Harvard Medical Student Has a Way For You To Never Hit the Wall Again

Interesting, I wonder how this was ever made public.

Results based on my much younger self:

Conservative Best Marathon Performance (Normal Glycogen Loading):

2:26:08

Aggressive Best Marathon Performance (Maximal Glycogen Loading):

1:40:14

Hmm, comparing to my actual performances .... I guess I should have eaten more carbs.

wejo wrote:

I'm not sure how it works but I put in some info for me and it said my conservative best marathon is 4:10. Maybe it knows how little running I've been doing.

How did your aggressive best info compare to what you have run in the past?

I don't know if this thing takes gender into consideration, but mine says I'm in better shape than wejo.

I know about carb loading, but 15+ bowls of rice 36-12 hrs before the race?

The assumption that we all have the same glycogen storage potential needs backing up. Also, the manner in which those extra carbs are ingested has a significant bearing on maximising glycogen stores. Lastly, there is more to hitting the wall than just running low on muscle glycogen, e.g. neural fatigue, low liver glycogen affecting mood, muscle damage.

This has meme written all over it, right next to the BMI formula.

I put in my weight, age, resting heart rate and it told me:

Conservative Best Marathon Performance (Normal Glycogen Loading):

2:55:35

Aggressive Best Marathon Performance (Maximal Glycogen Loading):

2:00:27

Considering my half marathon pace is slower than the pace needed for that conservative 2:55:35, I thought it was quite amusing.

Yeah, I'm 50 and slow.

From the text of the study:

The present study demonstrates that glycogen storage capacity is only a performance-limiting factor in runners of low and moderate aerobic capacities, or with relatively small leg muscles. By contrast, elite long-distance runners typically have large aerobic capacities (above ), lean upper bodies, and relatively large thigh muscles. For such runners, according to the analysis described here and summarized graphically in Figures 2 and 3, glycogen storage capacity should not limit record marathon times to those established on major courses across the world, which presently hover around 2:04.

Put it mine, it gave me 3:59 for conservative, 2:44 agressive...

I ran 2:27 about 5 months ago...

This is ridiculous. By his logic fatties would be better marathoners due to their huge leg muscles.

Also his formula states that if I eat an infinite number of carbs then I can run the marathon at an infinite intensity. Anyone who has taken algebra know that this relationship cannot be linear. If some med student from north dakota had come up with this no one would pay attention to him.

The key is relatively large leg muscles. Helene has vastly more leg muscle in proportion to his body weight than Oprah.

And the point of the section I quoted is that the relationship is NOT linear. The calculator is just a tool for mid-packers.

You combine his knowledge with Jason Rahms focused determination, and you have the first sub 2 hour marathon runner

Surprisingly, a reporter got the facts a little mixed up on a scientifically advanced research study. Even more surprising, many readers of this post based their opinions on the research on what the telegraph has to say instead of reading the actual research...... Before dismissing this doctor as a half-wit with little knowledge of running marathons, I would suggest reading at least the intro and conclusion to the actual research article. As a 219 marathoner, i support that much of his logic rings true, and you will see certain definitions that complement his argument.

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/mirror/article/pcbi.1000960.html

I agree with justfacts that we are disregarding this potentially useful perspective too quickly. Just reading the Introduction of the paper was helpful to me.

But I think the author would have done himself (and us!) a big service by writing a press release to make clear what is new here. The Telegraph article certainly doesn’t do the job.

Similarly the calculator provides no useful information, just an opportunity for us to ridicule him. If leg muscle mass is so key to the model, then why isn’t it estimable and included in the calculation? Is resting heart rate the only measure of fitness needed for the calculator? How can that be right?

BTW, what are good “folk” or scientifically backed guidelines for carbo-loading? How long? How much? Do the guidelines really depend on your size and speed?

I'm not sure it's the study that some people are criticising so much as the calculator.

For example in my case, 73 kg, 50 years, resting heart rate = 40 which gives me...

Conservative Best Marathon Performance (Normal Glycogen Loading):

2:55:35

Aggressive Best Marathon Performance (Maximal Glycogen Loading):

2:00:27

I can change my weight to 80 kg, 100 kg or even 1000 kg and I still get the same results - it just tells me to eat more carbs!

Now admittedly, at a resting heart rate of 40 it does give a disclaimer about how "At your high level of aerobic fitness, you best marathon time may be limited by factors other than glycogen storage capacity", but my heart rate isn't the same each time I measure it and if I had of entered my resting heart rate as 41 or 42, I would have got no such warning, regardless of the weight used.

The time estimates seem to be purely based on age and resting heart rate.

Worst. Calculator. Ever. I entered 165 lbs, 30 years of age, 48 beats per minutes, goal marathon of 2:45. It spits back a range of 3:14:50 to 2:13:39?

Uh, I can do the same calculation in my head. How about you just me your goal marathon time and tell you you will probably run +/- 30 minutes of that time?

simpsons reference wrote:

Uh, I can do the same calculation in my head. How about you just me your goal marathon time and tell you you will probably run +/- 30 minutes of that time?

I don't think it takes the goal pace into account at all, when predicting your Conservative and Aggressive Best Marathon Performance - it just uses the age and resting heart rate.

The goal pace just changes the amount of carbs it tells you to eat.

Another reason why a lab coat is a dead give away for bad coaching.

a 1 year old weighing 1 lb with a heartrate of 1 beat/min has a conservative of: 3(min):40(seconds)

and an aggresive of: 2:31 for a pace of 6 seconds per mile.

I haven't even read the article and i'm not going to. If this guy can't take the time to program his calculator with some feasability I won't take the time to read his research.

epic fail

They seem really smart at Harvard.