Sub 2 Hour Marathon

Bolt will do it right after he breaks the 400, 600,800,1000,1500,1600,3000,3200,5000,10,000,15,000 world records

8 years 4 months

Ok, now that the jokesters have that out of their systems, can we get a serious estimate? Perhaps a scientific one based on the world record progression?

Sammy Wanjiru claimed he could do it "in five years". However, I don't think it's going to happen as soon as that. Someone might run 2:03:xx within the next year, and if a few guys can get a fast course and good pacing we might see low 2:03, but 1:59:5x is still a long way off. The speed that would be required for that performance, along with a huge endurance base, mean that if Sammy is to do it, I'd day he'd need to work on his 10k and 5k speed first.

And given his disappointing run at london, I think Sammy will have 2:04 as a goal first, then a defence of his olympic title.

It depends on if they keep coming up with new drugsLooking at the numbersLast 40 years ~4:30 fasterLast 20 Years ~3:00 fasterLast 10 Years ~2:00 fasterLast 5 Years ~1:00 faster.So somewhere between 20-40 (or bit longer if you think the rate of improvement should be slowing) years would be a reasonable guess. You could argue the current record is weak compared to the 5k/10k and that if Tergat/Geb had ran them in their prime the WR might be down around 2:02 so we might see one in the next 10 years but given the slow down in 5k/10k performance I doubt it. And before you say 1:59 is a crazy time,in 1970 2:04 (or 26:20,12:37) would have invoked the same response. 40 years is a long time

sthm wrote:

Ok, now that the jokesters have that out of their systems, can we get a serious estimate? Perhaps a scientific one based on the world record progression?

Agree on Wanjiru. Stepping back a bit, what kind of athlete will 1:59 take? An aerobic freak who can run 10000 m in 25:XX? Perhaps a 26:XX guy whose legs can really take a beating?

26:00 to 26:40 is fast enough (find a guy with Radcliffs 10k:marathon ratio or Beadsley if you don't want skip gender) but it is unclear if you can be that fast and still have the required endurance.

Hamburglar wrote:

Agree on Wanjiru. Stepping back a bit, what kind of athlete will 1:59 take? An aerobic freak who can run 10000 m in 25:XX? Perhaps a 26:XX guy whose legs can really take a beating?

What kind of athlete will 1.59 take?

Well if Haile was in about 26.30 shape for 10000m then about 25.50 maybe?

If that guy has decent speed, he would need to be doing 20 x 200 in under 26 and longer sessions of similar effort, which is well within the bounds of what we know is possible.

Are we talking a legitimate sub-2, or a PED-fueled sub-2?

If anyone is going to do it soon it will be Bekele, but I doubt it. According to the daniel's running formula it would take a VDOT of 86, which would be a 12:30 5k, 26:04 10k and 57:18 half. His WRs of 12:37 and 26:17 are close, but those are on a track and you have to add some time for a road course.

twenty1 wrote:

If anyone is going to do it soon it will be Bekele, but I doubt it. According to the daniel's running formula it would take a VDOT of 86, which would be a 12:30 5k, 26:04 10k and 57:18 half. His WRs of 12:37 and 26:17 are close, but those are on a track and you have to add some time for a road course.

Why? For that purpose he could run on track, too.

Haile is more like a 26:50 runner.

wellnow wrote:

What kind of athlete will 1.59 take?

Well if Haile was in about 26.30 shape for 10000m then about 25.50 maybe?

If that guy has decent speed, he would need to be doing 20 x 200 in under 26 and longer sessions of similar effort, which is well within the bounds of what we know is possible.

Nutella1 wrote:

Why? For that purpose he could run on track, too.

0/10

since the best runners today are PED fueled, the question doesn't make that much sense.

Is there reason to doubt the human body is not -- cleanly -- capable of today's WRs?

Couldn't the argument be made that the best today are clean and that their improved performances, relative to past decades, are largely due to psychological gains? That is, seeing others break barriers (sub-4 mile, sub 13-5000, etc.) leads to others doing the same? Whether a lot of the 90s times are PED enhanced -- and thus whether a lot of barriers were broken while the athletes were enhanced -- is irrelevant to the question of whether the athletes are using PEDs today. For all we know, they *could* be clean. Although El G hasn't been matched in MD, KB set WRs in the 2000s after the oft-cited 90s gains.

I will do it

You mean the same KB that has slowed down despite supposedly hitting his prime years of 24-28? Obviously there other things than drug testing (fast races, injuries,...) but he is from that same era. And if it was simply drugs how come the american and european runners didn't bust out huge prs?

Really think so? wrote:

Is there reason to doubt the human body is not -- cleanly -- capable of today's WRs?

Couldn't the argument be made that the best today are clean and that their improved performances, relative to past decades, are largely due to psychological gains? That is, seeing others break barriers (sub-4 mile, sub 13-5000, etc.) leads to others doing the same? Whether a lot of the 90s times are PED enhanced -- and thus whether a lot of barriers were broken while the athletes were enhanced -- is irrelevant to the question of whether the athletes are using PEDs today. For all we know, they *could* be clean. Although El G hasn't been matched in MD, KB set WRs in the 2000s after the oft-cited 90s gains.

One of the key difficulties is the limitations on the energy systems. You have to be able to run at a very fast clip without using 100% 'fast fuel'. The faster you go, the more fast fuel you use and the relationship is non-linear. You cannot run it like you run a 10,000m race

Thus, you need someone who is VERY efficient. Geb seems to me to be about as efficient as they come, so on the efficiency front, there are probably not too many more gains to be made.

Gains can be made tweaking the storing of energy, but not too much.

A substantial portion of the advances made in record times comes from using courses that are faster. I would have put this as an even more important factor before this year's Boston race, where there was a pretty good improvement on that course record.

Lowering the energy cost of running is also important, including having a Geb-style bodyguard to reduce the wind resistance. The problem is that you need guys able to run 60min/half and do it for another 10,000m

Anyone that has ever gone out at close to 60 minutes has died badly, and that includes the best there is. Geb learned to ease through the race evenly and up the tempo at the end to the extent that is feasible. So we know it is pretty difficult.

You can't tell how fast someone is by looking at them. Geb could just have a huge aerobic engine and be less efficient. Or vice versa.Energy storage might be solvable. I could imagine a better energy drink of some type to give you the extra couple hundred calories.And course wise if some one made 26 miles of nice synthetic surface I am guessing there would be some nice time gains.You can't go out in 60 if your a 59 min run. If your a 58 min guy, you might be able to.