over the years lifting and being at the races, btw. Completing a race in 9:15 and less is like being at the worlds for man and add an hour for a woman.
Think of powerlifting classification or a golf handicap. Your performance should be a part of how great the achievement is, no matter what it is. Believe me, it took me a lot more work to get to the 300+ raw and 600 pound deadlift range than the just complete the Ironman crowd ever did.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
It’s like when I worked at the Ironman races. Everyone had a big boner that they were the fittest athletes on the planet. One of my faggy triathlete buddies made fun of me because I was out of shape. In relation to doing something for 11-18 hours.
I asked him in the animal kingdom where he ever saw lions and wildebeest ever jog for 12 hours. i told him if I could catch him in 100 yards he was food. that’s the way it works.
BTW, it doesn’t impress me if some fatass completes an Ironman in 16.5 hours.
Have you ever done something like the ironman? If no, then do or train for one. If yes, then you know how tough it is.
While it’s great if you’re a lion in the jungle in your pretend world, in the real world you arent.
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked. So forget sprinting in the real world, it doesnt exist for us.
Regardless of biomechanics, doing an event for 16.5 hours is impressive shit. Something alot of people can’t do.
As for fittest, they sure are.
Sure, deadlifting 500 pounds, benching 500 and squatting 550 is all super awesome (seriously, i do think it is, not sarcasm), but to be able to push your body to it’s breaking points for up to 17 hours is some bad ass shit.
AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE 100 MILE WESTERN!!
edit:
I don’t see the point in lifting big and being strong without good cardio. I’ve seen big guys get winded running up a flight of stairs. Pathetic.
I understand the attractive concept in being strong, but to downplay an event such as the ironman…that’s just showing to the world what little you know about athletism.
As I said, I worked on the medical staff for 4 world championships and two Lake Placid Ironman races. I’ve seen tons of overuse injuries and a lot of people in poor shape strength wise and immune system wise get these things done. And many of these competitors had poorer cardio than me. Doing a slow bike ride for 7 hours doesn’t make you in better shape than me, if you can’t keep up with me for 30 minutes.
Endurance isn’t great cardio necessarily. Now if you’re competing an Ironman in just over 8 hours to maybe 12.5, I salute you. but barely finishing and enduring is no big deal. It’s like someone bragging about their 305 squat, 185 bench, and 315 deadlift in the 242 class. you’re okay strong for a regular guy, but you still suck.
Last I checked, there was one Ironman race run where the winner did it in under 8 hours. They had great conditions that day that helped the time. Most men winners finished in the 8:15-8:30 range as I recall. This is trememndous.
But if a hallmark of great fitness is sucking at something for 17 hours, I don’t buy it. I could have smoked so many of those folk in a 45 minute spinerval workout.
Fitness is always relative, but these people are not overall fit as they think. how is a 42 resting pulse rate unfit? Doesn’t it make sense to achieve that with 45 minutes 3x a week as opposed to hours and hours? And still have a functioning immune system , no overuse injuries, and a high levle of strength.
Believe me, I’m not talking about ignoring cardio, but he problem with cardio people is that they don’t realize you don’t need to go forever to achieve a high level of fitness. You see, they want to run or ride forever. I just wanted to be in the best shape. But they kid themselves that they are the fittest.
Ah, alright. I understood you meant the top athletes (that they arent fit either and you were bashing the IM in general).
I went to the hospital to see a doctor a few days ago and i heard one of the doctors there got third place in the womens at Kona. Sadly i didnt get to meet her.
While i do understand where you are coming from, you can’t deny that doing the ironman, period, still makes you fit. I’m sure when you’ve seen the top athletes as many times as you must have, that some fat guy and his wife doing it in 16 hours must not seem like a big deal. However i think it still is (they are still traveling the full 140 miles arent they?).
Where do you draw the line? Meaning , under what hour mark do you consider it to mean you are fit?
I would say 12 hours and sub is a good indication. Tell me so i can have a goal to strive forward to when i do the ironman (please dont say 9 hours ) :P[/quote]
One of my female patients was a top five finisher in Kona a few times also btw.
Tom63,
You’re arguing your points really well and I would definately agree on all counts. I’ve heard the same thing being said about ultra-marathon runners. Normal Marathoners treat them with distain since by running the extra distance they think they’re fitter, but really they wouldn’t be competitive over 26 miles anyway.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
blazindave wrote:
tom63 wrote:
It’s like when I worked at the Ironman races. Everyone had a big boner that they were the fittest athletes on the planet. One of my faggy triathlete buddies made fun of me because I was out of shape. In relation to doing something for 11-18 hours.
I asked him in the animal kingdom where he ever saw lions and wildebeest ever jog for 12 hours. i told him if I could catch him in 100 yards he was food. that’s the way it works.
BTW, it doesn’t impress me if some fatass completes an Ironman in 16.5 hours.
Have you ever done something like the ironman? If no, then do or train for one. If yes, then you know how tough it is.
While it’s great if you’re a lion in the jungle in your pretend world, in the real world you arent.
You’re human. Bipedalism promotes endurance running as opposed to sprinting. As a human, in the real world, you’d be fucked. So forget sprinting in the real world, it doesnt exist for us.
Regardless of biomechanics, doing an event for 16.5 hours is impressive shit. Something alot of people can’t do.
As for fittest, they sure are.
Sure, deadlifting 500 pounds, benching 500 and squatting 550 is all super awesome (seriously, i do think it is, not sarcasm), but to be able to push your body to it’s breaking points for up to 17 hours is some bad ass shit.
AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON THE 100 MILE WESTERN!!
edit:
I don’t see the point in lifting big and being strong without good cardio. I’ve seen big guys get winded running up a flight of stairs. Pathetic.
I understand the attractive concept in being strong, but to downplay an event such as the ironman…that’s just showing to the world what little you know about athletism.
As I said, I worked on the medical staff for 4 world championships and two Lake Placid Ironman races. I’ve seen tons of overuse injuries and a lot of people in poor shape strength wise and immune system wise get these things done. And many of these competitors had poorer cardio than me. Doing a slow bike ride for 7 hours doesn’t make you in better shape than me, if you can’t keep up with me for 30 minutes.
Endurance isn’t great cardio necessarily. Now if you’re competing an Ironman in just over 8 hours to maybe 12.5, I salute you. but barely finishing and enduring is no big deal. It’s like someone bragging about their 305 squat, 185 bench, and 315 deadlift in the 242 class. you’re okay strong for a regular guy, but you still suck.
Last I checked, there was one Ironman race run where the winner did it in under 8 hours. They had great conditions that day that helped the time. Most men winners finished in the 8:15-8:30 range as I recall. This is trememndous.
But if a hallmark of great fitness is sucking at something for 17 hours, I don’t buy it. I could have smoked so many of those folk in a 45 minute spinerval workout.
Fitness is always relative, but these people are not overall fit as they think. how is a 42 resting pulse rate unfit? Doesn’t it make sense to achieve that with 45 minutes 3x a week as opposed to hours and hours? And still have a functioning immune system , no overuse injuries, and a high levle of strength.
Believe me, I’m not talking about ignoring cardio, but he problem with cardio people is that they don’t realize you don’t need to go forever to achieve a high level of fitness. You see, they want to run or ride forever. I just wanted to be in the best shape. But they kid themselves that they are the fittest.
Ah, alright. I understood you meant the top athletes (that they arent fit either and you were bashing the IM in general).
I went to the hospital to see a doctor a few days ago and i heard one of the doctors there got third place in the womens at Kona. Sadly i didnt get to meet her.
While i do understand where you are coming from, you can’t deny that doing the ironman, period, still makes you fit. I’m sure when you’ve seen the top athletes as many times as you must have, that some fat guy and his wife doing it in 16 hours must not seem like a big deal. However i think it still is (they are still traveling the full 140 miles arent they?).
Where do you draw the line? Meaning , under what hour mark do you consider it to mean you are fit?
I would say 12 hours and sub is a good indication. Tell me so i can have a goal to strive forward to when i do the ironman (please dont say 9 hours ) :P[/quote]
If you’re a young guy and I assume you are, try to get it done first. An Ironman is brutal. And believe me, the fitter people often crashed and burned metabolically before the less fit crowd. Why? They’re in shape to push. They want the time, they want the placing. The glow stick crowd ( those people who can’t finish during daylight, app 14+ hours)aren’t really humping it.
Walking a marathon isn’t the same as running a marathon. A 6-7 hour marathon doesn’t show me much. At least at a slow trot, maybe 5pmh, you’ll get done in 5:15.
The things you need to learn is how your body will respond to race hydration and food. You need both of course. The first one you do, try not to make mistakes and don’t take risks. Get it done even if you’re a little slow. Learn from that race, see how your body responds, and put together a better plan for the next one.
If you’re a decent aerobic athlete, and will under 30, I think most can break 11 hours, male wise.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
mmllcc wrote:
blazindave wrote:
This is getting way off track since this thread was a question of strength, but do not deny that humans, in terms of running, are endurance machines.
I could say with absolute confidence that if you put me and a cheetah on a field that spanned several thousand kilometers, that i would be the winner.
A cheetah can reach speeds of 60 miles an hour. However after half a mile of running that fast, they need several minutes to recover and are extremely weak. They can barely move. I could easily outrun the cheetah (Takes nothing for a human to cover half a mile,)kill it and eat it. THAT’s the real world.
.[/quote]
What?
Did you just assert that you’d easily outrun the cheetah? And that it’s somehow the REAL world?
Okay, I’ll play. Here’s a math problem:
Hungry Dave is chasing Felix. Felix runs a half mile in 30 seconds. Dave runs a half mile in 2 minutes(that’s a 4 minute mile folks!). Both are extremely tired at the finish line. Felix has been resting for a minute and a half when he sees Dave approaching. Can Dave catch up to Felix?