Feel a bit bad for Yomif Kejelcha who also broke the 2-hour mark, with this being his first competition marathon , but managed to neither break a record nor win.
While I know competitors want to always strive to be the best, as a completely normal human who struggles to complete a half marathon under two hours, I do not feel bad for the guy. He’s still one of the only two people to do it (outside of the very controlled run from Kipchoge). Not a feat to feel bad about at all.
While I know competitors want to always strive to be the best, as a completely normal human who struggles to complete a half marathon under two hours, I do not feel bad for the guy. He’s still one of the only two people to do it (outside of the very controlled run from Kipchoge). Not a feat to feel bad about at all.
The majority of people in the world cannot complete a half marathon, let alone under two hours. I was pleased to train enough that I managed under three. You're doing great!
half marathon is ~20 KM its pretty sad that a large percentage of people cant do that. One can simply walk that much distance wihtout any prior training.
One gram of carbs is 4 calories., so more like 400 calories per hour. It was confusing when the running industry switched from calories to grams of carbs, but that's all anyone talks about now.
Because calories simply do not matter. At high intensities of working out, it's the amount of carbohydrates you can consume that allow more fuel to be burnt. "In the aerobic exercise domain up to ~100% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), CHO is the dominant fuel, as CHO-based oxidative metabolism can be activated quickly, provide all of the fuel at high aerobic power outputs (> 85-90% VO2max) and is a more efficient f…
Then why replace one imprecise term with another? Fiber is a carbohydrate. Humans use close to nothing from its energy. (Though it plays another important role in the digesive system.)
Try eating 100g of grass per hour during a marathon and you will see. That's the metabolic edge horses have over humans.
Stunning results at the top of the field. Some interesting takeaways on both fuelling and shoes. Maurten spent months working with Sawe and other runners getting their gut capacity trained so they could absorb and burn 100 carbs per hour[0][1] > The Maurten research team was embedded with Sawe’s team in Kenya for 32 days across six trips between last and this April. They were training his gut to absorb that load by m…
I normally consume 90g of carbs per hour when long distance biking, so do a few other riders I know. No GI issues. I use Skratch some other guys like Precision.
Much like the road bikes that cost as much as a sedan, unless you are competing on a world stage, these aren’t meant for you. I’m sure someone will happily sell them to you if you enjoy wasting money.
> unless you are competing on a world stage, these aren’t meant for you. There’s a lot of people trying to get a 3 hour marathon or some other goal where chasing the marginal gains is worth the cost to them.
10% improvement on a 5 hour marathon time is more absolute seconds than on a 2.1hr marathon time.
Yes, that was the claim but it was never really backed by evidence. Vibram settled a lawsuit over false claims that their minimalist shoes reduced the risk of injuries. (I still like those shoes myself and use them on some slow recovery runs.) https://www.bbc.com/news/business-27335251
This topic deserves so much more nuance, but it's always reduced to "barefoot running doesn't work" in internet forums. In every articles about the harm caused by barefoot running I've read, those reported injuries all end up being overuse injuries. The article you linked is specifically about bone marrow edema, which is basically bone bruise. Other possible injuries include muscle and tendon soreness. If this were a…
Also letting chlidren run and play barefoot actaully helps develop the foot properly which I presonally think is benificial in the long run.
Much like the road bikes that cost as much as a sedan, unless you are competing on a world stage, these aren’t meant for you. I’m sure someone will happily sell them to you if you enjoy wasting money.
> unless you are competing on a world stage, these aren’t meant for you. There’s a lot of people trying to get a 3 hour marathon or some other goal where chasing the marginal gains is worth the cost to them.
What sort of gain would that be for a non-world class runner? I'm unfamiliar with high level running, but I'm curious as in most sports these sort of things provide a small benefit at the top level (seems to be about a ~3% reduction in times over the past decade since the shoe wars began), and that quickly becomes statistical noise outside of the top due to diminishing returns.
Stunning results at the top of the field. Some interesting takeaways on both fuelling and shoes. Maurten spent months working with Sawe and other runners getting their gut capacity trained so they could absorb and burn 100 carbs per hour[0][1] > The Maurten research team was embedded with Sawe’s team in Kenya for 32 days across six trips between last and this April. They were training his gut to absorb that load by m…
> could absorb and burn 100 calories per hour burning a hundred calories an hour is trivial. Most people will burn 100 calories per mile when walking or running, and more if moving as fast as these athletes, and many, many humans can do this for far, far longer than 2 hours. It's the absorbtion that's the challenge. Maurten is not somehow alone in the particular stuff they've developed - ultra runners are generally s…
The last few years, cycling and triathlon have been experimenting with upto 120g carbs intake per hour. Last year, Cameron Wurf ate 200g carbs per hour when he broke the world record for fastest bike split ever in a triathlon (which was broken again a few months later).
Ooooh, interesting- I’ll take a read, thanks! I’m guessing like most things of this nature, you’re likely to have super-responders, responders and non-responders?
Yes, most of the studies show there is a very large individual variation. The original 4% figure and similar studies were an average of something like 1-7% across runners. Also interestingly, the shoe in this record uses much less carbon than past shoes, both saving weight and allowing even more super foam where much of the energy return comes from. Though there so much variance in shoe design and materials there are…
I read somewhere that the carbon plate is more to stabilize the shoe, that with only the foam the shoe would be very unstable.
Posted to my in-laws, who asked how: Super shoes. Most shoes have carbon plates in them now, they act as a spring, storing energy and propelling athletes forwards. Better understanding of fuelling. Most athletes are taking between 100-120g carbs (sugar) per hour. Bicarbonate of soda has also been effective. Better planning tools. Athletes look at elevation, headwind, tailwind and will plan a strategy around going har…
> going harder into the hard stuff and knowing when they can back off and rest. Why is going harder in the hard stuff and easier in the easy stuff more efficient or faster than vice versa? I imagine arguments either way: Going harder when it's easy gives you higher ROI. Or maybe going easier when it's hard is just too slow. And maybe that is too simplistic: Maybe it depends on how hard; that is, maybe there is a thre…
A fun little effect is that average speed is time-averaged not distance-averaged. So when you go slower, you lose doubly - lower speed to average and over a longer time (higher weight). Hence one of the reasons why putting more energy into the harder bits is actually optimal.