More evidence that the Sub-2 marathon isn't close.

Haile ran 2:03:59 at age 35. I put his performance through the Daniels age adjustment tables. It is equivalent to a 2:02:11 at his prime.

Hypothetically sub-2:02 was possible 20 years ago. So we really haven't progressed much talent-wise since then.

Further in his prime, Haile ran 26:22 10K which converts to 2:01:18.

The Cubs will win the World Series before someone goes sub 2 in the marathon. Maybe.

Hey! they made it to the NLCS this year...

Hurry up wrote:

The Cubs will win the World Series before someone goes sub 2 in the marathon. Maybe.

Lot of exponential relations in running... I think it's pretty clear sub 2hrs won't happen for a while and when it does it will likely be a drug cheat. I made a bet with a college teammate in regards to the sub 2 hour marathon (he said it would happen within 10 years and I said 'no way)...that was back in 2006 I believe. [Mike it's almost time to pay up!].Then of course you have "authors" like Phil Maffetone that says all it takes is better fat burning and a sub 1:50 is for sure possible! Cake walk really. But I digress..

Big dummie wrote:

Time series anyone? Lots of time series analysis used to estimate swimming world record progressions with a good deal of accuracy over the past 25 years or so. Last I checked, prior to Kimetto's record, we're looking at another 16 to 45 years before a sub 2 hour performance.

Don't forget it will be run in minimalist shoes around a big track!

asdadsfa wrote:

Letsrun actual motto wrote:

The motto is, or was, "where your dreams become reality" and one of mine is to see a sub 2 hour marathon in my lifetime. I'm pretty sure it will happen.

Depends how old you are. If your 30, I like the chances (assuming your live to 85 or so). If your 70, I would bet against you.

Anyone expecting to see a 2:00 flat in the next 5 years is very optimistic. Anyone who doesn't think it is possible in the next 50, is probably being pessimestic. Or maybe you think we will develop better drug testing:)

I agree up to your last point, which you write with a smile. I don't believe in either drugs or drug testing. It's all bollocks, just hype and marketing and jobs for drug gurus and jobs for the phoney testing regimes, which have been shown to be just a corrupt as the doping regimes.

Sage, the sub 2 hour marathon will be run by a guy who is more economical in his use of glycogen and fats and oxygen. If you were really interested in ex phys like you pretend, you might be able to engage in a serious debate instead of just preaching pseudosciece like every other self appointed expert.

How much more economical would one have to be? I would wager that it would take someone with either longer limbs or more explosive lower leg muscles. Neither one are historically conducive to fast marathoning.

In Kimetto's WR run, he had one 5K split that was faster than 1:59:59 pace. It could be said they he ran less than 15% of the race at that effort.

In order for me to start believing it possible, I want to see guys drop sub-14 5Ks or sub 28:30 10Ks in the middle of the race. Hell, even some surges of 4:25 miles.

If you look at the 5K, there are plenty of times where someone will split a 52 second 400m or 2:25 1000m. That lines up with the WR of 12:37. guys should be able to run faster than WR pace for at least some segment of teh race in a non-WR attempt.

Sage - Does your boy want to double down on the next 10 years? I'm game.

You guys are hilarious.

4:41/mile - possible.

4:34/mile - LOL IMPOSSIBLE WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

To whoever cited the people who used to think that a sub-4 mile was physically impossible -- that's a great example, but you used it wrong.

2:00 is just a number, not a physiological barrier. With humans out there that can run sub 3:50 for one mile, and others that have already sustained 4:41/mile for a marathon, we're OBVIOUSLY gonna see 4:34/mile for a marathon. I give it 30 years max.

Slow Bro wrote:

I give it 30 years max.

OK. So you agree with the OP that it isn't close and a lot of the people who post here will be dead by then.

Someday a special talented individual will emerge, the kind of talent that only comes around once in a lifetime.

When that talent emerges, we will see a sub 2 hour marathon.

(The talented individual I speak of is a chemist that will make a PED so powerful that all of the record books will be rewritten)

Smartie wrote:

Further in his prime, Haile ran 26:22 10K which converts to 2:01:18.

If we want to use equivalents than Jim Ryun with his 1:39/3:24 was already more than capable...

Lenny Leonard, wasn't there a 4:24,mile surge this last Sunday NYM by the winner, Stanley Biwott. Last 10 km was 28:40 or was it 28:20 min?

Lenny Leonard wrote:

How much more economical would one have to be? I would wager that it would take someone with either longer limbs or more explosive lower leg muscles. Neither one are historically conducive to fast marathoning.

I don't think either of those has been linked to higher efficiency. It is more in the ability of tendons to store and release energy and good tendon attachment points.

The two hour marathon could be run if we had the combo of the most efficient runner that they measure in the lab and the one with highest oxygen consumption. Obviously that combo might be impossible.

One thing that isn't clear is if we have every had a Bekkele/Geb talent attack the marathon in their prime or if we are looking at the tier down (i.e. world champions but not 1 in 10+ year talents). Wanjiru might have been that talent but lets just say he had some personal problems:)

It is impossible for a very high VO2 max runner to have a very good economy, it just doesn't work that way and it is irrelvant anyway.

What is relevant is marathon fitness so your point about tendons storing and releasing energy is the important issue. It's adaptability to doing that without getting tired.

Let me put it this way, can anyone run a sub 25 minute 10k downhill any hill? No, not yet, but there is no reason why it can't be done.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Smartie wrote:

Further in his prime, Haile ran 26:22 10K which converts to 2:01:18.

If we want to use equivalents than Jim Ryun with his 1:39/3:24 was already more than capable...

LOL

Smartie wrote:

Haile ran 2:03:59 at age 35. I put his performance through the Daniels age adjustment tables. It is equivalent to a 2:02:11 at his prime.

Hypothetically sub-2:02 was possible 20 years ago. So we really haven't progressed much talent-wise since then.

Interesting article here:

Both Mosop and Wanjiru said they thought they could run 2:02.

"Known as “Big Engine,” the Kenyan athlete later went on to break the world record for 30k on the track, immediately afterward saying that he could run a 2:02 on a flat road marathon."

"The late Sammy Wanjiru, whose sensational victories at such a young age presaged a brilliant career in the sport, wasn’t so sure. Speaking for himself, he said he could potentially run a 2:02, but that two hours would be impossible, a task left to “maybe the new generation, you could get strong people.”"

What did I preach that was pseudoscience? If you're a Maffetone fan that's fine, but I'm going to call someone out who says a sub 1:50 marathon is possible and that putting butter and coconut oil in coffee is a healthy breakfast.