Boston analysis

Adrian Marriott wrote:

Renato, i'm curious about the 4mmol level for the TURBO DIESEL marathon runners and where the extra sugars come from to sustain that ?

Its a big step from 2 - 2.5mmol in your book (and my experience also from testing normal european runners).

Are you able to give some insight beyond the 40km hard run, which qualities are changing - bigger fuel tank ?

Adrian

I just wanted to repost this question for Renato in case he missed it. I was wondering the same thing.

You missed the point entirely. Criticizing an elevation map doesn't suffice to refute the argument, Malmo.

The point is that for certain athletes, rolling, net-downhill courses are not a disdavantage at all. You can talk about how much slower Boston is historically, and that's fine—for MOST people. But not for all. (This, also, ignoring the point that Boston doesn't have pacers, and the temperatures are often much hotter, both of which contribute to slower average times, forgetting the hills.)

As Canova said:

"What I want to say is that an hilly course can have different impact for different athletes, but in some case doesn't penalize the final time. Athletes as Geoffrey (very high agility) or Moses (very high eccentric strength) don't suffer this kind of courses.

Leonard Komon, for example, improved last year the WR of 15 km in a race called "Seven Hills", that of course is very hilly. If there are not long hills to climb, but short and hard, athletes with good strength can attack at high speed, and the next downhill can be run at high speed with good relaxation."

BamBam wrote:

Average_Joe, you actually support my arguement that these athletes are disproving the common myth surrounding what makes Boston slow. If your handle represents your abilities (no diss intended), you are claiming that Boston "beats you to death." I agree, CIM did as well for me (same type of course). But for these talented athlets (giving credit to their eccentric strength), they can crush the downhill part yet have the strength to power uphill. 2:04/26:50 type athletes rarely have touched Boston (not sure if they have at all/ and definitely havent ATTACKED from the gun). The slow Boston still exists....for those who can't absorb the impact.

I don't think I support your argument here. You seem to think that part of being elite is some special immunity to the pounding. That's not at all in evidence. Of course Boston still beats up the elites. It just beats them a whole lot less than someone like me.

It's like that quote by... I think Steve Jones. Can't remember it exactly but it was something like: "Everyone hits the wall in the marathon. It's just that when I hit the wall, I start running 5:20 miles"

See, the problem I see here is that I ran Boston in 2007 as well. I ran a PB (we actually ran together for a bit, I think). I didn't notice the wind much during the race. I liked the conditions!

Many people said that the weather was awful, lots of people dropped out (supposedly), and all the top guys ran the first half at a glacial pace. Some elites were wearing windbreakers until Newton. And, I think most people would say, "Robert Cheriuyot could have run a lost faster than 2:14 that day if the weather was better." But what does that matter?

My point being, we can debate all day long about how fast people SHOULD have or COULD have run given the conditions, but none of that really matters in a road race as historic as Boston. But, you can't scientifically determine how much of an advantage the wind gave runners with anything resembling accuracy. The number of variables involved makes that ridiculous. What we're all doing is making up random times to add to each person's time, which, to me, is like people adjusting their PR's based on their Garmin saying the course was 26.32 miles long.

If we're adding three minutes to everyone's time this year, how much should we subtract from everyone's 2007 time for blustery, cold and wet conditions? Four minutes? Four seconds per kilometer? Or do we just accept what we ran, like normal people?

BamBam, you are thick. Sacto and Boston are not similar. I've run Sacto and I've run Bostons course from Natick to Cleveland Circle dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times. I know every nook and cranny of Commonwealth Ave.

The course are only similar in that there is an elevation drop. Not the magnitude of it, nor the specifics of the drops

Sacto

overall drop = 300 ft

2-4 miles = 100 ft drop.

4-11 miles = flat

11 miles = 80 foot drop followed by 50 ft rise

12-26 miles = gentile 100 foot drop.

Boston

overall drop = 450ft

0-4 miles = 250 ft drop

4-15 miles = 50 ft drop

15-15.5 miles = 110 ft drop

16.0 -16.5 miles = 80 foot climb

16.5 - 21 miles = a series 4 drops then climbs totaling 150 ft

21 miles = the double-dip to St Ignatious

21.5 - 23 = a screaming 150' drop.

23 to 24 = another steep drop of 100'

24-finish = flat.

malmo wrote:

I explained it before, when 9 out of the top 15 set PRs on a slow course, something you'd rarely see in any legit flat course, you don't have to be a genius figure this out.

You really need to stop twisting the stats to make your point look better.

It's not 9/15. Two of those were debuets, so any finishing time is a PR, so lets work with 7/13. The only two guys who had monster PR's, were Gebre and Kamais. Both running their second marathon. Both ran NY last year as their first, and as such, both would be expected to run significantly faster. So that leaves us with 5/11 setting a PR. They averaged a PR of 57 seconds, and all of them finished in the top 8. So is it really that unreasonable for 5 guys to have a good day at the same time that 6 guys don't? Those that were "on" set PR's. Those that weren't, didn't. Sounds like a normal marathon to me.

Sorry Average_Joe, shouldn't of used you as an example but the point I was trying to make is that the downhills didn't tax Mutai at all (fasest 10k split was the final 30-40k, fastest 5k was uphill). I'm sure the course "beat up" Mutai, but it didn't show in the race considering how fast he closed.

Sorry Renato, you are not unbiased. You make a living advertising how fast your runners run. Just think if they had turned around at 13 and ran into the 20 mph wind! Hall's front running was artificially fast, why were 15 runners still mear the lead in 1:02 at the half? It was a great race but artificially fast. Sorry.

i rewatched the race for signs of wind.

the women start out into headwind, if you believe the flags.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s0WieKwokp4/TbAR_UuhOoI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/Dsb-zaokS5Q/s640/one.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oGImIdcUieA/TbASLSafPuI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/w-F0sLW90Eo/s640/two.png

start of men looked like no wind.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p5ezuDDT2CE/TbAS7_IVOFI/AAAAAAAAAKU/1Nih49R4X68/s1600/nine.png

most of the wind you see during the broadcast appears to be sidewind, with much of it looking like barely any wind. this is going by the flags and such along the course. i screen capped a bunch of pictures.

Homes. Get serious. I'm no0t twisting stats, you are.

9 of the top ten set PRs. Only one of them debuted, and, for the record that's a PR. Unless he improves dramatically he will never ever see a sub 2:04 again.

1) Geoffrey Mutai 2:03:02 2:04:55 - 1:53

2) Moses Mosop 2:03:06 Debut

3) Gebre Gebremariam 2:04:53 2:08:14 - 3:21

4) Ryan Hall 2:04:58 2:06:14 - 1:16

5) Abraham Cherkos 2:06:13 2:07:29 - 1:16

6) Robert Cheruiyot 2:06:43 2:05:52 + 0:51

7) Philip Sanga 2:07:10 2:07:11 - 0:01

8) Chimsa 2:07:37 2:07:54 - 0:17

9) Daba 2:08:03 2:07:04 + 0:59

10) Robert Kipchumba 2:08:44 2:08:07 + 0.37

11) Peter Kamais 2:09:50 2:14:58 - 5:08

12) Cardona 2:12:17 2:13:29 - 1.12

13) Gilbert Yegon 2:13:00 2:06:18 + 6:42

14) Migidio Boirifa 2:13:45 2:09:07 + 4:38

15) Abe 2:15:48 2:13:46 + 2:02

Average_Joe wrote:

I don't think I support your argument here. You seem to think that part of being elite is some special immunity to the pounding. That's not at all in evidence. Of course Boston still beats up the elites. It just beats them a whole lot less than someone like me.

It's like that quote by... I think Steve Jones. Can't remember it exactly but it was something like: "Everyone hits the wall in the marathon. It's just that when I hit the wall, I start running 5:20 miles"

Wrong.

First, "the wall" is glycogen depletion and has nothing to do with quad failure due to eccentric loading on the downs.

Regarding the pounding, I will again invoke Canova from earlier in the thread:

"What I want to say is that an hilly course can have different impact for different athletes, but in some case doesn't penalize the final time. Athletes as Geoffrey (very high agility) or Moses (very high eccentric strength) don't suffer this kind of courses.

Leonard Komon, for example, improved last year the WR of 15 km in a race called "Seven Hills", that of course is very hilly. If there are not long hills to climb, but short and hard, athletes with good strength can attack at high speed, and the next downhill can be run at high speed with good relaxation."

There you have it. Three screen shots.

The weather readings were wrong!

malmo wrote:

There you have it. Three screen shots.

The weather readings were wrong!

you are looking at weather readings, i am looking at the flags blowing all along the course, which seem to be a pretty fair indication of how the wind is blowing ALONG THE COURSE.

go back and watch the race.

You mean like this...

http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/bostonmarathon/2011-race-day/slide7.html

malmo wrote:

Homes. Get serious. I'm no0t twisting stats, you are.

9 of the top ten set PRs. Only one of them debuted, and, for the record that's a PR. Unless he improves dramatically he will never ever see a sub 2:04 again.

1) Geoffrey Mutai 2:03:02 2:04:55 - 1:53

2) Moses Mosop 2:03:06 Debut

3) Gebre Gebremariam 2:04:53 2:08:14 - 3:21

4) Ryan Hall 2:04:58 2:06:14 - 1:16

5) Abraham Cherkos 2:06:13 2:07:29 - 1:16

6) Robert Cheruiyot 2:06:43 2:05:52 + 0:51

7) Philip Sanga 2:07:10 2:07:11 - 0:01

8) Chimsa 2:07:37 2:07:54 - 0:17

9) Daba 2:08:03 2:07:04 + 0:59

10) Robert Kipchumba 2:08:44 2:08:07 + 0.37

11) Peter Kamais 2:09:50 2:14:58 - 5:08

12) Cardona 2:12:17 2:13:29 - 1.12

13) Gilbert Yegon 2:13:00 2:06:18 + 6:42

14) Migidio Boirifa 2:13:45 2:09:07 + 4:38

15) Abe 2:15:48 2:13:46 + 2:02

Ok, I'll bite. How am I twisting stats??? You're using debuets, and second marathons where the fist was NY, the slowest of all the majors. And you're saying that Mosop will never run faster. Are you so full of yourself that you actually believe that you can know that right now? He's run one marathon. Do you know ANY runners who believe that having run a marathon previously won't help them in the future?

PresMustache wrote:

i rewatched the race for signs of wind.

the women start out into headwind, if you believe the flags.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s0WieKwokp4/TbAR_UuhOoI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/Dsb-zaokS5Q/s640/one.pnghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oGImIdcUieA/TbASLSafPuI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/w-F0sLW90Eo/s640/two.png

start of men looked like no wind.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p5ezuDDT2CE/TbAS7_IVOFI/AAAAAAAAAKU/1Nih49R4X68/s1600/nine.png

most of the wind you see during the broadcast appears to be sidewind, with much of it looking like barely any wind. this is going by the flags and such along the course. i screen capped a bunch of pictures.

Are you ridiculous? You are trusting how much wind you "saw" on TV more than official weather statistics? Cmon, you can do better that that.

malmo wrote:

There you have it. Three screen shots.

The weather readings were wrong!

No the weather readings weren't wrong. They are just skewed (10m up and thus stronger than at ground level, not accounting for wind that can effectively tunnel in a different direction due to buildings, etc.). It is one of many points that you continue to ignore.

The screenshots are, of course, not definitive. But they are data points that help to show how stubborn and ignorant you are being.

PTF wrote:

You mean like this...

http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/bostonmarathon/2011-race-day/slide7.html

LOL.

Stubborn and ignorant? Oh my goodness! Look in the mirror - it define stubborn and ignorant... LOL.