Slashdot Mirror
What Will It Take To Run a 2-Hour Marathon?
HughPickens.com writes Alex Hutchinson writes at Runner's World that runners have cut the distance to the sub-two marathon in half since 1998, but it will get progressively harder to trim the remaining seconds. Still, the physiologists tell us that it's not impossible, meaning it is possible. Hutchinson says it will take several things: a cold day in March or November; a straight, flat course that is mind-numbingly boring; pacemakers who will shepherd leaders around the course cutting the wind and setting the pace; and a runner with a frame of about 5'6", weight of about 120 pounds, and towering self-confidence.The road is so flat and straight, you can see them coming from a mile away. Six runners flow in arrowhead formation around the Canadian city of Saskatoon. The early November air is still and dry, the sky overcast, and the temperature hovers a bit above freezing, just as predicted. All in their early 20s, they've been training together for this moment for years; only in the last month did their coach select which three will go for the record. The remaining three form the front of the arrowhead, blocking the wind and enduring the mental effort of controlling the pace. Should one of them cross the finish line in two hours—or faster—all six will share equally in the $50 million jackpot promised by the heirs to the Hoka One One fortune. The pot of money is up for grabs, for any runner, anywhere in the world. The chase is on. So, will they make it? And what year is this? I'm saying the year is...2075—and they make it.
Alex Hutchinson writes at Runner's World that runners have cut the distance to the sub-two marathon in half since 1998, but it will get progressively harder to trim the remaining seconds.
Writing fail. Don't use the term "distance" to discuss intervals in time, especially when the topic specifically involves covering a specific distance as fast as possible. At first I thought they meant that the distance the runners have to race has been reduced in order to be able to run it in two hours.
Better known as 318230.
...at least 120 minutes.
I thought this was news for nerds.
My idea of exercise is reaching for the remote, and my idea of a marathon involves many movies.
Get this shit off my lawn.
"it's not impossible, meaning it is possible."
You don't say.
At most 120 minutes
Performance enhancing drugs. Athletes at most levels of competition are at least training on them, so let's be honest, eh?
Kenya or Ethiopia. Every human being to ever run less than 2:05 is from one of those countries.
Not true. Ryan Hall (a USian) ran 2:04:58. Even though we got halfway there in the last 17 years, it's important to consider that there has been a massive movement of focus from 10k to the marathon for many athletes during that time due to increased money only in the marathon, and in 1998 the marathon record was slightly soft compared with the track events. Also let's not forget that the rate of improvement will slow down as times get faster, otherwise we'll run the race in zero seconds somewhere before the year 3000. The most important race determining when a sub-2 happens is that between the drug cheats and the drug testers. Without being able to predict that gap, it will be tough to guess when sub-2 occurs. Most records currently happen in Berlin, but a straighter course would help, as would one that exploits the allowed elevation drop of 42m. As a 45 year old runner, I'm optimistic of seeing a sub-2 in my lifetime.
Also, whoever does finally break two hours is going to be an outlier on all of the charts, so looking at averages of statistical samples isn't going to help.
For example in my own case: I'm 49 and I ran 2:57 this year, which puts me in the top 2.5% overall and 1% for my age. For me to run my best I need a day temperature of around 60F so I'm way off that particular chart.
I also disagree with the idea that a flat course is necessarily the fastest. Of course you don't want mountains, but some small changes of gradient can allow changes in muscle usage leading to reduction of fatigue. I've run both Hamburg and Berlin several times; I find the slightly more undulating Hamburg to be noticably easier than Berlin.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
and a downhill course
The summary implies that the front triangle of runners will be necessary to cut the wind generated from the athletes running through the air, and thus, that the air is still.
Wind at the runners' backs, on the other hand, obviates that issue entirely.
Also, just above freezing is probably too cold because it requires extra clothing (and thus weight) to protect the extremities. Ideal running weather is in the 50s F / 10s C.
The summary further posits that a flat, straight course is best without citing any evidence. Do we know that sustained, constant exertion is more efficient over a two hour period than exertion that has a cyclic component? Yes, a course that has gentle ups and downs will probably take more energy to run (as the runners need to lift themselves up each hill, and don't generally get that energy back), but is there empirical evidence that it will always be slower? Consider the extreme of a course that starts out at a higher elevation than it finishes, but is strictly linear in altitude between the start and finish lines. It will surely be faster than a straight, flat course without any change in elevation.
The limiting factor, it would seem to me, is that the ideal course to minimize speed has not been constructed.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Weight is not the only factor, have you compared the overall design of a running shoe from the 1990's vs current ones? I am not saying this is the only effect, but over the course of a long run everything adds up, including anti fatigue cushioning.....
The route of the marathon in my city completely encircles the block I live on, so from 1am tomorrow morning until 6pm tomorrow night I won't be able to get off my block. It sucks. At about 5am tomorrow, I will start to hear people lining up in front of my house with little cowbells that they use to cheer on the runners and then at about 6:00 am, the bad blues band (because Chicago marathon, get it) will start to warm up. It's like someone threw a party at your house at six in the morning and not only do you hate parties at 6am but they never asked your permission.
I don't get grumpy very often, but the annual marathon makes me grumpy. The only fun part is watching the paramarathoners go by first, on their high-tech racing wheelchairs, going like crazy and then the first few runners glide by, looking like they could run forever and then five hours later, the fatsos huffing and puffing and looking like they'd kill for a cigarette and a slice of pie.
Oh hell, let them have their party.
You are welcome on my lawn.
About 2 hours
It's not cheating if it's part of the strategy of the event. See also: NASCAR, speed skating, bicycle racing, etc. It just means that in addition to raw speed, the runner needs to effectively manage the interactions with other runners.
At any rate, this arbitrary milestone would have been achieved long ago if the wavelength of light emitted by exited caesium 133 atoms were only a tiny fraction of a percent longer.
(One of my prouder nerd moments was when I came up with the idea of a better, more humane mouse dynamometer and had a prototype built later that evening. Researchers now use my design, instead of forcing the modified mice to run to the point of exhaustion on an inclined treadmill with a motivational electrical shock grid at the back.)