Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
6 Comments
Zawash*anatomy, *health.
I'm planning to debut in Chicago this autumn - the goal is 3 hours 30 minutes...
siftbotAdding video to channels (Anatomy, Health) - requested by Zawash.
dannym3141At no point in the video was there an explanation that came close to answering why it is almost impossible to run a two hour marathon. Or why only a handful of people could ever come close to it.
In fact, a lot of parts seem like they were created in a rush. At one point he says that mid 60s is "nowhere near" 70 or 80. When the average is 40? Is the scale logarithmic? If so it wasn't mentioned.
I'm very grateful for the information i did learn in the video, it was a nice little bit of info about running and runners. But it fell far short of investigating the 2 hour mile or answering the questions it posed. I wish videosift will not become a home for clickbait.
oritteropoYou mean apart from the explanation that the speed required to run a marathon is close to a flat-out sprint for most people, and that the maximum speed that you can sustain over two hours depends on the three factors that they explained in the video? It was discussed around 2:10 in the vid.
The handful of people have physiology that gives them unusually high oxygen uptake, lactate thresholds, and running efficiency.
It's slightly clickbaity because Nike... and despite serious cheating their attempt on the sub-2 hour marathon to sell shoes failed by 26 seconds.
p.s. The Grauniad had an article on what the rest of us can learn from these elite runners https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/06/secrets-two-hour-marathon-men-alter-running
At no point in the video was there an explanation that came close to answering why it is almost impossible to run a two hour marathon. Or why only a handful of people could ever come close to it.
In fact, a lot of parts seem like they were created in a rush. At one point he says that mid 60s is "nowhere near" 70 or 80. When the average is 40? Is the scale logarithmic? If so it wasn't mentioned.
I'm very grateful for the information i did learn in the video, it was a nice little bit of info about running and runners. But it fell far short of investigating the 2 hour mile or answering the questions it posed. I wish videosift will not become a home for clickbait.
greatgooglymooglysays...Yes, by using both pacers and wind blockers, the Nike attempt wouldn't have counted as a world record. At one point it was considered that a sub-4 minute mile was scientifically impossible. The science here would be more reassuring if they talked about that fancy equation, and how it matches various real world runners very well. For example, runner A has a VO2 max of 60, and an efficiency of 95% of theoretical peak. It should be impossible for him to get below the equation's theoretical best time of 2:07, but the best in the world with those stats should get close. Science is all about building a model you think is representative of real life, then test it. I don't see any testing of the model here to prove its validity.
oritteropoI think the attempt itself counts as a test!
This article from the Atlantic talks a little about why the Kenyans make such great runners - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-kenyans-make-such-great-runners-a-story-of-genes-and-cultures/256015/
There was certainly scope for the Wired vid to be much longer and more in-depth. They had an equally short and unsatisfying article about a journalist who trained for a 90 minute half marathon using the same training techniques the Kenyans use here - https://www.wired.com/2017/05/two-hour-marathon-nike-half-marathon/?mbid=synd_digg
Yes, by using both pacers and wind blockers, the Nike attempt wouldn't have counted as a world record. At one point it was considered that a sub-4 minute mile was scientifically impossible. The science here would be more reassuring if they talked about that fancy equation, and how it matches various real world runners very well. For example, runner A has a VO2 max of 60, and an efficiency of 95% of theoretical peak. It should be impossible for him to get below the equation's theoretical best time of 2:07, but the best in the world with those stats should get close. Science is all about building a model you think is representative of real life, then test it. I don't see any testing of the model here to prove its validity.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.