Was 2:01:39 really a big breakthrough? After Breaking2, Ross Tucker predicted a 2:01:40!

ban all shoes.

How some people think a pair of shoes can help you run a minute faster is beyond me.

He made two more tweets where he said that he thinks it's Kipchoge and not the shoes. He's basically calling Nike marketing BS in a very roundabout way.

If the shoe's worth 1%, then why haven't any of the other runners among the best dropped as much time after starting with the shoes? I think that the frequent drinks might be a bigger key, but that getting the pacing and drafting help at Monza got his legs used to the pace and allowed him to think it was possible. Note that he was the only guy who hit it out of the park at Monza and he has now increased his advantage over Kipsang and Bekele an enormous amount. Why hasn't Kipsang come close to such a drop?

How can someone that intelligent continue to fail to realize that the 4% refers to EFFICIENCY. This has been stated ad nauseum.

Sledge_hammer wrote:

How some people think a pair of shoes can help you run a minute faster is beyond me.

Could bad shoes make you run a minute slower or is that equally ridiculous?

While I still think we won't see a legit sub-2 anytime soon, I am amazed by Kipchoge. The interesting thing here is after Monza, most people thought it was the drafting. But in this race, he had very little drafting help. I mean less than half the race?

So the logic of "Monza was all about the drafting" and "Berlin is all about the shoes" doesn't quite go together.

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

Sledge_hammer wrote:

How some people think a pair of shoes can help you run a minute faster is beyond me.

Could bad shoes make you run a minute slower or is that equally ridiculous?

Try to do a workout in flats vs trainers. Easily 3 seconds a mile difference which would translate to over a minute.

Edgar Poe wrote:

How can someone that intelligent continue to fail to realize that the 4% refers to EFFICIENCY. This has been stated ad nauseum.

absolutely. the map from energy input to pace is highly non-linear due to various factors. in other words, even if the shoes are 4% more efficient in the sense that for the same pace, you spend 4% less energy, that doesn't mean you'd run 4% faster if you spent the same amount of energy. similarly, if you improve two factors like shoes + nutrition by 1% each, you don't necessarily get 2% as combined effect.

really basic stuff. I don't expect the TV pundits and the T voters on this board to understand this, but a sports scientist should know better.

After the Nike attempt Kipchoge knew his body could handle at least 2:00:25. This familiarity could not have been obtained in an actual race.

Bekele and Kimetto need a go too. But Nike must have spent a lot of money on that glorified training run.

Or maybe it will be like the aftermath of Bannister's sub 4 minute mile when other runners began to do it too.

Ross Tucker is a bit of a wally.

Sledge_hammer wrote:

How some people think a pair of shoes can help you run a minute faster is beyond me.

Learn physics

real scientist wrote:

Edgar Poe wrote:

How can someone that intelligent continue to fail to realize that the 4% refers to EFFICIENCY. This has been stated ad nauseum.

absolutely. the map from energy input to pace is highly non-linear due to various factors. in other words, even if the shoes are 4% more efficient in the sense that for the same pace, you spend 4% less energy, that doesn't mean you'd run 4% faster if you spent the same amount of energy. similarly, if you improve two factors like shoes + nutrition by 1% each, you don't necessarily get 2% as combined effect.

really basic stuff. I don't expect the TV pundits and the T voters on this board to understand this, but a sports scientist should know better.

Finally, someone gets it. Thank you for that.

The best run in history is being tossed aside within 24 hours because someone thought it was possible?

It’s possible we could end up living forever, only dying if we choose to. When that happens it will be a big breakthrough that can’t be discredited just because some people could see that it would be possible eventually.

Kipchoge made 2:01:39 a reality instead of it being a possibility. The difference is enormous.

Except that Tucker did state that the 4% was shown to be more like 1% by the NYT, so isn't he saying exactly what you are saying? He even goes on to point out that other factors can play into this for 1 or 2%. I don't think he's saying it has to be linear. What he's trying to say is that it varies a lot and is the product of many hard to predict factors.

It's interesting to note that Geb went on the record saying technology is why his PR improved. He credited it to the shoes and clocks mostly. He was such a good company man. Eliud is in a tough spot where he's being paid well by a shoe sponsor. You can't take anything at face value when it comes to crediting the shoes. There is a clear conflict of interest.

What I found remarkable about the 2:00:25 was that he missed his goal time by less than 1 second per mile. I think it's obvious that the shoes can play a huge factor one way or another when over 26.2 miles a guy could be missing his goal by less than 1 second per mile.

There's a video out there of Billy Mills talking about his Olympic training and how he broke the pacing down to simply running a lap a couple of snaps of his fingers faster than before. A tiny difference adds up over a long race.

Runner efficiency has so many variables. I bet you put a runner in 99% the same shoe except one has a 0mm drop and the other a 12mm drop. Allow in this example for weight or midsole compression to not change, but simply angle of the foot in the shoe. Each marathoner is going to do better or worse in that shoe with it being as obvious as some runners getting outright injured trying to run a marathon in one offset versus another. There is a whole world of ways to still get optimal performances and I think Kipchoge like Geb before him have shown that technologies can play a factor. Nike and Adidas are smart to demonstrate this in already #1 runners so success is synonymous with the shoes regardless.

Disgusted. wrote:

The best run in history is being tossed aside within 24 hours because someone thought it was possible?

It’s possible we could end up living forever, only dying if we choose to. When that happens it will be a big breakthrough that can’t be discredited just because some people could see that it would be possible eventually.

Kipchoge made 2:01:39 a reality instead of it being a possibility. The difference is enormous.

I promise you the day we learn to overcome biological limitations for a theoretically immortal life somebody will instantly chime in to point out the heat death of the universe or eventual compression into another big bang still looms to f--- us. They aren't wrong, but you're right that they'd be a Debbie Downer.

Given Kipchoge's regular stride rate, the improvement in the world record is just an increase of .77" in step length.

Edgar Poe wrote:

real scientist wrote:

absolutely. the map from energy input to pace is highly non-linear due to various factors. in other words, even if the shoes are 4% more efficient in the sense that for the same pace, you spend 4% less energy, that doesn't mean you'd run 4% faster if you spent the same amount of energy. similarly, if you improve two factors like shoes + nutrition by 1% each, you don't necessarily get 2% as combined effect.

really basic stuff. I don't expect the TV pundits and the T voters on this board to understand this, but a sports scientist should know better.

Finally, someone gets it. Thank you for that.

So I've actually heard that a 1% improvement in efficiency DOES correspond to a 1% improvement in pace. I can't find a source right now, but I assume Ross is taking that for granted if he's equating the two. I can't vouch for the accuracy myself though.

I also don't think you're quite right about the 1+1 doesn't equal 2 part either. Shoes and nutrition are pretty independent, so I wouldn't think their benefits would overlap. Now, what does happen is diminishing returns, but that effect would be pretty minor for just two factors and just 1% each. I could see 1%+1% = 1.8%, say, but not much less than that.

Another way to think about it is say there are two guys, and one is 1% slower than the other. Then he improves his nutrition and they are equally fast. Then they both get a pair of Vaporflys. Who knows who will benefit more, but I don't think there would be a big difference due to nutrition strategy. Imagine telling your coach "these new Vaporflys aren't really helping me" and they say "well, you improved your nutrition strategy last year, so the springs can't help you as much".

I predicted a 2:08.13 for Salazar in NYC 1981 the day before. Will you write about my brilliance?