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

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#101

Post by brianwawok »

jandrese wrote: post #12
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.

13.1 mph is a decent pace on a bike! That's the sort of pace you set for a commute to split minimizing your commute time with arriving at work not completely exhausted and sweaty.

Are you including stopsigns in that, or actual steady state?

I think up to 15 or 18 mph is pretty easy pace for anyone who even road bikes once a week.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#102

Post by rconti »

I'm surprised to see no mention of temperature here. The article says the temperature was 53f and "a little bit humid", and concludes with the Nike experts saying they disagreed that it might have been too warm, arguing that the temperature was perfect.

This flies in the face of much of what I've seen.

Alex Hutchinson wrote a wonderful article entitled "What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?" in 2014[1], and in a subsequent piece[2] he lays out data from Paris officials who have found that the fastest elite runners did best with temps at 38.9f. This is a HUGE unexplained difference. Furthermore, with pacers blocking the wind more than ever, the Breaking2 effort would have given Kipchoge even less opportunities for evaporative and convective cooling.

"When French researchers analyzed the finishing times of 1.8 million marathoners over a 10-year period, they found that a race-day temp of 43.2°F produced the quickest times overall. But faster runners, who generate more heat, benefited from cooler temps, with the top one percent (green line below) peaking at 38.9°F. Midpackers (red line) do best in the mid-40s."

[1] https://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/?_ga=2.79362900.1119941834...

[2]https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/whats-the-optimal...

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#103

Post by brianwawok »

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.

http://www.treadmillreviews.net/best-treadmill/serious-runne...

I see some going up to 18 mph, but they are a bit pricey :) Woodway is a popular brand for rich runners...

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#104

Post by Gustomaximus »

rconti wrote: post #102

I'm surprised to see no mention of temperature here. The article says the temperature was 53f and "a little bit humid", and concludes with the Nike experts saying they disagreed that it might have been too warm, arguing that the temperature was perfect. This flies in the face of much of what I've seen. Alex Hutchinson wrote a wonderful article entitled "What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?" in 2014[1], and in…

38.9°F is 3.8°C to save people a conversion.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#105

Post by olivermarks »

bhc3 wrote: post #92
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...

Oliver - as a fellow marathoner, I'll disagree on this. 26.2 is just a long run, with ever degrading legs. Even with the drafting behind the phalanx of runner, one's legs are being put through some rough work. I watched the Kipchoge doing this race. He was a beast, not a lab rat. Note that two other runners, with all the advantages, couldn't come close to what he did. For me, this was confirmation that humans do inde…

@bhc3 hey Hutch - you and I have run together in the past!

Surprised this thread has the legs it has - I was merely pointing out the sterile (and arguably Nike marketing oriented) attempt at a sub 2 hour 26.2 mile effort was, despite being a super human effort, not a 'marathon' per se. This has been beaten to death elsewhere online in running forums. Yes it is a little 'snobby' to say that, but formally a 'marathon' is a race and not a time trial...and more importantly a mass participation activity where finishing is considered a triumph for the average Joe or Jane.

I happen to think the Nike record attempt hijacks the everyday heroism of all those folks grinding out winter training after or before work right now, but I do agree the superhuman element of the athletes involved in the Nike event was incredible...

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#106

Post by js2 »

baddox wrote: post #98
js2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've run over 25 marathons. A half-marathon is a weekly training run. I've got a 3:07 PR. I am not insulted. The limits of human performance are fascinating! > He drove onward, breaking the tape in two hours and 25 seconds. I just ran a marathon two weeks ago in 3:15:24. I'd only wanted to break 3:20 that day so I was more than satisfied. Yet I still found myself going over my race wondering why I couldn't find just…

Out of curiosity, do you track and monitor your progress during your runs? This article makes it sound like doing so is very important, which makes sense.

I do. I run with a Garmin, mostly to keep myself from running the first hour or so too fast. The rest of the race I check my splits (mile markers) but mostly run by feel.

When I ran Chicago last year my Garmin lost the GPS signal so I just went with the pace group runners. Usually only the mid-size to large races have pacers, and you never know how good they are, but at Chicago the pacers may as well be professionals.

Regardless, yes, running even effort is critical to the best performance. This can be tricky depending upon terrain, wind, and temperature. Also, personally do best going out a bit slow (the first 5K or so). Being able to pass runners as the race wears on is a huge psychological boost for me.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#107

Post by js2 »

brianwawok wrote: post #99
baddox wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, do you track and monitor your progress during your runs? This article makes it sound like doing so is very important, which makes sense.

GPS watches! Can't live without them.

If it's not on Strava, did the run even happen? :-)

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#108

Post by FreeCrypto »

robotresearcher wrote: post #96
FreeCrypto wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. Kipchoge would probably be insulted that the OP uses the term "run" in describing anything that's slower than 5:15 pace.

Or perhaps he's not an asshole and considers running to be whatever the runner is happy with.

I think you're right, he seems like a super nice dude in his interviews :)

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#109

Post by tinymollusk »

robotresearcher wrote: post #93
dilyevsky wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only the steroid quote is whole lot of bullshit but running is not really competitive in the same way basketball and wrestling/boxing are.

So you and I start the race standing next to each other, then we run to the finish line. One of us wins. Why is that not competitive like a fight or basketball?

Not OP, but I'd say it's different because in running, your performance is mostly based on yourself. In boxing and basketball, you have an opponent trying to prevent you from executing your plan.

I'm not judging better or worse and I hate the "is golf a sport" arguments.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#110

Post by dang »

greglindahl wrote: post #91
dang wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to what arcticfox correctly said: we put the year on articles from previous years but this one is from earlier in 2017. Historical material is super welcome here too. The "News" in "Hacker News" is like a second-hand clothing store in my home town called "New to You". Of course this article didn't qualify in your case, but that's the general idea. Older posts can't be new to all of the people all of the time b…

One would hope that discussions about whether repeating old news is interesting or not is encouraged.

HN's definition of 'interesting' is for practical purposes pretty established. Of course we don't all agree, but there's enough of a stable core that I wouldn't say it changes much.
Post reply on HN