Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
wired.com
Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
1–10 of 126 posts
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#2Wear Altra shoes (or something similar) and protect your feet.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#3Wear Altra shoes (or something similar) and protect your feet.
Something wrong with Nikes?
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#4A few week's ago I read a a paper entitled "Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological factors".
I found the topic incredibly interesting. In this paper (from 1991) the author examines the limiting factors in human running and tries to build a model that gives you a bound on how fast a human could run a marathon. The results he got is 1:57:58.
You can take a look at the paper here http://fermatslibrary.com/s/modeling-optimal-marathon-perfor...
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#5Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something wrong with Nikes?
There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes (push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.
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.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#7A few week's ago I read a a paper entitled "Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological factors". I found the topic incredibly interesting. In this paper (from 1991) the author examines the limiting factors in human running and tries to build a model that gives you a bound on how fast a human could run a marathon. The results he got is 1:57:58. You can take a look at the paper here http://fer…
That paper is referenced in this story.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes (push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.
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.
Thankfully there are scientific data to prove
you wrong. You just need to leave your prejudice and bubble behind, and we're talking about running mechanics here not Nike's competitors producing minimalist shoe wear. They you can have doubt about.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes (push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.
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.
Yes. In fact, after that fad it swung the other way and the Hoka shoes started becoming very popular. I will say that, however, over time I've gradually switched to less supportive shoes as I've become more experienced as a runner. I started with "anti-pronation" shoes and now are running with fairly bare minimal shoes. I think I just like the feeling of lighter shoes.
Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt
#10I was going to call out this article on the "Untold" part, but apparently it was released before the NatGeo video [1]. The video is a good watch. I didn't plan to watch the whole thing, but it sucked me in. You really get attached to the runners.
When Kipchoge started falling behind, they seemed to not be worried, but I felt that they should have tried to remedy it right away.