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

Oh wise one... Don't disagree with the sub-2:00 sentiment, but can you explain further why you think "it's pretty clear" "it will likely be a drug cheat"?I ask because I want to reconcile the notion that drugs can be effective at the marathon distance, with the reality that the rest of the rich world (despite access, and knowledge to evade testers) has plateaued for the last 30 years, struggling to break sub-2:06, without a tailwind.On the contrary, I think this shows "pretty clearly" that today, we don't know if drugs even exist that could take us from 2:02 to 2:00. Economy plays such an important role, and most drugs don't really target economy, beyond weight loss.I think it's more likely, if it's a cheater, it will be something new, like gene doping, giving us achilles tendons like kangaroos, (or legislation allowing blade runners to count), and not drugs manipulating our energy metabolism.

S. Canaday wrote:

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.

Not sure what you mean exactly. "Exponential relationships" would imply performances getting faster at an increasing rate (unless you mean time is the independent variable). Time series doesn't mean fitting a polynomial curve to data...

S. Canaday wrote:

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

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.

rekrunner wrote:

we don't know if drugs even exist that could take us from 2:02 to 2:00.

Of course amphetamines exist.

As do many other drugs. Mere existence is not interesting.Can amphetamines take a proven 2:02:00 runner (or slower) to 2:00:00? What is the proposed mechanism?If the main barrier is optimal energy management (sugar versus fat), how does amphetamines improve, or bypass, this barrier?

Bad Wigins wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

we don't know if drugs even exist that could take us from 2:02 to 2:00.

Of course amphetamines exist.

Bad Wigins wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

we don't know if drugs even exist that could take us from 2:02 to 2:00.

Of course amphetamines exist.

And were most likely used by marathon runners since when? 1930s?

Amphetamines aren't going to help you run a faster marathon. Might help you hit the wall earlier though.

You're right I shouldn't have quoted the "time series" mention below my comment in the context of the saying "exponential" as I did not imply for it to be like that.

It's going to get exponentially harder to crack 2hrs in the marathon.

Exponetially harder? Starting when? Now? after the current record is broken?

There is no sign yet of this trail off in times.

Look at Kimetto in the last 2 miles he's running with his teeth clenched and not sucking air like you would expect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh2dwJ80Edo

So he is super economical. He look like he is running at somewhat less than the expected 80% VO2max, which is probably because in Kenya, at 6000-7500ft, VO2max falls by 12-15% (Daniels) and so they get used to running fast in that rarefied air. Some of the data supplied by Renato Canova suggests that they are running on undulating dirt trails at something like 5.20-5.10 minutes per mile for 20-25 miles at those altitudes. And it's not just the running, look at the drills and excercises they do to improve mobility/economy/force production.

Look at this video of Ethiopians training, this level of dedication will make you want to give up running, or realize that you are just playing at it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr7DfCbLMwo

So if it was possible to run at the 'normal' O2 uptake levels of lowlanders combined with that economy, then sub 2 is more than do-able.

You're extrapolating and guessing with a few numbers there...You guess "less than 80% of his Vo2max" based on just looking at a video clip?No doubt these guys are super strong, are very economical and can run at high %'s of Vo2max. I'm just saying the seconds coming off the WR are happening slower and slower and 2hrs is very unlikely to be broken anytime soon IMO

electron1661 wrote:

http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/whats-the-optimal-temperature-for-marathons

check it out bro

'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.'

I hope you are just trolling. That is in no way "proof" of an optimal temperature. It is statistics.

Bump.

Just finished the book "2 Hours" which I thought was really good and would highly recommend. The author addresses PED usage in East Africa, diet, training groups/training, the living environment and lifestyle of top guys, shoe design, and setting up a ideal "time trial" race etc. The author also cites this temperature study (quoted below) in the book.Of course, the difference between 43F and 38F isn't going to make that much of a difference (compared to things like wind!)....but subjectively that does sound like a nice temperature to race a PR in! (well, warmer for me because I'm pretty slow and heavy compared to these guys).

Odi wrote:

electron1661 wrote:http://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/whats-the-optimal-temperature-for-marathons

check it out bro

'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.'

I hope you are just trolling. That is in no way "proof" of an optimal temperature. It is statistics.

drugs drugs blah blah blah wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Of course amphetamines exist.

And were most likely used by marathon runners since when? 1930s?

Amphetamines aren't going to help you run a faster marathon. Might help you hit the wall earlier though.

A 2:02 marathoner with drinks at every station doesn't need to worry about hitting any walls. If they "bonk" they just slow down - they're not out of glycogen or they'd fall over. That's a nervous system reaction, exactly the kind of thing amphetamines can delay.

Indeed, their use started in the 1930's, when the world record was somewhere in the 2:20's or 2:30's. Within 30 years, European-descended people were running sub 2:10. Then amphetamines were banned. Nearly 50 years after that, European descendents are still happy just to break 2:10, even with all the steroids and blood doping.

If amphetamine use were legalized, someone would break the 2 hour barrier within a year.

Slow Bro wrote:

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.

7 seconds per mile isn't exactly non-trivial.

Never is far too strong of a word, but let's be honest do you really expect to see 12:15 or 3:19 in the next 10 years?

Not true. Last week I did a tempo run for 24 miles. If I had continued for 2.1 miles, I would have run 2:01

Not sure how this guy was the only one who mentioned the importance of drafting but nice.

Did anyone mention advances in footwear?