2hr Marathon - Possible??

Filibuster

I note Wilson Kipsang lowered the marathon record today to 2:03:23. The human body has the theoretical potential to run 1:57:58 apparently but will we ever see it?? The pace for 2hrs is 2:50.6/km and he did an avg of 2:56/km.

In 1991, Joyner published the first scientific paper to ask the question: How fast could a human body possibly run a marathon? By factoring in what's known about physical limits of the human body, he reported in the Journal of Applied Physiology that it was theoretically possible to run the race in 1:57:58.

http://news.discovery.com/adventure/extreme-sports/two-hour-marathon-111017.htm

tHE vAGGABOND

I think its like the 4 minute mile, it was the big goal and target for years, and many folks said it was impossible - but as soon as Bannister did it loads of folks broke his time over the next few months!

I think we will get some special runner who will break 2 hours eventually - but it may be a while.

Think of a Sammy Wanjuru type character, he went off in Bejing Olympic Marathon at a crazy pace and held on and won, and was very young at the time. Its only a matter of time before someone like that appears and can hold it together, and gets a set of world class pace makers somewhere like Berlin or Dubai. But alas, of course, he is no longer with us. But someone like that will come along eventually I think...

Clearlier

I think that it's worth making the comparison at other distances to understand what a big leap we're talking about.

For Bolt to make the equivalent improvement in the 100m from when he started (record was 9.74) he would have to improve to 9.47.

To make the equivalent improvement from where it is now (9.58) somebody would have to run 9.32.

Here's the equivalent at the more commonly run distances:

200m: 19.19 -> 18.66
400m: 43.18 -> 41.99
800m: 1:40.91 -> 1:38.13
1500m: 3:26.00 -> 3:20.32
5000m: 12:37.35 -> 12:16.48
10000m: 26:17.53 -> 25:34.06
Half marathon: 58:23 -> 56:46

average_runner

Anything is possible but cant see it happening in our lifetime.

TFBubendorfer

average_runner wrote: »

Anything is possible but cant see it happening in our lifetime.

The have taken more than 5 minutes off the world record in my lifetime already, so I would not rule out another 3:24 over the next few decades entirely.

sconhome

Science in Sport are saying similar things, going to be up to 5 years until the 2:03 is broken and probably 10 before the 2:02 goes.

Science in Sport

YFlyer

Maybe if Geb took up the marathon at a younger age and still concentrated on training for the 10,000m so that he keeps his speed endurance. The marathon world record would be significantly faster.

dna_leri

Based on the current rate of improvement, the man who will do it is not yet born.

ecoli

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

The have taken more than 5 minutes off the world record in my lifetime already, so I would not rule out another 3:24 over the next few decades entirely.

This is down to the change of emphasis on the distance changing from the "old mans" distance for declining track athletes to now the strongest distance event. Canova talked about the change in approach regarding training also. This is similar to the changes in training amongst the milers in the 20s/30s but was still a good way off.

Personally I reckon we are no where near the point where it is a realistic target for any current runners. I reckon that the sub 2.02 is still a long way off let alone a sub 2

TFBubendorfer

ecoli wrote: »

This is down to the change of emphasis on the distance changing from the "old mans" distance for declining track athletes to now the strongest distance event. Canova talked about the change in approach regarding training also. This is similar to the changes in training amongst the milers in the 20s/30s but was still a good way off.

Personally I reckon we are no where near the point where it is a realistic target for any current runners. I reckon that the sub 2.02 is still a long way off let alone a sub 2

Not disagreeing with you, and I said I won't rule it out over the next few decades which implies that the man to do it may well be unborn yet.

I'm sceptical regarding any claims of physiological limits, though. The 4-minute mile is of course the classic example for that, and not too long ago I read a book by Arthur Lydiard where he confidently proclaims that the body's absolute limit for the marathon would be 2:06 or 2:07, can't remember which exactly. Of course Lydiard was a much better coach than physiologist.

Itziger

Clearlier wrote: »

I think that it's worth making the comparison at other distances to understand what a big leap we're talking about.

For Bolt to make the equivalent improvement in the 100m from when he started (record was 9.74) he would have to improve to 9.47.

To make the equivalent improvement from where it is now (9.58) somebody would have to run 9.32.

Here's the equivalent at the more commonly run distances:

200m: 19.19 -> 18.66
400m: 43.18 -> 41.99
800m: 1:40.91 -> 1:38.13
1500m: 3:26.00 -> 3:20.32
5000m: 12:37.35 -> 12:16.48
10000m: 26:17.53 -> 25:34.06
Half marathon: 58:23 -> 56:46

Clearlier, I haven't checked your maths and I'm assuming you have!!! If so, they are some impressive examples there. I cannot imagine a 3:20 1500m that's for sure. I do think the 2 hours will eventually go, but it will take a good few decades I'd say.

KielyUnusual

amphkingwest wrote: »

Science in Sport are saying similar things, going to be up to 5 years until the 2:03 is broken and probably 10 before the 2:02 goes.

Science in Sport

Good article there but I don't think the breaking of the 2 hour barrier will be down to trends. You'll more likely be looking for the outlier i.e. the Usain Bolt's of this world. Then it's a question of how likely it is that someone with the unique physiology required to run a sub 2 hour marathon will be picked up.

The reality probably is that running (more specifically competitive running) just isn't popular enough for the rare talents to be picked up. If you're a talented young hurler/footballer etc. then you'll likely have the opportunity to develop that talent and play at the highest level if you're capable. In Ireland at least, if you're a good runner then there's a good chance that

1. There's no running club nearby
2. You'll use that running talent for another sport
3. You'll take to the drink when you hit 17

In certain regions of the world, running is the dominant sport and you have the opportunity to develop your talent if you show promise at a young age but this is very rare

2 hours might be a bit of a stretch in any case.

ecoli

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you, and I said I won't rule it out over the next few decades which implies that the man to do it may well be unborn yet.

I'm sceptical regarding any claims of physiological limits, though. The 4-minute mile is of course the classic example for that, and not too long ago I read a book by Arthur Lydiard where he confidently proclaims that the body's absolute limit for the marathon would be 2:06 or 2:07, can't remember which exactly. Of course Lydiard was a much better coach than physiologist.

I completely agree with you regarding physiological limits. I am not saying it won't be done, in fact I reckon it will indeed happen. Like you I am wary when I hear all these physiological limits that are applied as the flaw is they are based around current training/recovery practices and track and apparel technologies but these are constantly evolving.

RoyMcC

KielyUnusual wrote: »

Good article there but I don't think the breaking of the 2 hour barrier will be down to trends. You'll more likely be looking for the outlier i.e. the Usain Bolt's of this world.

+1. Most trend lines in athletics are flatlining or even tending downwards. The outer limits of possibility are being reached with the best of coaching techniques and body preparation. WRs are now far and few between. The odd joker will jump out of the pack and it could be tomorrow or in 100 years time.

tomdempsey200

some of those comparisons are way off!



the 3-20 1500m is worth more than a 2hr marathon

ecoli

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

some of those comparisons are way off!



the 3-20 1500m is worth more than a 2hr marathon

Based on?

I remember a few different experts over the last 15 years spouting alot of these kinda numbers based on their physiological assessments and analysis (albeit times aren't ran in a science lab)

tomdempsey200

ecoli wrote: »

Based on?

I remember a few different experts over the last 15 years spouting alot of these kinda numbers based on their physiological assessments and analysis (albeit times aren't ran in a science lab)

apart from kiprops recent run 1500m times have gone backwards in the 12 years or so since they were running 3-26

the existing 3-26 is almost out of range already

3-20 is way more off the chart than a 2hr marathon imo

ecoli

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

apart from kiprops recent run 1500m times have gone backwards in the 12 years or so since they were running 3-26

the existing 3-26 is almost out of range already

3-20 is way more off the chart than a 2hr marathon imo

Its not about paralleled progressions though these times were ones devised by physiologists as the absolute ceilings of human performance. 1500m running is not on par with the "golden" era of the late 90s and early 2000s any more. If you look in that time the focus has shifted to 800m running where the dept is phenomenally high (remember when no one was getting in the 1.41s for over 10 years and people thought for so long that record was untouchable?)

Similarly the focus has gone from 5k/10k running over the past 5-6 years to marathon running hence the heavy progression here however this wont be linear if track is able to compete financially with the appearance fees/ prize money within marathon running and there is more incentive to stay on track

pa4

Heres a good discussion from a few months back on letsrun about the sub 2 hour marathon. Some interesting points in the first post. Basically the chances of a sub 2 in our lifetime are slim to none.

Link: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5171160

ThePiedPiper

I think looking back at the leaps forward that were made from the 60s to the late 90s is a bit of a pointless part of the discussion. Training methods have been completely refined and perfected only really in the past 10 years or so. If we look at the likes of Haile, we can possibly make the argument that he just might have been capable of a 2:02:xx if he'd gone to the marathon a few years sooner. But, then maybe not.

So, we can look at other possibilities. Wanjiru was an undoubted megastar of the distance. If he'd kept himself on the straight on narrow, he may have had the capabilities to run 2:02 also. Certainly, his half marathon time suggested that he might have been capable of running a marathon in the 2:03 range. But 3 minutes faster than that? Kipsang just might have been capable of 2:03:0x on Sunday had the weather been absolutely perfect, maybe even 2:02:5x if he could get Kebede, Mosop, Mutai and Kiprotto to pace him to 40km, then kick the same way for the last 2.

People often talk about how the Kenyans don't have the support structures in place to really properly reach the very limit of human performance. Would the likes of a Kipsang or Makau have been even faster if they were in a Salazar/Nike sort of environment? Its possible. But are the gains going to be huge from improving on the support and coaching side? 50 years ago certainly, but I don't believe this to be the case anymore. Canova seems to be an immensely intelligent coach, and the results some of his athletes have been getting have been astonishing. I just fail to see how there can be another 3 1/2 minutes to be found.

We've gotten completely spoilt in recent years at the depth of talent coming out of East Africa. Sub-60 half marathons have become achievable for many of the top distance runners. But, as one of the posts earlier in the thread showed, a sub-2 marathon would be equal to a 56:xx half marathon performance. Just can't see it.

I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'd say that I will see 2:02:xx in my lifetime, but never anything under that. In a few hundred years, with genetic engineering or some other vast scientific or evolutionary change, maybe, just maybe 1:59:xx.

So, I hear there may be life on Mars. Training there with the oxygen deficit would have to have benefits for a potential marathon WR attempt. Probably won't happen but...

rom

I think the lore of running says 2040 something for when it will happen. Sounds about right to me.

tomdempsey200

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/athletics/article3882977.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_09_30

Itziger

I would put a LOT of money on Mo not breaking 2 hours.

ecoli

Itziger wrote: »

I would put a LOT of money on Mo not breaking 2 hours.

I would put my house on him not breaking 2.04.30 let alone 2hrs.

tHE vAGGABOND

I would put A LOT of money about the subject of Mo breaking 2 hours getting discussed 2987397834547823 times in the run up to next years London Marathon tho

Timmaay

What if they were on drugs ha?

Itziger

Timmaay wrote: »

What if they were on drugs ha?

Oooops, a week in the clanger for Timmaay!!

Itziger

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I would put A LOT of money about the subject of Mo breaking 2 hours getting discussed 2987397834547823 times in the run up to next years London Marathon tho

Yeah, but my bet is one that money could be made on. Open a Betfair account and give "generous" odds. Hopefully you'd rope in a few mugs. If you were being really smart you could post on betting forums saying how you saw an interesting bet on Mo breaking 2 hours:)

Not that I'd do anything that Machiavellian. (Sp?)

tomdempsey200

i'm sure they could dip under 2 hrs with the help of epo

it's strange that no-ones tried it?

Itziger

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

i'm sure they could dip under 2 hrs with the help of epo

it's strange that no-ones tried it?

Very strange! Maybe we should tell em and their coaches of its existence.

Slogger Jogger

http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/why-a-sub-200-marathon-wont-happen-soon#.UktWgfRxCSE.twitter

nerraw1111

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/why-a-sub-200-marathon-wont-happen-soon#.UktWgfRxCSE.twitter

That's a v good article. Key quote:

"The record being lowered by .57 seconds per mile is taken to suggest that taking it down by another 7.78 seconds per mile (204 seconds divided by 26.2 miles) will happen soon."

Clearlier

nerraw1111 wrote: »

That's a v good article. Key quote:

"The record being lowered by .57 seconds per mile is taken to suggest that taking it down by another 7.78 seconds per mile (204 seconds divided by 26.2 miles) will happen soon."

It's a small thing and doesn't invalidate the point made in the article but I think that the approach taken to calculating the equivalent difference at shorter distances was misguided. They didn't attempt to calculate the % improvement required and apply it to current world records, they just took the difference and multiplied it by the fraction of the appropriate race distance. In other words they allowed for the change in distance but not for the change in pace and as we know the shorter the distance the faster people run.

SnappyDresser

Think it will be 20 years before a sub 2 hour marathon is possible

omicron

Itziger wrote: »

Very strange! Maybe we should tell em and their coaches of its existence.

It actually is a good question - of the best athlete in the world was to train for years on every sort of PED imaginable, blood transfusions etc, chances are they would break it. The benefit would be huge. It could be done by someone with no regard for their health and raced out of competition.

Filibuster

The last 5 records were broken in Berlin. Is there a better course out there??

You can see in the record progression that once the Kenyans and the Ethiopians got serious about the distance the times plummeted in the last 10 years. Provide the money and the barrier will be broken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression

ThePiedPiper

But this whole argument that there is no limit on human performance at the marathon is a bit ridiculous. Some people say that the 2 hour barrier is a limit in the same way that the 4 minute mile was, just a number, an arbitrary figure.

If we carry on with that particular logic, and somebody runs it in 1:59, are we to then think that 1:49 is possible. Maybe even 1:29? Do we believe that the marathon could be run at the same speed as the 100 metres, so 70 minutes then becomes the absolute limit? Bolt won't bother his ass trying to train for a 400 metres.

I think its reasonable to accept that there has to be some limit on human performance. It might be 9.3 seconds for the 100m, it might be 1:37 for the 800, maybe 57:30 for the half marathon. 2:01 may be the physiological limit for a human to run 26.2 miles. There has to be a limit to humans as they exist in the present state of evolution. Evolution over millions of years in an environment where running great distances at incredible speed might mean an increase, but the world we live in is moving more to an environment whereby the human race in general is becoming more sedentary.

Filibuster

We're only seeing the best long distance atheletes in the world focus on the marathon now - i.e. the East Africans. The 100m has been dominated by the best sprinting atheletes now for a long time - i.e. the West Africans & their descendents.

Times have fallen by over 2min in 10years and once the infrastructure is in place for a longer period I'm sure will fall further.

TFBubendorfer

RunForestRun wrote: »

But this whole argument that there is no limit on human performance at the marathon is a bit ridiculous.

Don't be daft, nobody is arguing that there is no limit on human performance. Of course there is.

What I'm was saying is that I'm sceptical about the claims that they know where exactly that limit is, be it 1:57:58 for a marathon or anything else.

ThePiedPiper

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Don't be daft, nobody is arguing that there is no limit on human performance. Of course there is.

What I'm was saying is that I'm sceptical about the claims that they know where exactly that limit is, be it 1:57:58 for a marathon or anything else.

I don't really think I'm being daft to be honest TFB. People are saying that they think that sub-2 is achievable, so its not the limit. So, if somebody ran 1:59, do we then start to think 1:58 is achievable? So where exactly do you stop? It has to be somewhere. And a lot of the evidence over the last 10 years in what is probably an absolute golden era of marathoning would suggest that sub-2 is not achievable. Therefore, the limit is probably in the range from 2:00:30 - 2:02:30. That's my argument, I don't think its daft.

TFBubendorfer

RunForestRun wrote: »

I don't really think I'm being daft to be honest TFB. People are saying that they think that sub-2 is achievable, so its not the limit. So, if somebody ran 1:59, do we then start to think 1:58 is achievable? So where exactly do you stop? It has to be somewhere. And a lot of the evidence over the last 10 years in what is probably an absolute golden era of marathoning would suggest that sub-2 is not achievable. Therefore, the limit is probably in the range from 2:00:30 - 2:02:30. That's my argument, I don't think its daft.

Ok, first of all "don't be daft" is merely a matter of speech, so don't take that personally.

As for where the absolute physiological limit lies I don't know and you don't know, and my point is that those scientists who come up with certain numbers like 1:57:58 don't know it either.

ecoli

RunForestRun wrote: »

I don't really think I'm being daft to be honest TFB. People are saying that they think that sub-2 is achievable, so its not the limit. So, if somebody ran 1:59, do we then start to think 1:58 is achievable? So where exactly do you stop? It has to be somewhere. And a lot of the evidence over the last 10 years in what is probably an absolute golden era of marathoning would suggest that sub-2 is not achievable. Therefore, the limit is probably in the range from 2:00:30 - 2:02:30. That's my argument, I don't think its daft.

I think this is the problem. We are looking at it from current perspective. I am sure to Bannister, Landy, Santee etc who were seen as the golden generation of milers at the time felt that while sub 4 was within grasp that sub 3.50 for a mile would be completely out of the realms of possibility. We cannot account for advances in recovery technology or training aids that will make the believed limits to be realistic targets.

Today's marathoners talk of 100-160 mpw as being the norm but what if there is a way where that voloume could be doubled without compromising intensity and recovery? Surely that would make huge improvements possible?

I think the point is that people are afraid to fall into the traps of the past whereby people gave definitive limitations and were proven wrong, to the point where people now believe that anything is possible (to the point where their claims can't be proven wrong until the stagnation of records for a prolonged time)

ThePiedPiper

Grand, no offence taken.

The 'scientists' and 'mathematicians' who come up with their ridiculous ideas of when 2 hours will be broken, and what the absolute limit might be just really bug the crap out of me. They use linear models showing the historical rate of change of the WR from the 60s, and more or less allow this to continue until infinity. That's what bugs me, that a lot of these so-called experts assume that the trend will continue in a linear fashion to 1:59:xx and beyond.

Of course none of us know, we can't know how humans may evolve in the future, and if a complete genetic anomaly comes along and smashes the 2 hour barrier. Its just a pity that this kind of thing comes up every time there's a marathon WR. Its a sideshow and distracts from the phenomenal performance just achieved. Geb broke 2:04 in 2008. I was lucky enough to be there on the day, and that WR was celebrated for what it was, going under 2:04, a huge achievement. Unfortunately, every single single sub 2:04 since then (Kipsang x 2, Makau, Mutai and Mosop) have all been overshadowed by nonsense about how close we are to going under 2 hours. We don't get the same rubbish about whether sprinters will ever go under 9.2 seconds or not or whether a Triple Jumper will ever go over 20 metres.

ThePiedPiper

ecoli wrote: »

I think this is the problem. We are looking at it from current perspective. I am sure to Bannister, Landy, Santee etc who were seen as the golden generation of milers at the time felt that while sub 4 was within grasp that sub 3.50 for a mile would be completely out of the realms of possibility. We cannot account for advances in recovery technology or training aids that will make the believed limits to be realistic targets.

But, that whole sub 4 mile thing really was a nonsense. I think at the time, the 800 WR was about 1:45 or 1:46, so the mile WR really was soft. Hadn't they knocked chunks, like nearly 10 seconds, out of it for about 10 years prior to WW2, then that more or less knocked a lot of sports on the head for a while.

Can there really be another revolution in sports medicine and physiology like we've had over the last couple of decades? Impossible to answer of course, but its hard to see how really.

The London marathon this year was a real eye-opener I would've though for those who thought that sub-2 was a possibility. It was carnage after the too fast first half. Never mind if somebody might ever get into 2:01:xx shape, their pacers would have disappeared after 25km.

Clearlier

Filibuster wrote: »

We're only seeing the best long distance atheletes in the world focus on the marathon now - i.e. the East Africans. The 100m has been dominated by the best sprinting atheletes now for a long time - i.e. the West Africans & their descendents.

Times have fallen by over 2min in 10years and once the infrastructure is in place for a longer period I'm sure will fall further.

On the maturity thing. The difference in pace between 5k and 10k WR's is 4.14%, between (track) 10k and half marathon is 5.23% and between half marathon and marathon is 5.66%. You have to be careful about drawing too many conclusions from this type of analysis (e.g. gap between 400 and 800 is 16.8%) but I don't see anything jumping out to suggest that the marathon WR is weak compared to other records.

If you were to get the same gap between the half and the full as you have between the 5k and 10k you would have a record of 2:01:36. However I'd argue that the differing requirements for running a half compared to a marathon (at elite level only) are very much greater than the differing requirements to run a 5k compared to a 10k.

Nanazolie

Wait until I recover from plantar fasciitis

More seriously, I'm in awe of anyone who can run that fast. I always think when I reach a wall that some people are already showered and changed and enjoying a nice massage.

As for a sub 2 record. I hope to see it in my lifetime. It seems that new records are broken more frequently than before. Or maybe it's just me

Thud

If you leave the record out of it and set up a marthon that had a prevaling wind behind the runners and decent elevation drop it's possible one of the top guys could break the 2 hr mark.

Would be a bit of a gimmick but i'd imagine there's a few who'd like to be the first to say the brok 2hrs even if not for the record.

ThePiedPiper

Thud wrote: »

If you leave the record out of it and set up a marthon that had a prevaling wind behind the runners and decent elevation drop it's possible one of the top guys could break the 2 hr mark.

Would be a bit of a gimmick but i'd imagine there's a few who'd like to be the first to say the brok 2hrs even if not for the record.

It wouldn't count for WR purposes. Courses have to be within certain parameters in terms of how close the start and finish are to each other ( I think its 13 miles), and also another condition about the elevation difference.

that's why the 2:03:02 ran by Geoffrey Mutai in Boston a couple of years back isn't counted as a WR.

Thud

RunForestRun wrote: »

It wouldn't count for WR purposes. Courses have to be within certain parameters in terms of how close the start and finish are to each other ( I think its 13 miles), and also another condition about the elevation difference.

that's why the 2:03:02 ran by Geoffrey Mutai in Boston a couple of years back isn't counted as a WR.

that's why I said "if you leave the record out of it" it would just be the feat of running 26.2miles in less that 2hrs, you'd be a footnote rather that the person who broke the record (like Mutai is now or Ben Johnson was for a long time)

ecoli

RunForestRun wrote: »

It wouldn't count for WR purposes. Courses have to be within certain parameters in terms of how close the start and finish are to each other ( I think its 13 miles), and also another condition about the elevation difference.

that's why the 2:03:02 ran by Geoffrey Mutai in Boston a couple of years back isn't counted as a WR.

Among the few stipulations
- Must be measured by Jones counter to a ratio of .1% (meaning all courses are actually measured to 42.24km)
Elevation change can not exceed 1m per km (this is the reason looped courses are generally used to prevent any issue here as 42m elevation difference is not a whole lot)

There have been a number of records which have been discounted as a result of these factors - Cragg and Farah's IRL and GB half marathon records from New York and Mutai and Mosops runs in Boston

Enduro

Filibuster wrote: »

We're only seeing the best long distance atheletes in the world focus on the marathon now - i.e. the East Africans. The 100m has been dominated by the best sprinting atheletes now for a long time - i.e. the West Africans & their descendents.

How do you know the east africans are the best long distance athletes in the world? Is it just because they happen to be the majority of the best right now?