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

Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

irunfar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 294 posts

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#221

Post by Lukas_Skywalker »

gorkish wrote: post #176
c-fe wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strava also shares the latitude/elevation during the run. (Screenshot in case you dont have Strava https://imgur.com/PuuKo5r ) What I find interesting and don't really understand is why the elevation keeps going down during the run, even though he stayed on the same track. Anyone have an idea why that could be?

The elevation in this case is just a proxy for storing the barometric pressure, which is because the actual air pressure is the important thing to track if you are trying to normalize against athletic performance. If the watch logged the GPS altitude, it would be a lot more accurate, but less useful as the air density would only be estimated..

All GPS watches already calculate their altitude (GPS uses three dimensional trilateration for computing the position, so you must get the elevation because you must calculate the three dimensional position). The elevation measure is usually pretty inaccurate in Central Europe. Since the satellites are comparably low above the horizon, flat movements of the runner have a large effect on the run time of the signals coming from the satellites, while vertical movements do not really change the run time and are therefore much more affected by any error.

This is why most portals like Strava run a data correction by overriding the elevation data of the GPS track by tracing the path over their internal elevation model.

The barometric elevation calculation is usually much more accurate and is constantly calibrated on the watch. This breaks down a little if you run for over 24 hours and the weather changes a lot. The drift over the 24 hours of this run amounts to about 8m over 2 hours, which doesn't really matter. And while air pressure can be used to normalize performance of the athletes, the absolute values measured by the barometer are usually pretty inaccurate, while the relative changes are quite accurate. Therefore, they can be used to measure climb/descent, but not really for an absolute air density measurement.

Source: I have worked on a GPS wearable (without barometric pressure sensor).

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#222

Post by notacoward »

phphphphp wrote: post #217
notacoward wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ~25 minute 5k which most reasonably healthy adults could build up to quite quickly For 5km, 25:00 would put you into the top 10% (median is 34:37). https://runrepeat.com/how-do-you-masure-up-the-runners-perce... That's out of those who post times in measured/timed events, so it would be an even better result compared to all runners, and better still compared to fit people specializing in other sports such as cyclin…

I'm not sure how much I trust those stats. If you look at parkrun results, 25 minutes is definitely not the top 10%. I imagine you're familiar with parkrun, but just in case: parkrun is a weekly, non-competitive, just for fun 5k -- with millions of participants, and all their stats are online. I picked a bunch of random events from last week's parkrun, and for most of them, ~>1/3rd finish in Click a town name in the…

Yes, those numbers seem somewhat faster, but the medians I got for the four courses I looked at were still 27:27, 29:02, 27:13, and 28:19. 25:00 is still better than median even among runners who participate in official events, so it still seems true that 25:00 is closer to "well conditioned athlete" than to "reasonably healthy adult". Remember, "well conditioned" doesn't mean an elite marathoner, and "athlete" doesn't mean a professional. If you're running 5km in under 25:00 you're well ahead of the vast majority of human beings.

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#223

Post by [deleted] »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #216
anthonypasq wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

humans are remarkably good at running. Granted this was in high school, but I went from huffing and puffing a 3 mile jog to being able to go for leisurely 8 mile runs within a couple months.

If you do 8 miles every day my hat is off to you, I find I'm happiest only running 4 days a week.

[deleted]

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#224

Post by nopinsight »

sendomatic wrote: post #172
nopinsight wrote: post #161

For many people, the risk to long-term health (and in some cases even sudden cardiac death) due to extreme running might not be worth it. Ultramarathon running: how safe is the sport? https://theconversation.com/ultramarathon-running-how-safe-i... Potential Long-Term Health Problems Associated with Ultra-Endurance Running: A Narrative Review https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01561-3

Interesting link. But the way you introduce it overstates the statements made by the research.

I have just a couple of friends who run full marathons on a regular basis. One of them just died this year, probably due to heart condition, one day after a marathon. He has no other ailments we knew of.

It’s anecdotal, yes, but coupled with some research and other medical advice I’ve read, running marathons or longer distance too often and aiming for a competitive time likely has long-term negative effects on your health.

(Note: The etymology of ‘marathon’ also gives a small hint of this, though obviously Pheidippides ran in a very different condition from modern marathons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheidippides )

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#225

Post by [deleted] »

jeltz wrote: post #214
notacoward wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers simply don't agree with you. Instead of repeating myself, I'll just cite my other comment in this thread (including link to RunRepeat). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32900865

That does not contradict with what he said. If you average 8 km per day I think most men and quite many women would be able to run a 45 minute 10k. You just need to be willing to put in that much hard work and not be obese.

[deleted]

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#226

Post by doc_gunthrop »

foobarian wrote: post #80
dmos62 wrote: post #5

I've started running and an unexpected challenge is boredom. The running is challenging as is, but doing it for ~1h30m has been, for me, well, tedious. I guess that's a byproduct of always being within arm's reach of a phone.

My problem with running was knee malfunction. I don't know how people do it short of just accepting the damage and/or getting mechanical replacements.

I had some knee pain issues (likely caused by ITBS) last year when I increased my running frequency. Not wanting to rest for more than a few days, I'd still go running and then just reduce to a walk when the pain became unbearable.

I researched and found a few helpful tips that helped eliminate the problem. One was to correct my running form. Overstriding will kill your knees; don't let your upper body lean back from your lower body. Your body should be vertically aligned, head to foot, with each landing (though a slight forward tilt of your torso is fine). Another tip is to incorporate lower body strength exercises. Lastly, be sure to do stretches after (at least half of) your runs.

These days I run almost daily and experience no knee pain. At my current rate I'm on track to finish 2000 miles for the year.

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#227

Post by js2 »

dfc wrote: post #140
speedgoose wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t know you could get a watch with more than 24 hours of battery life including GPS tracking (COROS APEX Pro). The accuracy is a bit weird though, the elevation chart doesn’t make sense.

I don't think it's that big of a deal for good running watches. I ran the JFK50 with a three year old Garmin 935 with a heart strap (HRM-Tri) in a little under 11 hours. My watch was close to 50%. That was with GPS updates every second. It would have been much better if I left it at the default, not the ultratrac or whatever they call the endurance battery mode.

It's really only been the last few years that running watches could last >24 hours with GPS tracking enabled.

I also have a Forerunner 935 which I've used for 24 hours, but I think I had it in ultra-mode where it takes GPS samples less often.

Before that I had a Forerunner 230 and I had to charge that mid race during a 100-miler, which was fun to do while running (used an external battery, put the watch and battery in a running vest while running one of my laps).

The latest watches which do 36 hours or more with full GPS accuracy are really amazing.

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#228

Post by notacoward »

jeltz wrote: post #214
notacoward wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers simply don't agree with you. Instead of repeating myself, I'll just cite my other comment in this thread (including link to RunRepeat). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32900865

That does not contradict with what he said. If you average 8 km per day I think most men and quite many women would be able to run a 45 minute 10k. You just need to be willing to put in that much hard work and not be obese.

Both I and the person I was responding to cited numbers and you come back with "I think"? Really? Here are the results from the Peachtree Road Race, which is the largest 10K in the US. Only 1036/34877 (3%) of participants finished in under 45:00.

https://www.athlinks.com/event/115192/results/Event/1016777/...

Second largest is Dick's Sporting Goods Bolder Boulder: 1202/27997 (4%).

https://www.athlinks.com/event/6172/results/Event/1020677/Co...

Third largest is the Cooper River Bridge Run: 549/16053 (3%).

https://www.athlinks.com/event/9036/results/Event/1013345/Co...

Clearly, getting under 45:00 takes a lot more than just "hard work and not be obese" - some combination of youth, talent, and years of grinding it out harder even than most other runners. No, not 8km every day; that's a bit of a tell for lack of direct experience or expertise. I know only a handful of people - including myself but excluding many marathoners - who average even half that beyond a brief (month or two) pre-race training period, and all of us take days off. Any training guide will explain why. 45:00 for 10km is something that most people will never achieve, even with practice and even if they are considered very fit by any reasonable measure. FOr those who can do it, kudos, but let's not hold it up as a meaningful standard.

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#229

Post by mdtusz »

twawaaay wrote: post #186
gnuj3 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He just wants others to tell him that he is.

No, I just want to say that probably most of healthy people (well, at the very least men) can, with a bit of preparation, achieve the above mentioned result with no prior history of doing any serious sports. It would require some effort but it is doable in 6 months. Why does everybody assume this is vanity?

The problem is that you said you're not athletic or not a conditioned athlete, then described exactly what it takes to become a conditioned athletic person - dedication to training and putting in the mileage.

Anyone that can run a half marathon every weekend and 30km+ during the week is almost by definition athletic. Yes, nearly anyone can achieve this with the dedication it takes, but that doesn't change the fact you're being overly humble about your own athleticism.

It's like someone saying "I'm not an engineer, and am not particularly good at math or physics, but I studied 3 days a week and got an engineering degree and now I work at an engineering firm and can solve most math and physics problems."

Re: Aleksandr Sorokin smashes 24-hour world record with 198.6 mile run

#230

Post by twawaaay »

notacoward wrote: post #228
jeltz wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not contradict with what he said. If you average 8 km per day I think most men and quite many women would be able to run a 45 minute 10k. You just need to be willing to put in that much hard work and not be obese.

Both I and the person I was responding to cited numbers and you come back with "I think"? Really? Here are the results from the Peachtree Road Race, which is the largest 10K in the US. Only 1036/34877 (3%) of participants finished in under 45:00. https://www.athlinks.com/event/115192/results/Event/1016777/... Second largest is Dick's Sporting Goods Bolder Boulder: 1202/27997 (4%). https://www.athlinks.com/event/6172/…

I think you might be looking wrong at how big an accomplishment it is to be in top 3 or 4% of random sample of people in a field where a lot of people do it recreationally.

All running events I took part look more or less like this -- there is a line of a dozen or two dozen "serious" people and then there is hundreds or thousands of people that are just doing it for fun.

If you put a random sample of drivers on a track, the person that is half percentile from the top result would still be an amateur with poor result by any possible standard.

Or, think in terms of Settlers of Catan. If you've red any strategy tutorial on how you should properly play it to win the game you are probably in the top 0.1% of players. Does it make you special? Does it make you a professional player? Most certainly not...

I think it is true for a lot of fields, including running, that if you are trying at all, putting any effort, you immediately jump to top percent or two of all participants.

Post reply on HN