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

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#91

Post by greglindahl »

dang wrote: post #63
smidgen2 wrote: post #25

This is not news. Why is this in the HN feed? I read this article months ago.

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.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#92

Post by bhc3 »

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 indeed have room to push the current world record further down.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#93

Post by robotresearcher »

dilyevsky wrote: post #88
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…

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?

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#94

Post by robotresearcher »

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…

> Probably some good research even came out of it.

Which they didn't publish, so it can only help Nike and their friends. That's the least good kind of research.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#95

Post by Retric »

mikestew wrote: post #73
alasdair_ wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I can run 10mph for 13 miles, and I’m in my fifties. That’s not to brag, but to point out that an 8 mph speed limit on a treadmill is ridiculously low. Sure, it probably fits the 80% use case, but that’s only about 8 minutes/mile. Not a very useful treadmill, IMO. But I’ve been on a treadmill less than a half dozen times in my life, so what do the treadmill makers care what I think. :-)

You burn more calories and do less dammage to your joints if you increase the incline instead of increasing speed.

For most people that's a worthwhile tradeoff.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#96

Post by robotresearcher »

FreeCrypto wrote: post #90
hsitz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO. Well, the guys participating were three of the best marathoners in the world, probably one (Kipchoge) who is the best ever, so I doubt whether they or anybody involved were concerned about "insulting" marathon runners. Everybody was well aware that the conditions were different and would help create a faster time than possible in a regula…

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.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#97

Post by robotresearcher »

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.

For comparison in the other direction the world record 800m is David Rudisha 1:40.91 (2012). That's also ridiculous.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#98

Post by baddox »

js2 wrote: post #69
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...

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.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#99

Post by brianwawok »

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.

GPS watches! Can't live without them.

Re: Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt

#100

Post by johnsonjo »

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…

I think part of that mental toughness that may be overlooked is being dedicated and putting in the time to become a true champion. If you devote a good amount of your waking hours to a craft or sport and you use that time properly (learning to do things right rather than doing them repeatedly wrong) then you will excel.

I learned this from one of my Drumline instructors at university who was also a biology professor; He stated that one of his students did poorly on his exam and the student said he studied hours on end and didn’t know how that could happen. The professor replied, the amount you study isn’t nearly as important as studying efficiently and correctly. He then likened that to us practicing drums he said, if you spend hours practicing with improper technique then you are doing yourself a disservice and he finished up by saying you will only perform as well or likely worse than how you perform while practicing.

Despite that efficiency beats time in most aspects, if you want to do well at the National and international level you will still likely have to devote a very major part of you waking hours to honing your skills efficiently.

Post reply on HN