Rojo, everyone here is completely missing the point because the summary is so badly written.
This is the important part:
"Using the value for O2 cost measured in this study, a sub 2 hour marathon would require a 59kg runner to sustain approximately 4.0 liters per minute or 67ml/kg/min"
In other words a completely normal metabolism and physiology. No special genetics or pharmaceuticals required.
Now can you see how important this is? It's freaking huge.
Waddya gonna do about it?
Breaking 2 team releases scientific data on how Kipchoge was chosen and what are the best predictors of marathon success
Training Advice/Discussion
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
Rojo, everyone here is completely missing the point because the summary is so badly written.
This is the important part:
"Using the value for O2 cost measured in this study, a sub 2 hour marathon would require a 59kg runner to sustain approximately 4.0 liters per minute or 67ml/kg/min"
In other words a completely normal metabolism and physiology. No special genetics or pharmaceuticals required.
Now can you see how important this is? It's freaking huge.
Waddya gonna do about it?
You dont understand physiology. This does not mean that a 59kg runner with Vo2max of 67 can run a marathon in under 2 hours. It means that it is the O2 cost required to run marathon pace for 2 hours. The Vo2max of someone who could maintain that running at that O2 cost for 2 hours would be much higher.
For an elite athlete, Vo2max pace is around 3k pace, Marathon pace is a sub max effort so it would be a percentage of Vo2max. That figure for marathon pace is 80% of Vo2max so would require the athlete to have a real max of 84 in that specific scenario to be able to maintain running at an O2 cost of 4 litres per minute for 2 hours. And this is only if the athlete also has freakish running economy and lactate threshold as none of them work independently.
Vo2 max is not the be all and end all of performance but it still needs to be high to be elite. A low Vo2max elite athlete does not mean that person is not an outlier either, an elite with a low Vo2 max will have to have otherworldly running economy to be able to compete. So stop spamming the thread with this nonsense.
None of this is new btw Rojo, this is all pretty old hat science. -
5thn wrote:
Canefis wrote:
wasn't this already known? wrote:
Pretty sure this was already known. IIRC, the tested a number of athletes and Tadese was chosen because he had the highest economy, Lelisa was chosen because he had the highest VO2max, and Kipchoge was chosen because because he had the highest lactate threshold (critical speed in this article).
Aha, so why do fastest half marathoners cannot run even closer to 02:03-06?
Why do you write such crap?
Athlete (fastest on the Half Marathon list who have run a marathon) - Half Marathon time (up to 59:01) - Marathon time
Geoffrey Kamworor - 58:01 - 2:06:12 (a 2:06:26 in NYC, easily sub 2:06 on a different course)
Zersenay Tadesse - 58:23 - 2:08:46
Sammy Wanjiru - 58:33 - 2:05:10
Bedan Karoki - 58:42 - 2:05:53
Eric Kiptanui - 58:42 - 2:06:17
Mathew Kisorio - 58:46 - 2:04:53
Sammy Kitwara - 58:48 - 2:04:28
Patrick Makau - 58:52 - 2:03:38
Stephen Kibet - 58:54 - 2:08:05
Haile Gebrselassie - 58:55 - 2:03:59
Stanley Biwott - 58:56 - 2:03:51
Geoffrey Mutai - 58:58 - 2:04:15
Wilson Kipsang - 58:59 - 2:03:13
Kenneth Kipkemoi - 59:01 - 2:05:44
O-eee, you see, non of them even closer to 02:00! 3 minutes it is infinity...
This confirms that a fast half marathon has nothing to do with a fast marathon. But there are cases in reverse when there is not a fast half marathon, but a marathon is fast, even here on the forum there was an article that someone ran a super slow half marathon, and shot at the marathon!
All those scientist are [email protected] Nobody know still nothing (not full picture how to train). If would, than we got a single methodology in cyclical sports... -
Canefis wrote:
5thn wrote:
Canefis wrote:
wasn't this already known? wrote:
Pretty sure this was already known. IIRC, the tested a number of athletes and Tadese was chosen because he had the highest economy, Lelisa was chosen because he had the highest VO2max, and Kipchoge was chosen because because he had the highest lactate threshold (critical speed in this article).
Aha, so why do fastest half marathoners cannot run even closer to 02:03-06?
Why do you write such crap?
Athlete (fastest on the Half Marathon list who have run a marathon) - Half Marathon time (up to 59:01) - Marathon time
Geoffrey Kamworor - 58:01 - 2:06:12 (a 2:06:26 in NYC, easily sub 2:06 on a different course)
Zersenay Tadesse - 58:23 - 2:08:46
Sammy Wanjiru - 58:33 - 2:05:10
Bedan Karoki - 58:42 - 2:05:53
Eric Kiptanui - 58:42 - 2:06:17
Mathew Kisorio - 58:46 - 2:04:53
Sammy Kitwara - 58:48 - 2:04:28
Patrick Makau - 58:52 - 2:03:38
Stephen Kibet - 58:54 - 2:08:05
Haile Gebrselassie - 58:55 - 2:03:59
Stanley Biwott - 58:56 - 2:03:51
Geoffrey Mutai - 58:58 - 2:04:15
Wilson Kipsang - 58:59 - 2:03:13
Kenneth Kipkemoi - 59:01 - 2:05:44
O-eee, you see, non of them even closer to 02:00! 3 minutes it is infinity...
This confirms that a fast half marathon has nothing to do with a fast marathon. But there are cases in reverse when there is not a fast half marathon, but a marathon is fast, even here on the forum there was an article that someone ran a super slow half marathon, and shot at the marathon!
All those scientist are [email protected] Nobody know still nothing (not full picture how to train). If would, than we got a single methodology in cyclical sports...
O-eee, you see, you wrote 02:03-06, not 02:00.
So your post is "[email protected]". -
malmo wrote:
Rojo, stop promoting this 1:59 hoax. Kipchoge was picked because he is the world record holder and he is a Nike athlete. Since David Blaine can't run worth crap they were left with Kipchoge for the carnival show.
Step right up and don't be shy. Because you will not believe your eyes.
Didn't you realize that I was making fun of them a little bit? I don't need testing to tell me to put Kipchoge in the race. I also don't need testing to realize that a one hour run is a great way to predict a marathon. -
5thn wrote:
Geoffrey Kamworor - 58:01 - 2:06:12
Zersenay Tadesse - 58:23 - 2:08:46
Sammy Wanjiru - 58:33 - 2:05:10
Bedan Karoki - 58:42 - 2:05:53
Eric Kiptanui - 58:42 - 2:06:17
Mathew Kisorio - 58:46 - 2:04:53
Sammy Kitwara - 58:48 - 2:04:28
Patrick Makau - 58:52 - 2:03:38
Stephen Kibet - 58:54 - 2:08:05
Haile Gebrselassie - 58:55 - 2:03:59
Stanley Biwott - 58:56 - 2:03:51
Geoffrey Mutai - 58:58 - 2:04:15
Wilson Kipsang - 58:59 - 2:03:13
Kenneth Kipkemoi - 59:01 - 2:05:44
And let's adjust for shoes. Many of those marathon times are in non super shoes.
If we take 90 seconds to 2 minutes for the supershoes, you've got a ton of 201-203 people. -
ummm wrote:
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
Rojo, everyone here is completely missing the point because the summary is so badly written.
This is the important part:
"Using the value for O2 cost measured in this study, a sub 2 hour marathon would require a 59kg runner to sustain approximately 4.0 liters per minute or 67ml/kg/min"
In other words a completely normal metabolism and physiology. No special genetics or pharmaceuticals required.
Now can you see how important this is? It's freaking huge.
Waddya gonna do about it?
You dont understand physiology. This does not mean that a 59kg runner with Vo2max of 67 can run a marathon in under 2 hours. It means that it is the O2 cost required to run marathon pace for 2 hours. The Vo2max of someone who could maintain that running at that O2 cost for 2 hours would be much higher.
For an elite athlete, Vo2max pace is around 3k pace, Marathon pace is a sub max effort so it would be a percentage of Vo2max. That figure for marathon pace is 80% of Vo2max so would require the athlete to have a real max of 84 in that specific scenario to be able to maintain running at an O2 cost of 4 litres per minute for 2 hours. And this is only if the athlete also has freakish running economy and lactate threshold as none of them work independently.
Vo2 max is not the be all and end all of performance but it still needs to be high to be elite. A low Vo2max elite athlete does not mean that person is not an outlier either, an elite with a low Vo2 max will have to have otherworldly running economy to be able to compete. So stop spamming the thread with this nonsense.
None of this is new btw Rojo, this is all pretty old hat science.
You're missing the point. The O2 requirement for the best trained marathon guys for 2 hours is only about 10% lower than VO2max not 20%. You are way off there.
So the number is lower than most people believe. -
malmo wrote:
Rojo, stop promoting this 1:59 hoax. Kipchoge was picked because he is the world record holder and he is a Nike athlete. Since David Blaine can't run worth crap they were left with Kipchoge for the carnival show.
Step right up and don't be shy. Because you will not believe your eyes.
I don't understand this take. Not many people care about the elite side of our sport. This hoax brought some eyes to the sport and will maybe have a lasting impact -- like more sponsors and/or prize money to help elite athletes grinding away & chasing their dreams.
This is sort of old news. It broke ~ a week ago & if you read or listen to some of the science minds in our sport, yes Kipchoge was chosen because he is a Nike athlete, but they also did a ton of really cool testing to cement all three for that race. Reading through some of this stuff was pretty interesting imo. -
rojo rojo rojo please please please pay attention here, 20 years of dreadful pseudoscience crap posted here endlessly.
67 ml/kg/min @90% VO2max. So the true average VO2max requirement is around 74.
No superhuman genetics, no Pharmaceutical products required.
Professor Jones alluded to this back in 2006. That the concept of 'Aerobic development' is fundamentally flawed. Isn't about time people learned some basic physiology in the running world?
Whaddya gonna do about it? -
Canefis wrote:
O-eee, you see, non of them even closer to 02:00! 3 minutes it is infinity...
This confirms that a fast half marathon has nothing to do with a fast marathon. But there are cases in reverse when there is not a fast half marathon, but a marathon is fast, even here on the forum there was an article that someone ran a super slow half marathon, and shot at the marathon!
All those scientist are [email protected] Nobody know still nothing (not full picture how to train). If would, than we got a single methodology in cyclical sports...
Name a single person with a slow HM (call it like 61 mins) who has run a fast marathon (call it sub 2:05). Going to be a short list. You might be better at the marathon (i.e. slow down 4 mins instead of the more normal 6-8) than the HM but you still need to be fast over the HM to run a fast marathon. -
Interesting. Can you please share the information from 2006.
-
jiggymeister wrote:
Interesting. Can you please share the information from 2006.
I will try to find it. You might find it on Steve Magness's website. He wrote about it in 2009. -
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
rojo rojo rojo please please please pay attention here, 20 years of dreadful pseudoscience crap posted here endlessly.
67 ml/kg/min @90% VO2max. So the true average VO2max requirement is around 74.
No superhuman genetics, no Pharmaceutical products required.
Professor Jones alluded to this back in 2006. That the concept of 'Aerobic development' is fundamentally flawed. Isn't about time people learned some basic physiology in the running world?
Whaddya gonna do about it?
Just go ahead and share your theory -
need more information wrote:
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
rojo rojo rojo please please please pay attention here, 20 years of dreadful pseudoscience crap posted here endlessly.
67 ml/kg/min @90% VO2max. So the true average VO2max requirement is around 74.
No superhuman genetics, no Pharmaceutical products required.
Professor Jones alluded to this back in 2006. That the concept of 'Aerobic development' is fundamentally flawed. Isn't about time people learned some basic physiology in the running world?
Whaddya gonna do about it?
Just go ahead and share your theory
Agreed.
Or at least stop spewing nonsense and type up some complete sentences/thoughts. -
rojo wrote:
5thn wrote:
Geoffrey Kamworor - 58:01 - 2:06:12
Zersenay Tadesse - 58:23 - 2:08:46
Sammy Wanjiru - 58:33 - 2:05:10
Bedan Karoki - 58:42 - 2:05:53
Eric Kiptanui - 58:42 - 2:06:17
Mathew Kisorio - 58:46 - 2:04:53
Sammy Kitwara - 58:48 - 2:04:28
Patrick Makau - 58:52 - 2:03:38
Stephen Kibet - 58:54 - 2:08:05
Haile Gebrselassie - 58:55 - 2:03:59
Stanley Biwott - 58:56 - 2:03:51
Geoffrey Mutai - 58:58 - 2:04:15
Wilson Kipsang - 58:59 - 2:03:13
Kenneth Kipkemoi - 59:01 - 2:05:44
And let's adjust for shoes. Many of those marathon times are in non super shoes.
If we take 90 seconds to 2 minutes for the supershoes, you've got a ton of 201-203 people.
Where? On a paper? -
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
ummm wrote:
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
Rojo, everyone here is completely missing the point because the summary is so badly written.
This is the important part:
"Using the value for O2 cost measured in this study, a sub 2 hour marathon would require a 59kg runner to sustain approximately 4.0 liters per minute or 67ml/kg/min"
In other words a completely normal metabolism and physiology. No special genetics or pharmaceuticals required.
Now can you see how important this is? It's freaking huge.
Waddya gonna do about it?
You dont understand physiology. This does not mean that a 59kg runner with Vo2max of 67 can run a marathon in under 2 hours. It means that it is the O2 cost required to run marathon pace for 2 hours. The Vo2max of someone who could maintain that running at that O2 cost for 2 hours would be much higher.
For an elite athlete, Vo2max pace is around 3k pace, Marathon pace is a sub max effort so it would be a percentage of Vo2max. That figure for marathon pace is 80% of Vo2max so would require the athlete to have a real max of 84 in that specific scenario to be able to maintain running at an O2 cost of 4 litres per minute for 2 hours. And this is only if the athlete also has freakish running economy and lactate threshold as none of them work independently.
Vo2 max is not the be all and end all of performance but it still needs to be high to be elite. A low Vo2max elite athlete does not mean that person is not an outlier either, an elite with a low Vo2 max will have to have otherworldly running economy to be able to compete. So stop spamming the thread with this nonsense.
None of this is new btw Rojo, this is all pretty old hat science.
You're missing the point. The O2 requirement for the best trained marathon guys for 2 hours is only about 10% lower than VO2max not 20%. You are way off there.
So the number is lower than most people believe.
No, I'm not way off, for one, I actually work in this field, you just dont understand, no one is running for 2 hours at 90% of Vo2max(that is circa 10km pace for elite athletes), some who could sustain this intensity for two hours would be an otherworldly genetic freak. I think you may be confusing HRMax with Vo2max where sustaining 90% of HRMax is possible but still unlikely for two hours. You are looking at 80-85% of Vo2Max as the true maximum capabilities of an elite runner.
You are also leaving out the huge variability here, running economy because you do not understand the interactions.
And btw, heres the final nail in your coffin, this is actually where the actual 67ml/kg/min number comes from.
[IMG]https://i2.wp.com/www.sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Running-economy-and-max-for-2-hour-marathon.png[/IMG]
"The graph above attempts to establish this. It estimates the VO2max of the runner for two conditions: One is that the athlete is running at 80% of maximum intensity (shown in red) or 85% of maximum intensity (shown in green).
Running-economy-and-max-for-2-hour-marathon
So, for a given running economy, you can now see what maximal capacity might be required, or vice-versa, given a VO2max, you can estimate the running economy required for two different conditions.
Two examples: High economy vs lower economy
The white lines show 2 examples. Example A is based on the measured economy of African athletes (including some Olympic medalists) who have a measured economy of around 190 ml/kg/min. At 2-hour marathon pace, they use 67 ml/kg/min. That athlete, running at 80% of maximum, must have a VO2 max of 84 ml/kg/min. If they were able to sustain 85% (which I don’t think is possible), they would have an estimated VO2max of 79 ml/kg/min.
Example B shows the European athletes plotted in the very first graph of this post. Here, a running economy of 210 ml/kg/km requires a much higher maximal capacity; in this case, either 92 ml/kg/min (at 80%) or 87 ml/kg/min (at 85%). The point is clearly that in order to run a sub-2 hour marathon, the athlete requires BOTH an exceptionally good economy, and a high maximal capacity. I guess the third option is that they could get away with worse economy if they were able to sustain 90% of maximum for that length of time, but I don’t see this as very likely (but not impossible).
The Zersenay Tadese example: Something missing in the picture
So where does this leave us on the question of the sub-2 hour marathon? On paper, or in theory, a two-hour marathon is possible because we have seen running economies of 180 to 190ml/kg/km, and we also see runners with VO2max values of 80 ml/kg/min. According to the graph, a runner with these “characteristics” can run the 2-hour marathon. However, I’ve yet to see the two together, with the exception of Zersenay Tadese, with his measured economy of 150 ml/kg/min and VO2max of 83 ml/kg/min. However, as I said earlier, there’s something not quite right there…
Here’s the problem: With that kind of economy, Tadese would be able to run at a speed of 2:50/km while using only 53 ml/kg/min. Think about that for a moment: he is running at only 64% of his maximal capacity, at 2-hour marathon pace. He would be jogging to the world record if that was true.
Even his 10km pace of ± 2:40/km represents an underperformance, because at that pace, he would only be using 56 ml/kg/min, or 68% of his maximum. We know that elite athletes run at at least 90% of maximum for 10km, which means Tadese should be sustaining a VO2 of 75 ml/kg/min, which, given his economy, predicts a 10 km time of just outside 20 minutes!
Clearly, something is wrong with that picture. I actually emailed Carl Foster about this a while back, to ask about it, and he graciously replied, but then my computer got stolen, along with that email. So Carl, if you are reading this, feel free to chime in! I seem to recall that it had something to do with the timing of measurements – Tadese’s VO2max and running economy were not measured at the same time, and therefore using them together created a problem. And this is crucial – when we make this kind of estimation, we’re assuming that VO2max and economy are measured together. And if they are, then the more economical a runner, the lower their VO2max is likely to be"
Now, can you please realise that you are talking nonsense. -
Great post above. That was also something that I did not understood while looking at Zersenay’s study.
One point in regards to the breaking 2 data is that we do not know at what point of fitness/cycle athletes were tested. If they were tested in between seasons or in the middle of training, then the results do not represent their physiological capabilities at the peak point, ie at the competition. -
Canefis wrote:
rojo wrote:
5thn wrote:
Geoffrey Kamworor - 58:01 - 2:06:12
Zersenay Tadesse - 58:23 - 2:08:46
Sammy Wanjiru - 58:33 - 2:05:10
Bedan Karoki - 58:42 - 2:05:53
Eric Kiptanui - 58:42 - 2:06:17
Mathew Kisorio - 58:46 - 2:04:53
Sammy Kitwara - 58:48 - 2:04:28
Patrick Makau - 58:52 - 2:03:38
Stephen Kibet - 58:54 - 2:08:05
Haile Gebrselassie - 58:55 - 2:03:59
Stanley Biwott - 58:56 - 2:03:51
Geoffrey Mutai - 58:58 - 2:04:15
Wilson Kipsang - 58:59 - 2:03:13
Kenneth Kipkemoi - 59:01 - 2:05:44
And let's adjust for shoes. Many of those marathon times are in non super shoes.
If we take 90 seconds to 2 minutes for the supershoes, you've got a ton of 201-203 people.
Where? On a paper?
Are you going to ignore the two posts addressing you? -
ummm wrote:
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
ummm wrote:
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
Rojo, everyone here is completely missing the point because the summary is so badly written.
This is the important part:
"Using the value for O2 cost measured in this study, a sub 2 hour marathon would require a 59kg runner to sustain approximately 4.0 liters per minute or 67ml/kg/min"
In other words a completely normal metabolism and physiology. No special genetics or pharmaceuticals required.
Now can you see how important this is? It's freaking huge.
Waddya gonna do about it?
You dont understand physiology. This does not mean that a 59kg runner with Vo2max of 67 can run a marathon in under 2 hours. It means that it is the O2 cost required to run marathon pace for 2 hours. The Vo2max of someone who could maintain that running at that O2 cost for 2 hours would be much higher.
For an elite athlete, Vo2max pace is around 3k pace, Marathon pace is a sub max effort so it would be a percentage of Vo2max. That figure for marathon pace is 80% of Vo2max so would require the athlete to have a real max of 84 in that specific scenario to be able to maintain running at an O2 cost of 4 litres per minute for 2 hours. And this is only if the athlete also has freakish running economy and lactate threshold as none of them work independently.
Vo2 max is not the be all and end all of performance but it still needs to be high to be elite. A low Vo2max elite athlete does not mean that person is not an outlier either, an elite with a low Vo2 max will have to have otherworldly running economy to be able to compete. So stop spamming the thread with this nonsense.
None of this is new btw Rojo, this is all pretty old hat science.
You're missing the point. The O2 requirement for the best trained marathon guys for 2 hours is only about 10% lower than VO2max not 20%. You are way off there.
So the number is lower than most people believe.
No, I'm not way off, for one, I actually work in this field, you just dont understand, no one is running for 2 hours at 90% of Vo2max(that is circa 10km pace for elite athletes), some who could sustain this intensity for two hours would be an otherworldly genetic freak. I think you may be confusing HRMax with Vo2max where sustaining 90% of HRMax is possible but still unlikely for two hours. You are looking at 80-85% of Vo2Max as the true maximum capabilities of an elite runner.
You are also leaving out the huge variability here, running economy because you do not understand the interactions.
And btw, heres the final nail in your coffin, this is actually where the actual 67ml/kg/min number comes from.
[IMG]https://i2.wp.com/www.sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Running-economy-and-max-for-2-hour-marathon.png[/IMG]
"The graph above attempts to establish this. It estimates the VO2max of the runner for two conditions: One is that the athlete is running at 80% of maximum intensity (shown in red) or 85% of maximum intensity (shown in green).
Running-economy-and-max-for-2-hour-marathon
So, for a given running economy, you can now see what maximal capacity might be required, or vice-versa, given a VO2max, you can estimate the running economy required for two different conditions.
Two examples: High economy vs lower economy
The white lines show 2 examples. Example A is based on the measured economy of African athletes (including some Olympic medalists) who have a measured economy of around 190 ml/kg/min. At 2-hour marathon pace, they use 67 ml/kg/min. That athlete, running at 80% of maximum, must have a VO2 max of 84 ml/kg/min. If they were able to sustain 85% (which I don’t think is possible), they would have an estimated VO2max of 79 ml/kg/min.
Example B shows the European athletes plotted in the very first graph of this post. Here, a running economy of 210 ml/kg/km requires a much higher maximal capacity; in this case, either 92 ml/kg/min (at 80%) or 87 ml/kg/min (at 85%). The point is clearly that in order to run a sub-2 hour marathon, the athlete requires BOTH an exceptionally good economy, and a high maximal capacity. I guess the third option is that they could get away with worse economy if they were able to sustain 90% of maximum for that length of time, but I don’t see this as very likely (but not impossible).
The Zersenay Tadese example: Something missing in the picture
So where does this leave us on the question of the sub-2 hour marathon? On paper, or in theory, a two-hour marathon is possible because we have seen running economies of 180 to 190ml/kg/km, and we also see runners with VO2max values of 80 ml/kg/min. According to the graph, a runner with these “characteristics” can run the 2-hour marathon. However, I’ve yet to see the two together, with the exception of Zersenay Tadese, with his measured economy of 150 ml/kg/min and VO2max of 83 ml/kg/min. However, as I said earlier, there’s something not quite right there…
Here’s the problem: With that kind of economy, Tadese would be able to run at a speed of 2:50/km while using only 53 ml/kg/min. Think about that for a moment: he is running at only 64% of his maximal capacity, at 2-hour marathon pace. He would be jogging to the world record if that was true.
Even his 10km pace of ± 2:40/km represents an underperformance, because at that pace, he would only be using 56 ml/kg/min, or 68% of his maximum. We know that elite athletes run at at least 90% of maximum for 10km, which means Tadese should be sustaining a VO2 of 75 ml/kg/min, which, given his economy, predicts a 10 km time of just outside 20 minutes!
Clearly, something is wrong with that picture. I actually emailed Carl Foster about this a while back, to ask about it, and he graciously replied, but then my computer got stolen, along with that email. So Carl, if you are reading this, feel free to chime in! I seem to recall that it had something to do with the timing of measurements – Tadese’s VO2max and running economy were not measured at the same time, and therefore using them together created a problem. And this is crucial – when we make this kind of estimation, we’re assuming that VO2max and economy are measured together. And if they are, then the more economical a runner, the lower their VO2max is likely to be"
Now, can you please realise that you are talking nonsense.
Great post! The main problem is here:
".....And if they are, then the more economical a runner, the lower their VO2max is likely to be...."
All systems in space strive to occupy the minimum volume and strive for the minimum energy consumption. Therefore, it can't be both super low running efficiency and mega high vo2max. Because the human body strives to save energy and immediately discards unnecessary things. When we do not train, first the oxygen consumers (muscles) are reset, and then the heart decreases in volume, since the muscles have become smaller, and there is no need for a lot of oxygen. -
ummm wrote:
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
ummm wrote:
Geeky McNerdmore wrote:
Rojo, everyone here is completely missing the point because the summary is so badly written.
This is the important part:
"Using the value for O2 cost measured in this study, a sub 2 hour marathon would require a 59kg runner to sustain approximately 4.0 liters per minute or 67ml/kg/min"
In other words a completely normal metabolism and physiology. No special genetics or pharmaceuticals required.
Now can you see how important this is? It's freaking huge.
Waddya gonna do about it?
You dont understand physiology. This does not mean that a 59kg runner with Vo2max of 67 can run a marathon in under 2 hours. It means that it is the O2 cost required to run marathon pace for 2 hours. The Vo2max of someone who could maintain that running at that O2 cost for 2 hours would be much higher.
For an elite athlete, Vo2max pace is around 3k pace, Marathon pace is a sub max effort so it would be a percentage of Vo2max. That figure for marathon pace is 80% of Vo2max so would require the athlete to have a real max of 84 in that specific scenario to be able to maintain running at an O2 cost of 4 litres per minute for 2 hours. And this is only if the athlete also has freakish running economy and lactate threshold as none of them work independently.
Vo2 max is not the be all and end all of performance but it still needs to be high to be elite. A low Vo2max elite athlete does not mean that person is not an outlier either, an elite with a low Vo2 max will have to have otherworldly running economy to be able to compete. So stop spamming the thread with this nonsense.
None of this is new btw Rojo, this is all pretty old hat science.
You're missing the point. The O2 requirement for the best trained marathon guys for 2 hours is only about 10% lower than VO2max not 20%. You are way off there.
So the number is lower than most people believe.
No, I'm not way off, for one, I actually work in this field, you just dont understand, no one is running for 2 hours at 90% of Vo2max(that is circa 10km pace for elite athletes), some who could sustain this intensity for two hours would be an otherworldly genetic freak. I think you may be confusing HRMax with Vo2max where sustaining 90% of HRMax is possible but still unlikely for two hours. You are looking at 80-85% of Vo2Max as the true maximum capabilities of an elite runner.
You are also leaving out the huge variability here, running economy because you do not understand the interactions.
And btw, heres the final nail in your coffin, this is actually where the actual 67ml/kg/min number comes from.
[IMG]https://i2.wp.com/www.sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Running-economy-and-max-for-2-hour-marathon.png[/IMG]
"The graph above attempts to establish this. It estimates the VO2max of the runner for two conditions: One is that the athlete is running at 80% of maximum intensity (shown in red) or 85% of maximum intensity (shown in green).
Running-economy-and-max-for-2-hour-marathon
So, for a given running economy, you can now see what maximal capacity might be required, or vice-versa, given a VO2max, you can estimate the running economy required for two different conditions.
Two examples: High economy vs lower economy
The white lines show 2 examples. Example A is based on the measured economy of African athletes (including some Olympic medalists) who have a measured economy of around 190 ml/kg/min. At 2-hour marathon pace, they use 67 ml/kg/min. That athlete, running at 80% of maximum, must have a VO2 max of 84 ml/kg/min. If they were able to sustain 85% (which I don’t think is possible), they would have an estimated VO2max of 79 ml/kg/min.
Example B shows the European athletes plotted in the very first graph of this post. Here, a running economy of 210 ml/kg/km requires a much higher maximal capacity; in this case, either 92 ml/kg/min (at 80%) or 87 ml/kg/min (at 85%). The point is clearly that in order to run a sub-2 hour marathon, the athlete requires BOTH an exceptionally good economy, and a high maximal capacity. I guess the third option is that they could get away with worse economy if they were able to sustain 90% of maximum for that length of time, but I don’t see this as very likely (but not impossible).
The Zersenay Tadese example: Something missing in the picture
So where does this leave us on the question of the sub-2 hour marathon? On paper, or in theory, a two-hour marathon is possible because we have seen running economies of 180 to 190ml/kg/km, and we also see runners with VO2max values of 80 ml/kg/min. According to the graph, a runner with these “characteristics” can run the 2-hour marathon. However, I’ve yet to see the two together, with the exception of Zersenay Tadese, with his measured economy of 150 ml/kg/min and VO2max of 83 ml/kg/min. However, as I said earlier, there’s something not quite right there…
Here’s the problem: With that kind of economy, Tadese would be able to run at a speed of 2:50/km while using only 53 ml/kg/min. Think about that for a moment: he is running at only 64% of his maximal capacity, at 2-hour marathon pace. He would be jogging to the world record if that was true.
Even his 10km pace of ± 2:40/km represents an underperformance, because at that pace, he would only be using 56 ml/kg/min, or 68% of his maximum. We know that elite athletes run at at least 90% of maximum for 10km, which means Tadese should be sustaining a VO2 of 75 ml/kg/min, which, given his economy, predicts a 10 km time of just outside 20 minutes!
Clearly, something is wrong with that picture. I actually emailed Carl Foster about this a while back, to ask about it, and he graciously replied, but then my computer got stolen, along with that email. So Carl, if you are reading this, feel free to chime in! I seem to recall that it had something to do with the timing of measurements – Tadese’s VO2max and running economy were not measured at the same time, and therefore using them together created a problem. And this is crucial – when we make this kind of estimation, we’re assuming that VO2max and economy are measured together. And if they are, then the more economical a runner, the lower their VO2max is likely to be"
Now, can you please realise that you are talking nonsense.
Excuse me, who the heck are you? Why are you quoting data about Tadesse that was known to be unreliable many years ago.
Did you even bother to read the abstract?
