Sub 2 Hour marathon?
Options
TheBrolympus
Posts: 586 Member
Will we see this anytime soon? I saw that another world record (unofficial at this point) was set in Chicago.
New world record @ Chicago Marathon. Dennis Kimetto of Kenya won the male division with an unofficial time of 2:03:45, breaking the previous record set last year of 2:04:38.
So close!
New world record @ Chicago Marathon. Dennis Kimetto of Kenya won the male division with an unofficial time of 2:03:45, breaking the previous record set last year of 2:04:38.
So close!
0
Replies
-
That's amazing! I'm sure sub 2 will happen eventually.0
-
Huh? He missed the world record by 22 seconds.
I doubt we see a sub 2-hour any time soon.0 -
no. 3 minutes is HUGE at that level. 3 mintues to a 5 hr marathoner..not so much..but to those fast people. Seconds matter.0
-
Years and years and years away. That is 8" per mile faster, a huge difference0
-
2035 at the earliest.0
-
He broke the Chicago Marathon record, not the world record. Still an amazing performance!0
-
This is a good article that came out about this: http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/why-a-sub-200-marathon-wont-happen-soon0
-
sit still and be very quiet for three minutes...it's a long time!!! lol!
When Bannister broke four minutes, that standard was broken a number of times within the first year. I wonder how much of the 2 hour mark is psychological.
When I was finishing my half this weekend, the elites were running by after finishing their marathon...it's so unimaginable to be able to run that fast for so long!0 -
When I was finishing my half this weekend, the elites were running by after finishing their marathon...it's so unimaginable to be able to run that fast for so long!
Agreed! I couldn't keep up with them for ten yards... to think of that pace for 26.2 MILES is crazy.0 -
Soon? No. In my lifetime? Probably.0
-
That kind of speed absolutely fascinates me!0
-
OK, after reading that I would have to agree pretty strongly that it will not happen anytime soon. But there is one outside factor to consider - the freak of nature. By pure chance or adaptation, there me be someone who takes up running and finds it easier to go faster for longer than anyone has before because something is different in that person's specific physical/genetic makeup. The article makes a very good case for saying that the gap is too large for any current distance runner to close it by training harder.This is a good article that came out about this: http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/why-a-sub-200-marathon-wont-happen-soon0 -
Cool article. That breaks it down nicely.0 -
Why would it be far off? What if there is a teenage superstar who will do it in a few years? What will be different about humans in 20 years compared to now? Is it that we will make new scientific discoveries in training/nutrition? Are we just waiting for a new batch of superstars to be born?
I'm not being skeptical or anything. It's just a very curious thing to me. I wonder if our performance depends a lot on shoe technology and the science of training and recovery. Or maybe we just keep setting out goals to be small increments better than the last person's best. We aim to beat world records by fractions of a second as opposed to training for a sub 2 marathon all along.
hmmmm I wonder
0 -
I guess I should read the article :P0
-
Breaking down the 03:23 (actually 03:24 to get to 1:59:59) ends up being 7+ seconds per mile. That might not be a huge number over a shorter distance, but to sustain that over 26.2 is no small feat, even for the top elite talent in the world.
The most probably way I'd guess this would happen in the not-too-distant future would be via a scentific development, some kind of *ahem* supplement to increase not only VO2max, but lactate threshold, and to be able to sustain that for 2 hrs.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see it. It'll give me something to shoot for 0
