I agree Frank that its a certainty that someone will break 2 hours in the next 30 years, its also IMHO a certainty that they'll be on something.

Today guys are running the second half of a 10K in what was the world record for the 5K just a few years ago. That is just too big a leap to believe that better training is responsible....distance training isn't rocket science, just a lot of hard work.

I'm not going to name names or point fingers, but the records started to tumble when Belgian and Italian cycling coaches went to Africa to work with athletes there.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

[reply]....distance training isn't rocket science, just a lot of hard work.[/reply]

It may not be rocket science but it is a lot more than simply "just a lot of hard work". If it were simply a matter of hard work lots of people would be running sub-2:15.

As methods that have been developed that improve technique get used in those with the proper genetic predispositions and combined with all that hard work, the records will tumble, big time. I was told an anecdote the other day that reinforces my view on this.

I have predicted a sub- 7:30 is possible in the IM. I suspect a sub 1:55 is possible in the marathon.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Frank...of course its more than hard work, genetic play a huge part too. There have always been genetic outliers who when combined with a good training regimen have broken world records.

Henry Rono for example was an outlier, at his absolute best nobody in the world could get anywhere near him at any distance he chose to race. His 10K world record is about a lap and a half behind Bekele's.....I don't think distance training has advanced that much that quickly and I don't think its going to advance to the point that we'll see a genuine clean sun 2 hour marathon in our lifetimes.

The training Rono did is not vastly different than the training Bekele is doing and they are both the genetic outliers of their respective generations...so why the huge gulf in relative performance?

(damn you made me do it, I named a name)

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Hey Frank, Matt and Fleck, do you guys think that they ran a marathon on a track with spikes like the 10000, they might be able to break 2:00 without PEDs ?

Nope.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

[reply]Hey Frank, Matt and Fleck, do you guys think that they ran a marathon on a track with spikes like the 10000, they might be able to break 2:00 without PEDs ?[/reply]

Not being a runner I am not sure what 200+ 180º left turns would do to them over 2 hours. I think it is possible either way without drugs.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Henry Rono isn't the best example of why running is faster now. If you compare Rono to Bekele, one you cannot say that Bekele is training the same way. Bekele is Gebrasalassie protege and they are very secretive of their training, so who knows?

Secondly Bekele is a pro, whereas most of Ronos records were set during his college days with college training, which isn't typically optimal. Rono more than likely ran much less mileage.

Third Ronos records were hardly the paced time trials of today. For his 5 k world record he purposely sprionted the straight aways and eased up on the curves to get a workout in. Who knows how fast he would of run that day if he wasn't doing what amopunts to an interval workout.

Forth his 10 km record was not a lap and a half better. His best time was 62 seconds slower than the current WR or about 350m behind. Still a big gap but lests be accurate.

Finally Ronos career was ultimately cut short due to personal problems. Who knows what times he may have run? He took huge chunks off hius PRs in one great season, then by and large was never the same.

Training today is much different than it was back then. Higher mileage, more miles at lactate threshold, better understanding of HR, lactate, recovery, diet, weight training, altitude training etc.

I'm not saying that current athletes aren't on drugs some certainly are. But to say all world record in every sports have been set and any new ones are proof of drug use is ridiculous.



Styrrell

I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that the huge leaps in progression since the development of EPO should raise eyebrows.

I also don't think its humanly possible to run 1:59:59 without drugs. There has to be a ceiling of natural human ability and a 2 hour marathon is in my opinion above that ceiling.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Let's look at it this way. In the 100m, it is pretty well 9.9 seconds. You could likely attribute the bulk of sub 9.9 races in the past 17 years to faster tracks and better footwear and the odd (OK maybe more than the odd) steroid user. Literally, there have been no improvements in the 100m since around Mexico City Olympics. 9.9 gives you around 36 kph.

The 4 min mile gives you 24 kph. The two hour marathon is 21.1 kph, or 4:35 per mile. Clearly, the energy systems in the 100 m are different. They have reached human limits. The marathon is likely closer to the energy systems for the 1 mile, where improvements continue to be made. Can guys get down to 4:34 per mile for 26.2 ? On paper, it looks possible with the right surface, training, pacing and genetics :-). Its only 14% slower than Roger Bannister ran...but for 26.2 times longer :-)

I'm not replying to you, just a thought to add to the general disussion.

So we are humans and go by the time units of seconds, minutes, and hours. I think it is somewhat funny that every time an athlete approches a certain time that changes sevearl digits, people say that it is impossible and there are physiological limits to that. Not that there aren't any physiological limits. But why is it that running 1 mile in under 4minutes was believed to be physiologically impossible. Swimming 100m Breast in under the minute mark used to be believed to be impossible also.

I wonder how this thread would have evolved if the initial post would have asked: Is it possible to run a marathon under 2hrs 1min?

Yes, I know that running 2hrs 0min 59sec is slower than running the same distance in 1hrs 59min 59sec. But I truly wonder if we as humans are not biased because of the changing digits.

Just to play with you guy's thoughts for a little. Let's say 1minute would consist of 58 seconds instead of the 60seconds. Would that change anything in terms of you guy's opinion about whether it is physiologically impossible to run sub 2hrs? Physiology certainly doesn't care about what a minute consists of. I'm sure plenty of people would still believe that 2hrs (on the 58 second =1minute scale) was the magical mark?

Is it simply "magic numbers" that cause us humans doubt such performances? Why is it that physiological limits are always reached at the 4min, 1min, and 2hrs mark? Pretty funny, isn't it?! I certainly believe that those magic number have a huge impact on our minds.



gotta go ride now :)

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

I don't think its humanly possible for a clean runner to run 2:01:26 for the marathon.

How bout them apples.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

[reply]Let's look at it this way. In the 100m, it is pretty well 9.9 seconds. You could likely attribute the bulk of sub 9.9 races in the past 17 years to faster tracks and better footwear and the odd (OK maybe more than the odd) steroid user. Literally, there have been no improvements in the 100m since around Mexico City Olympics. 9.9 gives you around 36 kph.

The 4 min mile gives you 24 kph. The two hour marathon is 21.1 kph, or 4:35 per mile. Clearly, the energy systems in the 100 m are different. They have reached human limits. The marathon is likely closer to the energy systems for the 1 mile, where improvements continue to be made. Can guys get down to 4:34 per mile for 26.2 ? On paper, it looks possible with the right surface, training, pacing and genetics :-). Its only 14% slower than Roger Bannister ran...but for 26.2 times longer :-)[/reply]

Dev,

Here is why I think we are way below human potential. Aaron Thigpen in his prime had a PB of 10.01 in the 100 m, close to the current best and was on several national teams. He has remained active in coaching and competition. In 4 months after training on PowerCranks he ran a 10.34 100 m and took 0.2 seconds off the age-group record at the age of 38.

If PC's can inprove the training and form of an elite 100 m runner that much who can say what they can do for an elite marathoner, who typically pay much more attention to endurance than form. Elite triathletes frequently report more than 30s/mile improvements in the marathon in less than one season. Until an elite marathoner gets on them and uses them correctly we will never know. However, I just got an elite race walker on them and that should be able to give us an idea.

Stay tuned.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

You're a great salesman Frank, I'll grant you that!

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

[reply]You're a great salesman Frank, I'll grant you that![/reply]

Hey, I am simply stating there is a basis for my statements and telling you what it is. Your conclusion that below a certain speed is impossible without drugs is simply a guess.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Of course its a guess! you can't designate a time and work back from that point to argue why humans will only be able to run that fast. You have to guesstimate.

As for Powercranks being the key to the sub 2 hour marathon....like I said, you're a great salesman....and thats not meant to be a slight.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

"I don't think its humanly possible for a clean runner to run 2:01:26 for the marathon. "

Just interested what your reasoning is, how did you get 2:01.26?



--------------

btw. I see the look on women when they want sex all the time :)

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

I pulled it out of my ass.

The previous poster was arguing that our reasoning can sometimes be skewed by big round numbers like 2 hours or 4 minutes....I was just trying to point out that while this can be true, it wasn't in this instance....hence the completely random number.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

[reply]Of course its a guess! you can't designate a time and work back from that point to argue why humans will only be able to run that fast. You have to guesstimate.

As for Powercranks being the key to the sub 2 hour marathon....like I said, you're a great salesman....and thats not meant to be a slight.[/reply]

Whether PowerCranks is the "key" or not is subject to argument. However, they are a training tool that wasn't previously available (nor have they been used by any of the current crop of elite runners) that appear to do something that couldn't be done before that is important to maximizing running speed. How much PC's can improve this ilk of runner (if any) is a matter of speculation.

However, I would argue that the "key" will be the motivation of the athlete combined with lots of hard work using optimum training techniques.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Ah - why hasn't anyone brought up Gene Doping? Just the right height, weight, huge lungs and massive heart, greater capability to deliver and extract fuel to the legs and arms...

It's already started according to the experts. If you're having a discussion on where Marathon times are going - you can forget your discussions on the limitation of what we call human today. It won't be much longer before they start to get this right.

How do they measure a marathon course? Is it 26.6 from the middle of the street, the center of the right lane, or the inside curb?

Depending on how it is measured and the shape of the course, it would seem that good race course management (i.e. staying on the inside of curves) could allow you to significantly decrease the distance actually traveled, allowing an elite runner to post a very low time.

Just wondering.

Its measured based on the shortest route possible. In other words if you dont cut the course at all 26.2 is the shortest you can possible run.



Styrrell

I think the wheel is run 18 inches outside the shortest line...which is normally the kerb on corners. Unless otherwise stated in the course directions runners always run the tangents and the shortest course possible.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill