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

111–120 of 126 posts

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#111

Post by aezell »

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…

In the ultramarathon world, there is increasing attention being paid to PEDs. A lot of that focus is not on the physical benefits of the drugs, though that is important, but the focus is also on the mental benefits. That is, drugs that lower anxiety and/or increase focus can have greater benefits in a race that might last 20 hours. So, in my world, being physically able to run 50 or 100 miles is just table stakes. It's the mental game that makes the difference in whether you cross the finish line or not.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#112

Post by aezell »

Elite marathoners are incredibly fast. It boggles the mind. But, for me, I'm more impressed by Camille Herron breaking the world record (men's and women's) for 100 miles in 12 hours, 42 minutes, and 39 seconds which is a 7:38/mi pace.

Running a 7:38 mile would be really fast for most adults, but to do it over 100 miles is unthinkable.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#113

Post by crikli »

aezell wrote: post #112

Elite marathoners are incredibly fast. It boggles the mind. But, for me, I'm more impressed by Camille Herron breaking the world record (men's and women's) for 100 miles in 12 hours, 42 minutes, and 39 seconds which is a 7:38/mi pace. Running a 7:38 mile would be really fast for most adults, but to do it over 100 miles is unthinkable.

Agreed. Amazing accomplishment that many runners even don’t know about. I had a friend running the same race and it took him just under 20 hours. A seven hour difference boggles the mind.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#115

Post by robotresearcher »

tinymollusk wrote: post #109
robotresearcher wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pro distance runners learn about their rivals' style and preferences, and have race strategies to frustrate 'em.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#116

Post by runamok »

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.

Most treadmills max out at 10 mph or so. Maybe 12. I have run a 2:44 marathon and at my best I would have been able to keep up with them for about .5 miles (based on my 800 meter time of 2:10). Very few people can hit that pace without damaging something unless they have seriously trained.

Agree on the incredible part. I have seen elites race in person at the 2008 Olympic trials and it is unreal how smooth and fast they are.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#117

Post by runamok »

jeffwass wrote: post #75
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.

A bit faster actually. Just under 4:35 pace!

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#118

Post by runamok »

adrianmonk wrote: post #77
appleiigs wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pacer…

They could have played games with the groups letting them get lapped but that would have probably been very challenging to implement.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#119

Post by keiferski »

robotresearcher wrote: post #115
tinymollusk wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pro distance runners learn about their rivals' style and preferences, and have race strategies to frustrate 'em.

Having co-participants is not the same thing as having direct opponents.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#120

Post by jeremy_wiebe »

keiferski wrote: post #119
robotresearcher wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pro distance runners learn about their rivals' style and preferences, and have race strategies to frustrate 'em.

Having co-participants is not the same thing as having direct opponents.

It’s not identical but this sounds like direct competition. I’ve read other quotes from Jim Walmsley about the mental competition in an ultramarathon.

> “You shouldn’t let others bully you on the course and make you do something you aren’t comfortable with, like going too fast or too slow,” he said. > > “You need to find your pace and, if you can, try to bully one of the other big names into going your pace and not their pace.”

http://m.scmp.com/sport/outdoor/article/2109266/jim-walmsley...

Post reply on HN