The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Marlow » Tue May 07, 2013 3:56 am

Article on front page begins this way:

Despite the dumb mainstream press articles of a sub-2-hour marathon, the fact of the matter is humans aren’t close to doing it (without the help of some undetectable drugs).
With perfect conditions and a perfect course and a tiny negative split, humans pretty much right now are capable of running the marathon in about 2:03:30 – the world record is 2:03:38 for a reason.

The mind reels at the logical fallacies in the argument. Can't that be said about EVERY World Record . . . right before it is smashed? The one thing we know about the world's best athletes: their goal is to surpass those who have gone before. Plot the Marathon WR and you'll see what's there: an inexorable descent to sub-2.
Is the current Marathon WR solid? Yup.
Is it going to be very difficult to break 2? Yup.
Is there someone on the scene right now who can do it? Probably not.
Will it happen? Absolutely.

The key is, of course, how 'close' are we. If the article's author had simply said, "We're still 30 years away, then we'd have the basis for an interesting debate. But to say the press is "dumb" for predicting it? Yeah, that's what's dumb. It'll happen, sooner than later. It's how the "WR" works.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby JumboElliott » Tue May 07, 2013 5:18 am

Also, he's assuming that Kenenisa Bekele was *only* in 26:17 shape the day he ran the World Record. Based on his final kilometer after running his slowest splits of the race in the preceding 2K he was probably in 26:10 shape or better.

Who's to say that some Bolt-like freak isn't going to come out of the woodwork who's able to run 200+ relatively hard miles a week in training?
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby kuha » Tue May 07, 2013 5:33 am

The horse says, "Please Stop Beating Me, I'm Dead Already!"

At this point, this subject IS a myth. We can revisit it in 12 or 15 years and maybe have more intelligent things to say about it.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby gh » Tue May 07, 2013 5:48 am

Rojo is spot-on in his arguments. And Wejo sums it up at the end much as I would have tried to. It's a matter of the constituent parts.

<<...To run under 2 hours in the marathon, one has to average 14:13 per 5km split. The Virgin London Marathon had arguably the best men’s field in the history of marathoning. The field was decimated by strong early pace. How many 5km splits did they run faster than 14:13? NONE.

The fastest 5km split was the downhill opening 5k and that was only 14:23. For a 2 hour marathon we essentially need 8+ back to back sub 14:13 5ks, and the top marathoners in the world got decimated by a pace where they didn’t even run 1 of these.... >>

(italics mine)
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Marlow » Tue May 07, 2013 6:19 am

gh wrote:Rojo is spot-on in his arguments. And Wejo sums it up at the end much as I would have tried to. It's a matter of the constituent parts.
<<...To run under 2 hours in the marathon, one has to average 14:13 per 5km split. The Virgin London Marathon had arguably the best men’s field in the history of marathoning. The field was decimated by strong early pace. How many 5km splits did they run faster than 14:13? NONE.
The fastest 5km split was the downhill opening 5k and that was only 14:23. For a 2 hour marathon we essentially need 8+ back to back sub 14:13 5ks, and the top marathoners in the world got decimated by a pace where they didn’t even run 1 of these.... >>
(italics mine)

That's merely recursive logic - looking at things as they are now, instead of what they must become. When the Marathon WR was 2:12, the idea of running 5K splits as was run in the current WR was UNTHINKABLE. We have less than four minutes to go to break 2. I find it mind-boggling that some can't see how that will not only be possible, but inevitable. Paradigms shift, and when they do, the Old Guard is befuddled, but the progressive simply nod their heads and move on. It can't happen until someone thinks it can and then finds a way to make it happen. That's just human nature and the body's wondrous capacity to adapt.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby gh » Tue May 07, 2013 6:37 am

Marlow wrote:.... The one thing we know about the world's best athletes: their goal is to surpass those who have gone before. Plot the Marathon WR and you'll see what's there: an inexorable descent to sub-2....


you're right! and using the same plotting it's clear that women are going to run the marathon faster than men. How silly of me.
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Marlow » Tue May 07, 2013 6:45 am

gh wrote:
Marlow wrote:.... The one thing we know about the world's best athletes: their goal is to surpass those who have gone before. Plot the Marathon WR and you'll see what's there: an inexorable descent to sub-2....

you're right! and using the same plotting it's clear that women are going to run the marathon faster than men. How silly of me.

The logic test rejects that projection. Does the logic test reject the extrapolation of a sub-2? I think not. Your mileage may vary.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 7:13 am

Look as mentioned before, we will get an idea of how hard it is when someone goes out the first half in under an hour and finishes well.

I think if Steve Jones could do 1:01:42 all by himself, with no rabbit, 28 years ago and still hang on for a decent time, then there are alot of East Africans who could run sub 60 and still finish decently.

There is nothing earth shaking here in the analysis here. One has to run two 10 milers in 46:00 and then finish in 28:00.

But who would thought some guy could run 47:01 and 1:35:22, which would have been with the leaders in Chicago last year at 20 miles. And Jonesy was 'only' a 27:39 guy.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby 26mi235 » Tue May 07, 2013 7:25 am

This is also my opinion. A key reason is that when you look at the 'slowdown' curve as distance increases you have several points where the rates change between events but are otherwise pretty smooth.
1 100 to 200: simple, the start, including the reaction time add a 'fixed' element (the 0.20 seconds reaction, plus the acceleration, which you do about the same in the two events, so the acceleration/100m is higher in the 100.
2 400/800: This is the one that people are always saying that those fast 400 guys should make. However, the every systems shift substantially and you basically use up your stock of stored energy in the sprint and have to move to quasi-steady state breathing.
3 10,000 and half-marathon to marathon. The energy systems are only incrementally limiting in the 10,000 and even half marathon. That is, you do not run out of "premium" fuel in the Half. However, you have to manage the use of glycogen in the marathon and switching to other energy pathways is a drag on the system. If you have run the marathon you know how this feels. The standard description is 'hitting the wall' at 20 miles. It is actually a bit more subtle than that. In general, the first portion of a marathon is not that hard in that you are going about 10% slower than in a 10,000 and so are not so extremely pushed. However, in the latter third, especially the latter 20% of a marathon, it starts to feel like the same pace takes more and more effort -- like now you are going up a 0.5% or 1.0% and then a 1.5% grade.

It is my understanding that this is because more and more of your metabolic energy sources come from pathways less efficient and less rapid than using glycogen in the muscles (and liver). Now, the 2-hour mark might be breached if there are technological changes that allow the athletes to take in energy sources that can be immediately utilized. This pathway is better than it used to be but is no where good enough to provide the solution yet. However, the training and everything has gotten the 'run-out-of-fuel' point to closer to 2 hours and that means that maybe a technical change will help. If you could make a runner 2-3% more efficient than the most efficient runners now that might do it, but that process does not have a lot of 'low-hanging fruit'.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby 26mi235 » Tue May 07, 2013 7:26 am

[Part 2]

The process that was utilized to improve 'efficiency' was the move to faster and faster course with easier and easier routes. Even the flat London course has been out-done by the Berlin/Amsterdam venues. But, this pathway is also tapped out. When looking at gains relative to the 5000 and 10,000 if you take out these 'outside' factors you will see that the gains in the marathon are actually slower than for the track events (I am assuming that the tracks for 12:58 and 12:39 were not that much different -- do you know if this is true?). One potential reason why this more limited improvement is that the energy systems notion is binding in a way that cannot so readily be altered further by training, etc.
You highlighted another factor that has helped in the marathon -- a large number of quality athletes attacking it at their prime. Again, that gain has primarily been tapped now, although possibly not quite completely. This is particularly important because the number of peak performance that you can attempt in a year is so small and because small things that go wrong that would not derail a 10,000 will derail a marathon.
Note, I wrote this without looking at The Science of Sport because I wanted to get my thoughts down and not be affected by their insights until later. You, having read their piece, might be able to pickup on the strong and weak points in my comments.

PS This is quite similar in overall implications to your commentary, but this is a an idiosyncratic approach with some 'claims' that might not be fully correct (Note, I owe some debt to Noakes in general, but not in specific). Yours is more of a high-level approach that provides its own logic (not inconsistent, but not exactly the same). The two approaches are complementary in my view, with each providing a bit of a check on the other that can improve both.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby gh » Tue May 07, 2013 7:40 am

26mi235 wrote:[Part 2]

The process that was utilized to improve 'efficiency' was the move to faster and faster course with easier and easier routes. Even the flat London course has been out-done by the Berlin/Amsterdam venues. But, this pathway is also tapped out. ....


That was my next scheduled commentary: the last "decade's" technological advances (more than a decade for some, but all things that have added up to artificially improve the record).

Not just faster and faster courses (fewer curves, flat as a pool table, avoiding cobblestones, etc., etc.), but also pace vehicles which give an ongoing readout of what's up. And in the WMM era, not only enough money to draw more track talent than before, but also enough money to pay high-end people to rabbit at incredible paces for longer and longer distances. No more loneliness of the long distance runner.

The rabbits also serve the purpose of running in a phalanx around the intended WR setter, acting as a windbreak if needed, making sure there is no detritus to trip over, ensuring that there are no pedestrian/bicycle/motorcycle collisions, etc., etc.

The bottom line on this whole "argument" is somewhat vague, of course, because it's the premise that a sub-2 isn't going to happen soon, with the definition of soon rather hard to pin down.

But Rojo's projection works for me

<<It probably won’t happen in my lifetime and I’m 39. There’s zero chance it happens before I’m 50. I’d be willing to bet anyone all of my eventual monthly social security checks I’ll get in 25 years that it hasn’t happened by the time I’m 67 as well.>>
gh
 
Posts: 46294
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Marlow » Tue May 07, 2013 7:52 am

26mi235 wrote:[Hitting the wall happens] because more and more of your metabolic energy sources come from pathways less efficient and less rapid than using glycogen in the muscles (and liver). Now, the 2-hour mark might be breached if there are technological changes that allow the athletes to take in energy sources that can be immediately utilized.

Sounds to me as though the key to a fast marathon is what you ingest while on the course to forestall the 'bonk' till you're done.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 7:58 am

Jones ran 1:01:42 28 years ago, at a time when the WR was still over an hour, which doubled is 2:03:24, close to the present day marathon WR. Since the current record is 58:30 someone could go out in just under 60 and still finish in a decent time. So my guess is about 25 years from now, assuming the incentives are there someone will run close to 2 hours.

But who knows. Big time marathons could be a thing of past by then, with the current fad fading. And without the funding, like track distance races, no one may even try.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 8:00 am

Marlow wrote:
26mi235 wrote:[Hitting the wall happens] because more and more of your metabolic energy sources come from pathways less efficient and less rapid than using glycogen in the muscles (and liver). Now, the 2-hour mark might be breached if there are technological changes that allow the athletes to take in energy sources that can be immediately utilized.

Sounds to me as though the key to a fast marathon is what you ingest while on the course to forestall the 'bonk' till you're done.


This all kind of assumes the Steve Jones approach to marathoning. Running as hard as you can for as long as you can.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby 26mi235 » Tue May 07, 2013 8:12 am

Conor Dary wrote:Jones ran 1:01:42 28 years ago, at a time when the WR was still over an hour, which doubled is 2:03:24, close to the present day marathon WR. Since the current record is 58:30 someone could go out in just under 60 and still finish in a decent time. So my guess is about 25 years from now, assuming the incentives are there someone will run close to 2 hours.

But who knows. Big time marathons could be a thing of past by then, with the current fad fading. And without the funding, like track distance races, no one may even try.


20 years ago there were few hard races at the Half and the record was 'soft'. That has changed now with many more top runners and racing specifically at the Half. His(?) first half at Chicago(?) was around this mark, indicating that his Half PR was not a measure of a comparable performance (yes, he slowed but not by the amount that someone would if, after finishing a WR Half they continued on for a second one). The Half is interesting because it was the only gap that was not in the 2:1 range (100/200/400/800/1500 [=> 1600 is better]/5000 [second indication that 1600/mile is better, but 2000 would be even better to fill the gap]/10,000/.../Marathon).

Another factor that I did not use is that when intervals are used to make projections, the end points are often 'cherry-picked' to give the most extreme gradients, which is an inappropriate approach unless the end points were selected a priori, which they never are.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 8:22 am

gh wrote:Rojo is spot-on in his arguments. And Wejo sums it up at the end much as I would have tried to. It's a matter of the constituent parts.

<<...To run under 2 hours in the marathon, one has to average 14:13 per 5km split. The Virgin London Marathon had arguably the best men’s field in the history of marathoning. The field was decimated by strong early pace. How many 5km splits did they run faster than 14:13? NONE.

The fastest 5km split was the downhill opening 5k and that was only 14:23. For a 2 hour marathon we essentially need 8+ back to back sub 14:13 5ks, and the top marathoners in the world got decimated by a pace where they didn’t even run 1 of these.... >>

(italics mine)


Let us take this logic back to 30 years ago. The present day marathon WR is averaging 14:38 per 5k. 30 years ago no one was running any 5Ks under that pace during a marathon. Ergo, a 2:03:38 will never happen.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 8:27 am

26mi235 wrote:

20 years ago there were few hard races at the Half and the record was 'soft'.


Soft? 20 or even 25 years ago, the half marathon race was in its prime, The Great North Run, Philadelphia etc. They were big races then, as they are now.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby aaronk » Tue May 07, 2013 8:27 am

A woman running 5:00.0 per mile pace (about 2:11:00) is probably as likely---NOT!!---as a man running 1:59:59.

Tirunesh Dibaba ran a 2 mile indoors this year in 9:13.
It would take thirteen 9:09.8 two milers, run without stopping between each, to run a sub-2:00.

Mo Farah couldn't break one hour for a HALF marathon. (Though I'm sure he CAN....and WILL!!)
To run TWO half-marathons in one hour----actually slightly LESS!!....without stopping?? Good luck, Mo!!

While my "slowdown rate" is more primitive--i.e. without scientific or mathematical calculus--an elite male runner will usually need about 3 minutes slowdown between the 13.1 and 26.2 mile distances.
Thus, until a man has run ONE half-marathon in 57:00, he/they shouldn't even THINK of attempting the sub-2:00 marathon!!

And a 57:00 half is 4:21+ per mile pace!!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3332
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby 18.99s » Tue May 07, 2013 8:33 am

The grandparents of the first sub-2 hr marathoner haven't been born yet.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Marlow » Tue May 07, 2013 8:34 am

When Ron Clark ran his 13:16/27:39, most everyone thought they had see the end of days regarding distance running. What would THEY have thought about Bekele's 26:17 a mere 40 years later? Running back-to-back 13:09 5Ks? :shock: In a word: impossible.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 8:35 am

18.99s wrote:The grandparents of the first sub-2 hr marathoner haven't been born yet.


Considering the problems in Kenya, they may never be.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby kuha » Tue May 07, 2013 8:36 am

And "some" here still weep, moan, and grind their teeth over the lasting fame of the first sub-4 minute mile.

The appeal of big, simple, round numbers--memorable benchmarks--is enormously powerful.

But we might as well save our numerical puppy-love for 1:40; that will happen well before any 2 hour marathon.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 8:40 am

Marlow wrote:When Ron Clark ran his 13:16/27:39, most everyone thought they had see the end of days regarding distance running. What would THEY have thought about Bekele's 26:17 a mere 40 years later? Running back-to-back 13:09 5Ks? :shock: In a word: impossible.


Who knows. When 27 for 10k was broken about 20 years ago for the first time, Kenny Moore wrote that it would probably be the last minute barrier ever broken, and yet within 5 years it was already within 22 seconds of 26.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 8:50 am

kuha wrote:And "some" here still weep, moan, and grind their teeth over the lasting fame of the first sub-4 minute mile.

The appeal of big, simple, round numbers--memorable benchmarks--is enormously powerful.

But we might as well save our numerical puppy-love for 1:40; that will happen well before any 2 hour marathon.


1:40? We could see that any time now. Even before I eat lunch.

But 2 hours, really who knows. As I mentioned it has to do with incentives. Look at the 10,000 and 5000 on the track. With a couple of exceptions perhaps, interest in those races in the men side has gone way down. And in 20 years big city marathons could be completely different. Just big jogathons and forget the fast guys, who needs them. Or they could be gone altogether. A passing baby boomer fad.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby kuha » Tue May 07, 2013 8:57 am

Conor Dary wrote:1:40? We could see that any time now. Even before I eat lunch.


I wouldn't make it on that diet.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Midnightfeast » Tue May 07, 2013 9:14 am

Which would come first - the first sub 2 or 100 people under 2:10 in the same race?

My money would be on the sub 2
Midnightfeast
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:43 am

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 9:16 am

Midnightfeast wrote:Which would come first - the first sub 2 or 100 people under 2:10 in the same race?

My money would be on the sub 2


100 in the same race? It certainly could easily happen, but who has a budget like that.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby JumboElliott » Tue May 07, 2013 9:27 am

The wildcard in this whole scenario is the injury prevention aspect.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby 26mi235 » Tue May 07, 2013 9:47 am

Unless and until the 'energetics' issue is resolved there will not be a sub-2 for a long time. While some things have helped, the body can take in very little on the energy side while cranking out 4:35 miles. And, if they have any more pacers they will have to call the contest wind-aided, which it truly is.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Marlow » Tue May 07, 2013 9:59 am

For years people believed it was impossible. It was impossible that a man could run a mile in under four minutes. Doctors and Scientists said that the human body could not possibly achieve such a feat; some suggested that the body would break apart before such a speed could be reached. Everyone agreed: the four minute mile was not possible.


http://successprofessor.ca/2009/08/04/w ... nute-mile/
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 10:00 am

26mi235 wrote:Unless and until the 'energetics' issue is resolved there will not be a sub-2 for a long time. While some things have helped, the body can take in very little on the energy side while cranking out 4:35 miles.


Well not long ago I suppose you could have said the same thing about cranking out 4:42 miles, the pace for the present WR.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Conor Dary » Tue May 07, 2013 10:05 am

Marlow wrote:
For years people believed it was impossible. It was impossible that a man could run a mile in under four minutes. Doctors and Scientists said that the human body could not possibly achieve such a feat; some suggested that the body would break apart before such a speed could be reached. Everyone agreed: the four minute mile was not possible.


http://successprofessor.ca/2009/08/04/w ... nute-mile/


Where does this 'Everyone agreed: the four minute mile was not possible' nonsense come from. Why some personal life consultant! That is who.

Get out of Debt Now! I will show you the Way!
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby TN1965 » Tue May 07, 2013 10:40 am

26mi235 wrote:Unless and until the 'energetics' issue is resolved there will not be a sub-2 for a long time. While some things have helped, the body can take in very little on the energy side while cranking out 4:35 miles. And, if they have any more pacers they will have to call the contest wind-aided, which it truly is.


This is where Superstarch could make a difference. I don't know how many elite runners are currently using it, but if it worked for Meb, it could work for a lot of other people.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby kuha » Tue May 07, 2013 10:51 am

Marlow wrote:
For years people believed it was impossible. It was impossible that a man could run a mile in under four minutes. Doctors and Scientists said that the human body could not possibly achieve such a feat; some suggested that the body would break apart before such a speed could be reached. Everyone agreed: the four minute mile was not possible.


http://successprofessor.ca/2009/08/04/w ... nute-mile/


In terms of persuasive power and historical accuracy, I'd rate that quote as a 0.5 on a scale of 0 to 10.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Marlow » Tue May 07, 2013 10:59 am

kuha wrote:In terms of persuasive power and historical accuracy, I'd rate that quote as a 0.5 on a scale of 0 to 10.

Certainly men of science would have scoffed at that, but I bet the majority of people of the nineteenth century would have had NO trouble believing it.

I remember reading somewhere, back in the day, that the TJ could never reach 60' because human tendons could not withstand the forces necessary.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby kuha » Tue May 07, 2013 11:05 am

Marlow wrote:I bet the majority of people of nineteenth century would have had NO trouble believing it.


I have read hundreds/thousands of pages of nearly all the leading 19th century sporting journals of the US and Britain. I feel safe in saying that the subject never arose and was never (or as close to "never" as you would like to get) discussed by anyone in the sport. Was that because they felt it was "impossible"--or because it simply was NOT a logical thing to worry/speculate about? I vote for the latter; which is "close" to where the 2 hour marathon idea falls today.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Pego » Tue May 07, 2013 11:16 am

Marlow wrote:
kuha wrote:In terms of persuasive power and historical accuracy, I'd rate that quote as a 0.5 on a scale of 0 to 10.

Certainly men of science would have scoffed at that, but I bet the majority of people of the nineteenth century would have had NO trouble believing it.

I remember reading somewhere, back in the day, that the TJ could never reach 60' because human tendons could not withstand the forces necessary.


A lot of people said (and still say) a lot of nonsense. How does that advance your premise is beyond my comprehension.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby Marlow » Tue May 07, 2013 11:20 am

Pego wrote:A lot of people said (and still say) a lot of nonsense. How does that advance your premise is beyond my comprehension.

Cuz people still say s**t . . . like the 2-hour barrier can't be broken.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby kuha » Tue May 07, 2013 11:29 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:A lot of people said (and still say) a lot of nonsense. How does that advance your premise is beyond my comprehension.

Cuz people still say s**t . . . like the 2-hour barrier can't be broken.


No!!!

In fact, what people are ACTUALLY meaning (and, literally, saying, in many cases) is that the 2-hour barrier can't be broken NOW or anytime terribly SOON. Has anyone actually said that it can never, ever, not even in 500 years, be broken? If so, that's news to me--and I would appreciate a reference to that exact quote. And we can then all pride ourselves on being smarter than that nitwit.

Thus, there is nothing remotely "controversial" about any of this, since the 2-hour barrier will NOT, in fact, be broken now or all that soon. All the quibbling and debate is really about how far out in the future "we" are talking about.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: The "Myth" of the Sub-2 Marathon

Postby TN1965 » Tue May 07, 2013 11:36 am

JumboElliott wrote:The wildcard in this whole scenario is the injury prevention aspect.


I agree. And there has been progress in this area. Just using underwater treadmills allows runner to increase their mileage without adding more stress on their legs. More advanced cold and heat devices, compression devices, etc. have improved the recovery. Nutrition for performance is better understood today than ever before. And there has been progress in resistance/strength exercises that are specifically tailored for distance runners. It's hard to believe that all of the above have insignificant impacts on how runners recover from training and prevent injuries.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 7 guests