Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#71

Post by danielvf »

smogcutter wrote: post #59
stonewhite wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the other way around; running back from Marathon to Athens. The story takes place after Athenian Hoplites pushes back a Persian army into their ships at the Marathon shores, after which this ship sails to Athens to wreak havoc. Hoplites make the run from Marathon to Athens just in time to defend against Persians and successfully discourage them against further attacks. After the Battle of Marathon, hoplites who…

This is not correct. "We ran" refers to the hoplite charge during the battle itself, which was notable for being a long run at full tilt (although Herodotus likely exaggerates): http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... Here's the mention of "we ran" in Hansen: https://books.google.com/books?id=lAWEPUkz5sIC&pg=PT164&lpg=... The story of Pheidippides running from Marathon to Athens (and dying on…

"When they had been set in order and the sacrifices were favorable, the Athenians were sent forth and charged the foreigners at a run. The space between the armies was no less than eight stadia. [Note: One mile]

"The Persians saw them running to attack and prepared to receive them, thinking the Athenians absolutely crazy, since they saw how few of them there were and that they ran up so fast without either cavalry or archers.

"So the foreigners imagined, but when the Athenians all together fell upon the foreigners they fought in a way worthy of record. These are the first Hellenes whom we know of to use running against the enemy. They are also the first to endure looking at Median dress and men wearing it, for up until then just hearing the name of the Medes caused the Hellenes to panic.

-

It's also interesting to note that the Spartan army arrived at Marathon a day late "having marched (140 mi) in only three days."

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#72

Post by mikestew »

stonewhite wrote: post #50
zjaffee wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original definition of a marathon involves running from Athens to Marathon in Greece, and when your average person thinks of a marathon, they think of the street races that happen all around the world. Marathon running isn't necessarily a track and field sport in the way the 100 meter sprint is.

It is the other way around; running back from Marathon to Athens. The story takes place after Athenian Hoplites pushes back a Persian army into their ships at the Marathon shores, after which this ship sails to Athens to wreak havoc. Hoplites make the run from Marathon to Athens just in time to defend against Persians and successfully discourage them against further attacks. After the Battle of Marathon, hoplites who…

That’s not quite the version I grew up with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon#Marathon_...

A single man runs from Marathon to Athens, says only “we are victorious”, and then dies. That’s the legend, but it’s confusing two events. Pheidippides actually ran from Athens to Sparta to request reinforcements. The Marathon to Athens run has the hoplites getting there just in time to see the Persians leave Athens.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#73

Post by mikestew »

alasdair_ wrote: post #68
bobsgame wrote: post #11

I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible.

>I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible. A whole bunch of treadmills don't go past 8MPH and even that seems pretty fast to me to run at for an extended period of time.

I can run 10mph for 13 miles, and I’m in my fifties. That’s not to brag, but to point out that an 8 mph speed limit on a treadmill is ridiculously low. Sure, it probably fits the 80% use case, but that’s only about 8 minutes/mile. Not a very useful treadmill, IMO.

But I’ve been on a treadmill less than a half dozen times in my life, so what do the treadmill makers care what I think. :-)

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#74

Post by darrenf »

bobsgame wrote: post #11

I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible.

I was running Bushy parkrun[0] one Saturday in 2012 when Mo Farah was on a training run, in the opposite direction to the masses. It was like Road Runner went past, incredible pace. I was also there when Andy Baddeley got the parkrun record, 13:48. It just seems so ... ludicrous and impossible.

[0] http://www.parkrun.org.uk/bushy/

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#75

Post by jeffwass »

bobsgame wrote: post #11

I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible.

Indeed, it's absolutely mind blowing.

Top marathon runners average faster than five minute miles. That's sickeningly fast.

Back in high school my fastest single 1600m (a mile is 1609m, but one lap on a track is 400m) time was around a 5:15, and my fastest 800m was 2:27.

These elite marathon runners basically took my fastest 800m pace and repeated it 50 times.

Insane.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#77

Post by adrianmonk »

appleiigs wrote: post #43
olivermarks wrote: post #29

Speaking as someone who has run a lot of marathons and half marathons, it would be more honest to describe this project as attempting to have a human run 26.2 miles in under 2 hours in perfect, laboratory like conditions. It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO. Long but fascinating article though...

I don't know why runners are so snobby when it comes things like this. What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. Would you consider that achievement worse than perfect lab like conditions? It's a certain distance, by foot. That's it. I also see snobbishness and even anger toward run-walkers. Even if they do the same distance in the same conditions.

It isn't just perfect, lab-like conditions. It's a different set of rules. The International Association of Athletics Federations sets standards of what constitutes a marathon. Nike's event didn't follow those rules, so results in the two can't be directly compared. It's apples and oranges.

The most undeniable difference between the Breaking2 event and what would be allowed in an record-eligible marathon is the pacers used. In Breaking2, they swapped in different groups of 6 people to run in a carefully-engineered triangle formation directly in front of the main runners. In a real race, the winner cannot draft behind others the whole way. Because at some point obviously the winner must pull ahead, and the rules disallow drafting behind anyone who isn't running the same race. So the rules specifically forbid exactly what Nike did with pacers.

When you change the rules in a way that you know has a quantifiable effect on the outcome (and I'm sure Nike can tell you the numbers since they used computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to select the best pacer formation), it's not comparable anymore.

Now personally I don't have any problem with Nike's event. It was a fun exhibition thing that inspired and challenged people. Probably some good research even came out of it. But it's still fair to point out how the results on this don't really count.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#78

Post by devdad »

other_herbert wrote: post #47
padobson wrote: post #39

But by then, he had won four major marathons and the Olympic gold medal, and what he lacked in raw physical potential he made up for with … something. It seems like the next frontier in distance running optimization is the mind. Given the analysis on the runners' physiology, the only thing that really separated them was mentality. This seems obvious, given the nature of distance running, but the article never mention…

running may not seem like it, but the way you think about what you are doing especially in a race scenario can make or break you quickly... I recently ran a half and did almost all of my morning prep beforehand wrong.. forgot some key things, freaked myself out just before the race and did far worse than I had trained for... if you think you've messed up, you've messed up :)

A trick to get into a race (not based on empirical evidence, just my own experience) is to start counting in your head and turn off everything else. I counted 1-2-3 after I almost tripped in the beginning of a half marathon. Instead of focusing on beating myself up for almost tripping I just continued to count. Broke almost all my PB. Keeps you from thinking about messing up.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#79

Post by njarboe »

alasdair_ wrote: post #66
olivermarks wrote: post #29

Speaking as someone who has run a lot of marathons and half marathons, it would be more honest to describe this project as attempting to have a human run 26.2 miles in under 2 hours in perfect, laboratory like conditions. It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO. Long but fascinating article though...

>It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO. I agree. Anything other than a 26.2 mile race in footwear common in the classical hellenistic period that terminates in the ancient town of Marathon in Greece is a little insulting to REAL marathon runners. /s

Marathon to Athens, I believe is the correct route.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#80

Post by eitally »

imglorp wrote: post #16
Analemma_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.

Came here to talk about that and see what people thought about barefoot running: either completely unshod or very minimal padding for protection only and not for landing cushion/support. For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels. Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice when…

The science says: do what works for you. The biggest problem with so many studies is that, while people seem to believe running is something everyone can do (and do well, since it's the "easiest" of sports), that's not remotely true. People constantly hurt themselves by being terrible runners, and that almost never has a direct connection with their footwear of choice.
Post reply on HN