Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
wired.com
wired.com
This flies in the face of much of what I've seen.
Alex Hutchinson wrote a wonderful article entitled "What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?" in 2014[1], and in a subsequent piece[2] he lays out data from Paris officials who have found that the fastest elite runners did best with temps at 38.9f. This is a HUGE unexplained difference. Furthermore, with pacers blocking the wind more than ever, the Breaking2 effort would have given Kipchoge even less opportunities for evaporative and convective cooling.
"When French researchers analyzed the finishing times of 1.8 million marathoners over a 10-year period, they found that a race-day temp of 43.2°F produced the quickest times overall. But faster runners, who generate more heat, benefited from cooler temps, with the top one percent (green line below) peaking at 38.9°F. Midpackers (red line) do best in the mid-40s."
[1] https://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/?_ga=2.79362900.1119941834...
[2]https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/whats-the-optimal...
It seems like the next frontier in distance running optimization is the mind. Given the analysis on the runners' physiology, the only thing that really separated them was mentality.
This seems obvious, given the nature of distance running, but the article never mentions sports psychology or mental exercises the runners do to improve performance.
That's pretty interesting, given that so many elite athletes have put such an emphasis on the mental part of their game:
I knew I was going to wrestle in the finals of the Olympics against a Russian and I knew he had been training specifically to beat me, but then I knew the guy was on steroids, That would help me. Whereas some might think ‘oh he’s cheating, for me you didn’t pay the price. You’re not as committed as I am. It’ll tear him apart. He may be strong, but all I have to do during that 9 minutes of wrestling is loosen one single wire in his brain, make him do something that isn’t perfect, and he’ll fall apart. Besides the health effects, what you lose when you use steroids is mental toughness. The key to victory is that the strongest mind wins. You can get physical strength with steroids, but you lose the mental toughness (you would have gained) from brutal hard work. Steroids hurt mental toughness by serving as a crutch. - Dan Gable[0]
Champions aren’t made in gyms. Champions are made from something they have deep inside them – a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have the skill, and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. To be a champion you must believe you are the best. If you’re not, pretend you are. - Muhammad Ali[1]
Physically is a little bit easier, but the mental part is the hardest part, and I think that's what separates the good players from the great players - Michael Jordan[2]
[0]https://www.bjjee.com/articles/wrestling-legend-dan-gable-st... [1]https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-power-of-vis... [2]https://youtu.be/xlFRZmUmaYI
I'm not judging better or worse and I hate the "is golf a sport" arguments.
> “You shouldn’t let others bully you on the course and make you do something you aren’t comfortable with, like going too fast or too slow,” he said. > > “You need to find your pace and, if you can, try to bully one of the other big names into going your pace and not their pace.”
http://m.scmp.com/sport/outdoor/article/2109266/jim-walmsley...
I learned this from one of my Drumline instructors at university who was also a biology professor; He stated that one of his students did poorly on his exam and the student said he studied hours on end and didn’t know how that could happen. The professor replied, the amount you study isn’t nearly as important as studying efficiently and correctly. He then likened that to us practicing drums he said, if you spend hours practicing with improper technique then you are doing yourself a disservice and he finished up by saying you will only perform as well or likely worse than how you perform while practicing.
Despite that efficiency beats time in most aspects, if you want to do well at the National and international level you will still likely have to devote a very major part of you waking hours to honing your skills efficiently.
I found the topic incredibly interesting. In this paper (from 1991) the author examines the limiting factors in human running and tries to build a model that gives you a bound on how fast a human could run a marathon. The results he got is 1:57:58.
You can take a look at the paper here http://fermatslibrary.com/s/modeling-optimal-marathon-perfor...
edit: opening it is the easy part, reading however proves challenging for some
I don't think there's anything wrong with reading comments first, and in some select cases commenting yourself. Comments are why I'm here. That said, it's worth keeping in mind whether you've read the article though and how that affects your interpretation of what you're reading, and what you want to say. Be signal, not noise (I think that's a perfect motto for HN and summarizes the rules fairly well).
Running a 7:38 mile would be really fast for most adults, but to do it over 100 miles is unthinkable.
I think up to 15 or 18 mph is pretty easy pace for anyone who even road bikes once a week.
Your mileage seems a little low ;)
The vast vast majority of cross country runners in high school can't maintain that pace for 3.1 miles / 5 km. How a human maintains it for 26.2 I have no idea.
Another perspective: the world record 1 mile time, which is essentially a 4 lap sprint, is 3:43.13. So these athletes run at 81% world record mile pace for 26 miles.
At that pace, I wouldn’t be able to run even a single kilometer even in my peak shape. Could probably manage a lap around the track.
Another try is going to a track and running 100m in 17s.
A whole bunch of treadmills don't go past 8MPH and even that seems pretty fast to me to run at for an extended period of time.
But I’ve been on a treadmill less than a half dozen times in my life, so what do the treadmill makers care what I think. :-)
Although you're right that it would be a piss-poor treadmill if it were built to max out at 8 minutes/mile pace or slower. I suspect none are, but I think the fellow reporting it was at heavy weight, so perhaps that affected things.
For most people that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
I see some going up to 18 mph, but they are a bit pricey :) Woodway is a popular brand for rich runners...
Top marathon runners average faster than five minute miles. That's sickeningly fast.
Back in high school my fastest single 1600m (a mile is 1609m, but one lap on a track is 400m) time was around a 5:15, and my fastest 800m was 2:27.
These elite marathon runners basically took my fastest 800m pace and repeated it 50 times.
Insane.
Agree on the incredible part. I have seen elites race in person at the 2008 Olympic trials and it is unreal how smooth and fast they are.
When Kipchoge started falling behind, they seemed to not be worried, but I felt that they should have tried to remedy it right away.
It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.
Long but fascinating article though...
(genuine question) is there only one official body in the world that determines what a "marathon" is?
My understanding is that the Boston Marathon (which certainly seems to be a marathon) isn't considered a "real" marathon because of various reasons (weather, elevation, non-loop nature of the course etc.)
Marathon running isn't necessarily a track and field sport in the way the 100 meter sprint is.
The story takes place after Athenian Hoplites pushes back a Persian army into their ships at the Marathon shores, after which this ship sails to Athens to wreak havoc. Hoplites make the run from Marathon to Athens just in time to defend against Persians and successfully discourage them against further attacks.
After the Battle of Marathon, hoplites who were in the war referred it to as "the run", "we ran", or had "he ran" carved in their tombstones etc. So Marathon became synonymous with running.
Here's the mention of "we ran" in Hansen: https://books.google.com/books?id=lAWEPUkz5sIC&pg=PT164&lpg=...
The story of Pheidippides running from Marathon to Athens (and dying on arrival) is certainly apocryphal, but it's nevertheless the origin of the modern marathon.
"The Persians saw them running to attack and prepared to receive them, thinking the Athenians absolutely crazy, since they saw how few of them there were and that they ran up so fast without either cavalry or archers.
"So the foreigners imagined, but when the Athenians all together fell upon the foreigners they fought in a way worthy of record. These are the first Hellenes whom we know of to use running against the enemy. They are also the first to endure looking at Median dress and men wearing it, for up until then just hearing the name of the Medes caused the Hellenes to panic.
-
It's also interesting to note that the Spartan army arrived at Marathon a day late "having marched (140 mi) in only three days."
A single man runs from Marathon to Athens, says only “we are victorious”, and then dies. That’s the legend, but it’s confusing two events. Pheidippides actually ran from Athens to Sparta to request reinforcements. The Marathon to Athens run has the hoplites getting there just in time to see the Persians leave Athens.
What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. Would you consider that achievement worse than perfect lab like conditions?
It's a certain distance, by foot. That's it. I also see snobbishness and even anger toward run-walkers. Even if they do the same distance in the same conditions.
The courses need to follow certain rules to mitigate the effect of tailwinds, slopes and things like that. That's why Boston isn't eligible for world records.
Here's the rule: "The start and finish points of a course, measured along a theoretical straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance." (http://www.aims-worldrunning.org/world-records.html)
But just to address the original comments: "It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.".... We do consider the Boston Marathon to be a marathon, right?
Boston is a real marathon, run on a hilly course in whatever the weather is on the day of the race. This has meant rainstorms, 80+ degree weather, and everything in between.
Nike's WR attempt is an experimental marathon, run on a track shielded from the wind, on a date and time chosen based on the temperature, cloud cover, and wind forecasts to be ideal for human long-distance performance running.
The course of the Boston marathon is notable in that it is not record-eligible. It is not a loop, and there is a net elevation drop. In 2011, there was a tailwind at Boston, resulting in abnormally quick times, including Ryan Hall's 2:04:58, which would have been an American record, but is not due to the course [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Hall_(runner)#Sub-2:05:00...
The most undeniable difference between the Breaking2 event and what would be allowed in an record-eligible marathon is the pacers used. In Breaking2, they swapped in different groups of 6 people to run in a carefully-engineered triangle formation directly in front of the main runners. In a real race, the winner cannot draft behind others the whole way. Because at some point obviously the winner must pull ahead, and the rules disallow drafting behind anyone who isn't running the same race. So the rules specifically forbid exactly what Nike did with pacers.
When you change the rules in a way that you know has a quantifiable effect on the outcome (and I'm sure Nike can tell you the numbers since they used computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to select the best pacer formation), it's not comparable anymore.
Now personally I don't have any problem with Nike's event. It was a fun exhibition thing that inspired and challenged people. Probably some good research even came out of it. But it's still fair to point out how the results on this don't really count.
Which they didn't publish, so it can only help Nike and their friends. That's the least good kind of research.
You're clever, but the IAAF is thorough. Rule 144.3 says:
"For the purpose of this Rule, the following examples shall be considered assistance, and are therefore not allowed: (a) Pacing in races by persons not participating in the same race, by athletes lapped or about to be lapped or by any kind of technical device (other than those permitted under Rule 144.4(d))."
Rock climbing jumps to mind.
I agree. Anything other than a 26.2 mile race in footwear common in the classical hellenistic period that terminates in the ancient town of Marathon in Greece is a little insulting to REAL marathon runners.
/s
> He drove onward, breaking the tape in two hours and 25 seconds.
I just ran a marathon two weeks ago in 3:15:24. I'd only wanted to break 3:20 that day so I was more than satisfied. Yet I still found myself going over my race wondering why I couldn't find just one second per mile to go under 3:15. Just one second! The mental aspect of the marathon is my favorite part of running.
When I ran Chicago last year my Garmin lost the GPS signal so I just went with the pace group runners. Usually only the mid-size to large races have pacers, and you never know how good they are, but at Chicago the pacers may as well be professionals.
Regardless, yes, running even effort is critical to the best performance. This can be tricky depending upon terrain, wind, and temperature. Also, personally do best going out a bit slow (the first 5K or so). Being able to pass runners as the race wears on is a huge psychological boost for me.
Well, the guys participating were three of the best marathoners in the world, probably one (Kipchoge) who is the best ever, so I doubt whether they or anybody involved were concerned about "insulting" marathon runners. Everybody was well aware that the conditions were different and would help create a faster time than possible in a regular marathon race.
Baby steps. Once they have achieved sub-2 in "artificial" conditions, the idea of going sub-2 in an actual marathon race will seem easier, and will be the next item to check off.
For me, this was confirmation that humans do indeed have room to push the current world record further down.
Surprised this thread has the legs it has - I was merely pointing out the sterile (and arguably Nike marketing oriented) attempt at a sub 2 hour 26.2 mile effort was, despite being a super human effort, not a 'marathon' per se. This has been beaten to death elsewhere online in running forums. Yes it is a little 'snobby' to say that, but formally a 'marathon' is a race and not a time trial...and more importantly a mass participation activity where finishing is considered a triumph for the average Joe or Jane.
I happen to think the Nike record attempt hijacks the everyday heroism of all those folks grinding out winter training after or before work right now, but I do agree the superhuman element of the athletes involved in the Nike event was incredible...
The "News" in "Hacker News" is like a second-hand clothing store in my home town called "New to You". Of course this article didn't qualify in your case, but that's the general idea. Older posts can't be new to all of the people all of the time but in the long run there are enough surprises to go around.
https://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/study-zero-drop-c...
Most of these papers I've come across makes a number of assumption and use various methods that are proxies for what they want to measure. For example, they will force plates to measure the amount of force generated against the ground. But that doesn't necessarily imply more injuries because of the number of different components involved in your feet and legs. In fact, the foot is extraordinarily complex and I think that's part of Lieberman's general idea. I don't think it's prudent to reduce it to a single set of number and say "yep, more injuries" because having shoes on or off and different design of shoes can all affect how your feet and legs respond to that force.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with your statement but as far as I know there is no scientific paper that simply states, "shoes are bad for running" or "minimal shoes are good", etc. Making claims like that are often unhelpful because there isn't one simple answer to running injuries. We have a huge number of supporting muscles and components that are involved in running. Your feet is only one part in that system and even those are complex systems in themselves.
For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels. Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice when barefooting: you will change your stride. If you view heel striking as a bad habit--maybe causing injury--this will prevent that at least.
Personal experience: old guy, unable to run much distance in regular shoes, and after a long conversion period changing technique, I can run a 5k comfortably without injury. Unshod. I'm trying to get up to a 10k. I do wonder if the technique will back-port to regular shoes or if the shod injuries will return.
I do not develop blisters nor callouses because the feet are not landing hard and they're not sliding.
A couple of observations then. First, you can't bring your old form and start cold. Be prepared to work up to it by walking and gradually adding running. Second, the new form involves a more bent-knee, hopping, springy aspect. This vid was very helpful for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jio7DK15Q1E
It's funny that we learn how to run in diapers and then spend decades learning again.
When I run in normal running shoes now, I feel weighed down and I don't do as well. My times have definitely improved, but I think that's mostly because I've been running more because I enjoy it more.
It certainly has its place, but I've heard of too many people trying to make a switch to it only to get injured. The biggest arguments behind it are that 'it's a more natural way to run' and that 'a lot of Kenyans and Ethiopians do it and they're the best in the world'.
The truth is, they've been running that way pretty much their entire life. You (most likely) have not. Your feet will not be able to handle the beating that their feet can. I have never met a professional runner that identified as a 'barefoot' runner. A lot of runners will work in some sort of 'barefoot' training, but it's minimal and used to build up stabilizing muscles. When a single run can take you over gravel, onto a sidewalk, and through a trail in the forest, it's next to impossible to run barefoot or even with a 'barefoot' running shoe.
You are certainly free to do as you wish, but barefoot running should most likely be used as a tool at best. If you really want to make a complete transition, you would likely need to approach it with the same rigor and dedication someone would use when training for a marathon.
There's some science behind it too. Google "Benno Nigg" and "comfort filter".