Interesting article by RW on how the sub-2 marathon is possible

sospiri wrote:

It doesn't mention drugs.

From the article:

"Doping with EPO or blood transfusions is one way of boosting an already-high VO2 max—and it’s possible that cheating may have contributed to the drop in the marathon record, and could even be the “secret” that allows runners to approach sub-two in the future."

And then it says: But Radcliffe’s numbers offer a reminder that such tactics aren’t necessary to achieve boundary-breaking performances: Her VO2 max was already exceptional when she was a teenager, and it stayed at a relatively constant level throughout her career.

The point being that the drugs thing is a red herring.

It doesn't explain that racing faster actually uses less energy. When people grasp this concept, they will understand my point.

How long will that take? 50 years?

asfad wrote: What we are looking for is the male Paula Radcliff (30 min 10k/ 2:15 marathon) who can run a 26:30 10k. Who knows if that person can exist.

OK, but Paula was definitely an extreme outlier in this regard. It's also possible (in fact very likely) that she could have run the 10k a bit faster since it came at the start of her marathon career. A 29: high would put her more towards a ratio of 4.6 which is what the women tend to run.

sospiri wrote:

It doesn't explain that racing faster actually uses less energy. When people grasp this concept, they will understand my point.

How long will that take? 50 years?

How does racing faster take less energy, and what would that have to do with anything, idiot?

More efficiency. It's the key to running faster idiot.

sospiri wrote:

More efficiency. It's the key to running faster idiot.

Faster doesn't mean more efficient and more efficient DOES NOT MEAN less energy. I know which field(s) you did NOT study in college.

Yes it does fool.

sospiri wrote:

Yes it does fool.

Unless you decrease your weight or improve your technique, running faster will require MORE energy over a certain distance. The math is not hard to figure out... for MOST people at least.

You're missing the point. I'm not comparing an 8 minute mile jog to a 4 minute mile race. I'm comparing racing 2.02 to racing 1.59

You will have to think about that before you reply. Or better still, think about it and don't reply with another stupid argument.

sospiri wrote:

You're missing the point. I'm not comparing an 8 minute mile jog to a 4 minute mile race. I'm comparing racing 2.02 to racing 1.59

You will have to think about that before you reply. Or better still, think about it and don't reply with another stupid argument.

It DOES NOT MATTER whether you mean 8:00, 4:00, 2:02, or 1:59. Running faster will require MORE ENERGY, controlling for obvious things like weight and running technique. And you've offered NO EXPLANATION to the contrary.

Read the article you clown. It explains how running economy lead to imporoved times.

Do you always argue like a fool or are you just bored at work?

sospiri wrote:

Read the article you clown. It explains how running economy lead to imporoved times.

Do you always argue like a fool or are you just bored at work?

According to the running economy hypothesis, you would use the SAME amount of energy whether you\'re running 1:59 or 2:02, IF AND ONLY IF you\'re able to improve only by running economy - and neglecting small things like air resistance and withstanding impact to the joints, which would still make a 1:59 require more energy. And even then it\'s the same, not less.

NOWHERE does it say running faster requires LESS energy, your stupid conjecture.

I for one hope you\'re NOT at work, or at least not at a job where people will rely on your knowledge or calculations.

sospiri wrote:

You're missing the point. I'm not comparing an 8 minute mile jog to a 4 minute mile race. I'm comparing racing 2.02 to racing 1.59

W = F*d

In running F (muscle force) is proportional to d (distance per stride), so regardless of how fast you cover the course, it's going to be about the same amount of energy. Then you throw in the fact that the muscles are less efficient at higher intensities and you're probably burning more chemical energy going faster, not less.

The faster runner is running for less time. You didn't factor that into your equation. Wind resistance will be fractionally higher. Impact to the joints is not higher. Better economy comes from better use of eccentric contractions - more spring in the stride. This is the real key to running faster and using less energy to race faster.

If this is too much for you to comprehend, then you are always going to be cynical about the subject?

Physics Prof wrote:

sospiri wrote:

You're missing the point. I'm not comparing an 8 minute mile jog to a 4 minute mile race. I'm comparing racing 2.02 to racing 1.59

W = F*d

In running F (muscle force) is proportional to d (distance per stride), so regardless of how fast you cover the course, it's going to be about the same amount of energy. Then you throw in the fact that the muscles are less efficient at higher intensities and you're probably burning more chemical energy going faster, not less.

The Physics of running is not your strong point Physics prof. See above post. Better use of eccentric muscle contractions save energy compared to a slower runner.

Think of it this way. A 3.02 runner is using the same amount of glycogen, but more fat than a 2.03 runner... because he is running for much longer he needs that extra fuel.

Read what I'm saying, do your homework and englighten yourself.

sospiri wrote:

The faster runner is running for less time. You didn't factor that into your equation. Wind resistance will be fractionally higher. Impact to the joints is not higher. Better economy comes from better use of eccentric contractions - more spring in the stride. This is the real key to running faster and using less energy to race faster.

If this is too much for you to comprehend, then you are always going to be cynical about the subject?

In what way is ANYTHING I say "cynical"? I don't know how that word applies to anything I say AT ALL.

Wow, there are SO many things wrong with the running economy argument...

For one, running economy deals with consumption of OXYGEN, not "energy"...

For another, running economy is (by hypothesis) largely technique, and I said you cannot run faster with less energy unless you improve your technique. And even so, that doesn't imply "running faster requires less energy."

For another, there isn't much evidence that running economy really is a "thing," or that we're measuring it properly. There is a big disparity in VO2max values and running economy values among elite runners, and an inverse relationship between the two, suggesting they are not independent variables. Therefore, you can't just imagine "combining the highest known running economy with the highest known VO2max," as the article suggests.

sospiri wrote:

Physics Prof wrote:

W = F*d

In running F (muscle force) is proportional to d (distance per stride), so regardless of how fast you cover the course, it's going to be about the same amount of energy. Then you throw in the fact that the muscles are less efficient at higher intensities and you're probably burning more chemical energy going faster, not less.

The Physics of running is not your strong point Physics prof. See above post. Better use of eccentric muscle contractions save energy compared to a slower runner.

Think of it this way. A 3.02 runner is using the same amount of glycogen, but more fat than a 2.03 runner... because he is running for much longer he needs that extra fuel.

I am assuming weight and running technique to be equal. A 3:02 marathoner probably weighs more and is probably pretty inefficient. But I'm not sure I would agree that two runners of equal size and gait, but different speeds, would use different amounts of fat. They both hit the glycogen wall around the same time. Good runners can burn a lot of fat running at a high speed.

I think you're on the right track.

Yes it's better technique. Yes it's fuel economy, both glycogen and (in the marathon) fats. This means that a truly accurate measure of economy would involve both aerobic and anearobic energy consumption, which is much higher than the oft quoted 1-2% in a marathon.

A sub 2 marathon is not abouta much higher VO2 consumption, that issue is a red herrining. An improvement of 3% in race time would allow a slightly higher VO2 naturally but only very slightly.

This obsession with VO2 is what has driven the obsession with blood transfusions and EPO and it is just crazy. It is likely that Paula Radcliffe's VO2 max was slightly lower in 2003 than when she was a teenager? This would be more likely for Haile Gebreselassie when he ran 2.03.59 at age 35.