Is Kipchoge a 2:04' runner? (Dr. Ross Tucker on the Vaporfly)

In 2016 Eliud Kiochoge ran 2:03:05.

Some people say that nike 4% makes elite marathoners run 3 min faster. If it is true, why Kipchoge haven't run 2:00:05 in London?

Alll wrote:

In 2016 Eliud Kiochoge ran 2:03:05 in London.

Some people say that nike 4% makes elite marathoners run 3 min faster. If it is true, why Kipchoge haven't run 2:00:05 in London?

Ross Tucker, just like you, are clown.

On the latest podcast he stated multiple times that Vaprofly shoes give 4% running economy boost (4% less oxygen consumption) yet he completely forgot to mention how were these tests done, how big was the sample size, which "athletes" they tested and what shoes were compared.

4% less oxygen consumption would yield 2.7% increase in results.

In the real world no one has came even close to this number except for Brigit Kosgei who improved her marathon PR by 2.9% (and we all know who's her agent and coach is).

Geoffrey Kamworor improved his PR by 53 seconds or about 1.5% but this was done on perfectly flat and crazy fast Copenhagen course with pacemakers throughout 10k and strong tail wind on the second part of the race and not to forget that he used Maurten sports drinks.

Kipchoge went 86 seconds faster in Berlin over his previous PR which is about 1.1% improvement only and as Geoffrey he also had good pacemakers until 20k, Maurten sports drink throughout distance and perfectly fast course and ideal weather conditions. Nothing of which he had when set the previous PR in London.

When talking about other national or regional level elite athletes I haven't seen anyone of them improve by more than 1% on their results and most improve only around 0.5%.

This nonsense about 4% running economy improvement is ridiculous and is based on speculation at best. And don't tell me about those 3 hour hobby joggers stories that improve by 5 minutes, at that low level improvement can be attributed anything (weight loss, nutrition, training).

Geez, give it up man. You're either a Nike shill trying to hype up the shoes or just clueless.

Ross Tucker and you have one thing in common...

you both are clueless about running

Alll wrote:

In 2016 Eliud Kiochoge ran 2:03:05.

Some people say that nike 4% makes elite marathoners run 3 min faster. If it is true, why Kipchoge haven't run 2:00:05 in London?

That time was run in Vaporfly midsoles. See the picture I've posted in this thread.

Just want to remind everyone that Wildhorse legitimately claimed that there isn't much of a fitness difference between 3 hours marathoners and 4 hour marathoners. Just in case anyone is considering taking anything that comes out of his mouth seriously, that's the type of person you're dealing with in this thread.

Alll wrote:

In 2016 Eliud Kiochoge ran 2:03:05.

Some people say that nike 4% makes elite marathoners run 3 min faster. If it is true, why Kipchoge haven't run 2:00:05 in London?

3 minutes?

But, Kipchoge has to be getting old, sooner or later, or is already declining.

Father time wrote:

Alll wrote:

In 2016 Eliud Kiochoge ran 2:03:05.

Some people say that nike 4% makes elite marathoners run 3 min faster. If it is true, why Kipchoge haven't run 2:00:05 in London?

3 minutes?

But, Kipchoge has to be getting old, sooner or later, or is already declining.

Age graded the 2:01:39 is a 1:54:34.

I think his mental game is still super strong. Maybe his legs cant run 1:59 on their own, but his mind is certainly strong enough

Veracruz wrote:

Just want to remind everyone that Wildhorse legitimately claimed that there isn't much of a fitness difference between 3 hours marathoners and 4 hour marathoners. Just in case anyone is considering taking anything that comes out of his mouth seriously, that's the type of person you're dealing with in this thread.

Things are true or false regardless of who's saying them. I exagerated to emphasize a larger point, if you want to to hold me to the most basic literal meaning of those words then there's nothingvI can do about it. Apparently 2:59' guys are studs now.

Her an 2:04:05 in 2013 when he was 28 years old. If he hasn't gotten any better, then ya he's a 2:04 runner that runs 2:01/2:02 because of boosted shoes. But of course it's doubtful that his 2:04:05 in his debut marathon at age 28 is the best he can do, ya'll crazy.

Wildhorse wrote:

Veracruz wrote:

Just want to remind everyone that Wildhorse legitimately claimed that there isn't much of a fitness difference between 3 hours marathoners and 4 hour marathoners. Just in case anyone is considering taking anything that comes out of his mouth seriously, that's the type of person you're dealing with in this thread.

Things are true or false regardless of who's saying them. I exagerated to emphasize a larger point, if you want to to hold me to the most basic literal meaning of those words then there's nothingvI can do about it. Apparently 2:59' guys are studs now.

Sure thing, bud. Just keep backtracking.

You're right. I take it back.

Moran.

Yet somehow you skipped addressing my post with real world facts that are true regardless.

This just underlines your bias.

Clown

Kipchoge was a consistent 2:04 - 2:05 runner before he switched to Vaporflys. His marathon results prior to Vaporfly were 2:05, 2:04, 2:05, 2:04, 2:04 and 2:04. He then wore Vaporfly 4% for London 2016 and he dropped a minute and ran 2:03:05. Then he dropped another 86 seconds off that in Berlin after a few attempts in the Next%. 2:04:00 to 2:01:39 is 141 seconds which is a 1.9% improvement.

Secondly you call the 4% running economy claim "speculation at best" yet you attribute part of his improvement to Maurten where there has been even less scientific research. In fact, Alex Hutchinson reviewed an article yesterday that showed no significant difference in performance or GI issues between Maurten and other fuels:

nv4 wrote:

Yet somehow you skipped addressing my post with real world facts that are true regardless.

This just underlines your bias.

Clown

Well, Kipchoge's WR isn't a 2% improvement over his best non-Vaporfly performance?

I don't know what's my bias, honestly. I don't agree with everything said in the podcast, but I agree with the significance of what we've seen since the introduction of the Vaporfly: running performance has been recalibrated, times aren't comparable to 4 years ago.

I don't think we can say what precise percentage of improvement belongs to the shoes, as there are many factors impacting performance, but we can see a consistent and significant improvement.

If you attribute Kosgei's improvement to doping, you mean she was clean until this race? Kipchoge couldn't touch Kimetto's record, gets in Vaporflies and runs mere seconds slower, then twice under it in subsequent evolutions of the shoes? Bekele? Is he in much better shape than his previous PB, also slower than Kimetto's WR? Really, after how he's been this years?

Get Bekele and Kipchoge and the rest of them in Streak 7s, let's see how close they come to their current PBs. You know the answer full well.

Kipchoge's 2:03 shoe from Berlin in which his insoles popped out is on display here in Berlin, and it is not a Vaporfly midsole, Wildhorse, you are incorrect. Come out here and pop by Niketown Berlin.

NF. wrote:

Kipchoge's 2:03 shoe from Berlin in which his insoles popped out is on display here in Berlin, and it is not a Vaporfly midsole, Wildhorse, you are incorrect. Come out here and pop by Niketown Berlin.

Kipchoge ran 2:04 with insole popped out in Berlin 2015. In London 2016 he had a Vaporfly prototype and ran 2:03.

Your bias arises from the fact that you and some other posters actually claim that all world record performances are nothing but a consequence of VF shoes.

This is poor speculation at best. No one denies the fact that VF improve performance over other running shoes, obviously they do. But I deeply hate exaggerated speculation about miraculous 4% less oxygen consumption and 2.7% improved results that is based on nothing but poor tests with many unknown variables and anecdotal claims. No world class or even national level athlete has shown that kind of improvement in real world conditions even more so attributable solely to VF only. In all those circumstances where we have seen spectacular results there have been multiple factors involved that allowed record breaking and yet still they were not close to 2.7% yield in results.

I haven't done tests but I am following athletics closely. There is no doubt that VF is a whole new level but don't underestimate other factors.