Human marathon limit challenged by Nike

  • Thread starter Thread starter houlahound
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human Limit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the potential for humans to run a marathon in under two hours, particularly in light of Nike's efforts to challenge this limit. Participants explore the implications of mathematical modeling, historical record improvements, and the nature of racing conditions on performance.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants claim that running a marathon in under two hours is not possible naturally, while others suggest that Nike's initiative aims to explore this possibility.
  • A blog post using mathematical modeling predicts that the fastest possible marathon time is just above two hours, although some participants challenge the validity of this model, citing issues with trendlines and record-breaking performances.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of racing conditions for record attempts, with some arguing that external factors on race day make data incomparable.
  • Historical improvements in marathon records are noted, with one participant highlighting that the world record has improved significantly since the blog article was published, suggesting no hard limit is currently visible.
  • Participants express admiration for the performance of Olympic marathoners, noting their ability to maintain speeds that exceed typical sprinting capabilities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of viewpoints, with some agreeing on the challenges of predicting marathon limits while others contest the validity of existing models and the implications of racing conditions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility of breaking the two-hour barrier.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on mathematical modeling assumptions, the variability of race conditions, and the historical context of record improvements that may not align with predictive models.

That's 4:34 splits. I could barely run one mile at that pace in college. I was happy to get under three and a half hours and I felt like I was flying.
 
Ygggdrasil said:
Here's a neat post from a physics blog from a while ago using some mathematical modeling to predict that the fastest possible marathon time is just above 2 hrs: https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/the-fastest-possible-marathon/
An exponential fit starting at 2h+1h, used to predict something with a single-minute accuracy? That cannot work. See how the 2014 record ruined the whole analysis. I guess Bolt's 100 m record(s) ruined some similar trend lines - he ran 1% faster than anyone else.
 
I don't like trendline with running events either. Often records stand for a long time then get shattered and then the old record is trampled on by everyone else. That's usually due to a breakthrough new training method.
 
I think the idea is racing is invalid for actual record attempts, too many things on race day that makes data incomparable.
 
One more comment on the last years: the blog article Ygggdrasil linked was from April 2011. At that time, the record was 2:03:59, set in 2008. It was improved to 2:03:38 in September 2011, 2:03:23 in 2013, and finally 2:02:57 in 2014 - always at the Berlin marathon, but from 3 different runners. 6 years after the article was written, the record improved by 1 minute and 2 seconds, and 7 athletes achieved times better than the 2008 record.

Just based on the running times, there is no hard limit visible yet. In the last years not only the world record improved by 1 minute, the times of others improved by the same amount.
 
Olympic marathoners are just incredible. I remember watching the last few miles of the front runners and thinking my god they are running faster in these last miles than I can sprint.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K