
Nike’s Two Hour Marathon Attempt - wallflower
https://www.wired.com/story/nike-breaking2-marathon-eliud-kipchoge/
======
rconti
I'm surprised to see no mention of temperature here. The article says the
temperature was 53f and "a little bit humid", and concludes with the Nike
experts saying they disagreed that it might have been too warm, arguing that
the temperature was perfect.

This flies in the face of much of what I've seen.

Alex Hutchinson wrote a wonderful article entitled "What will it take to run a
2-hour marathon?" in 2014[1], and in a subsequent piece[2] he lays out data
from Paris officials who have found that the fastest elite runners did best
with temps at 38.9f. This is a HUGE unexplained difference. Furthermore, with
pacers blocking the wind more than ever, the Breaking2 effort would have given
Kipchoge even less opportunities for evaporative and convective cooling.

"When French researchers analyzed the finishing times of 1.8 million
marathoners over a 10-year period, they found that a race-day temp of 43.2°F
produced the quickest times overall. But faster runners, who generate more
heat, benefited from cooler temps, with the top one percent (green line below)
peaking at 38.9°F. Midpackers (red line) do best in the mid-40s."

[1]
[https://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/?_ga=2.79362900.1119941834...](https://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/?_ga=2.79362900.1119941834.1513383885-914977841.1512581592)

[2][https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/whats-the-
optimal...](https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/whats-the-optimal-
temperature-for-marathons)

~~~
Gustomaximus
38.9°F is 3.8°C to save people a conversion.

------
padobson
_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 mentions sports psychology or mental exercises the runners do to improve
performance.

That's pretty interesting, given that so many elite athletes have put such an
emphasis on the mental part of their game:

 _I knew I was going to wrestle in the finals of the Olympics against a
Russian and I knew he had been training specifically to beat me, but then I
knew the guy was on steroids, That would help me. Whereas some might think ‘oh
he’s cheating, for me you didn’t pay the price. You’re not as committed as I
am. It’ll tear him apart. He may be strong, but all I have to do during that 9
minutes of wrestling is loosen one single wire in his brain, make him do
something that isn’t perfect, and he’ll fall apart. Besides the health
effects, what you lose when you use steroids is mental toughness. The key to
victory is that the strongest mind wins. You can get physical strength with
steroids, but you lose the mental toughness (you would have gained) from
brutal hard work. Steroids hurt mental toughness by serving as a crutch._ \-
Dan Gable[0]

 _Champions aren’t made in gyms. Champions are made from something they have
deep inside them – a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have the skill,
and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. To be a champion
you must believe you are the best. If you’re not, pretend you are._ \-
Muhammad Ali[1]

 _Physically is a little bit easier, but the mental part is the hardest part,
and I think that 's what separates the good players from the great players_ \-
Michael Jordan[2]

[0][https://www.bjjee.com/articles/wrestling-legend-dan-gable-
st...](https://www.bjjee.com/articles/wrestling-legend-dan-gable-steroid-
users-lack-mental-toughness/) [1][https://goodmenproject.com/featured-
content/the-power-of-vis...](https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-
power-of-visualisation-in-sports-and-in-life-s1s/)
[2][https://youtu.be/xlFRZmUmaYI](https://youtu.be/xlFRZmUmaYI)

~~~
other_herbert
running may not seem like it, but the way you think about what you are doing
especially in a race scenario can make or break you quickly... I recently ran
a half and did almost all of my morning prep beforehand wrong.. forgot some
key things, freaked myself out just before the race and did far worse than I
had trained for... if you think you've messed up, you've messed up :)

~~~
devdad
A trick to get into a race (not based on empirical evidence, just my own
experience) is to start counting in your head and turn off everything else. I
counted 1-2-3 after I almost tripped in the beginning of a half marathon.
Instead of focusing on beating myself up for almost tripping I just continued
to count. Broke almost all my PB. Keeps you from thinking about messing up.

------
bub_davos
A few week's ago I read a a paper entitled "Modeling: optimal marathon
performance on the basis of physiological factors".

I found the topic incredibly interesting. In this paper (from 1991) the author
examines the limiting factors in human running and tries to build a model that
gives you a bound on how fast a human could run a marathon. The results he got
is 1:57:58.

You can take a look at the paper here [http://fermatslibrary.com/s/modeling-
optimal-marathon-perfor...](http://fermatslibrary.com/s/modeling-optimal-
marathon-performance-on-the-basis-of-physiological-factors)

~~~
strictnein
That paper is referenced in this story.

~~~
ng-user
Amazing how people don't even open the article isn't it?

edit: opening it is the easy part, reading however proves challenging for some

~~~
j4ship
what article? all i see are comments ... nice juicy comments

~~~
kbenson
I'll often just read the comments, or read a portion of them and possibly even
comment (if it's not entirely related to the submission, as discussion
drifts), prior to reading the article. If what I'm commenting about is related
to the article and I haven't read it (such as noting related info), I
generally do a quick scan and search of the article to make sure I'm not
repeating what it said.

I don't think there's anything wrong with reading comments first, and in some
select cases commenting yourself. Comments are why I'm here. That said, it's
worth keeping in mind whether you've read the article though and how that
affects your interpretation of what you're reading, and what you want to say.
Be signal, not noise (I think that's a perfect motto for HN and summarizes the
rules fairly well).

------
aezell
Elite marathoners are incredibly fast. It boggles the mind. But, for me, I'm
more impressed by Camille Herron breaking the world record (men's and women's)
for 100 miles in 12 hours, 42 minutes, and 39 seconds which is a 7:38/mi pace.

Running a 7:38 mile would be really fast for most adults, but to do it over
100 miles is unthinkable.

~~~
crikli
Agreed. Amazing accomplishment that many runners even don’t know about. I had
a friend running the same race and it took him just under 20 hours. A seven
hour difference boggles the mind.

------
bobsgame
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.

~~~
jeffwass
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.

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

------
legohead
I was going to call out this article on the "Untold" part, but apparently it
was released before the NatGeo video [1]. The video is a good watch. I didn't
plan to watch the whole thing, but it sucked me in. You really get attached to
the runners.

When Kipchoge started falling behind, they seemed to not be worried, but I
felt that they should have tried to remedy it right away.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2ZLG-
Fij_4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2ZLG-Fij_4)

------
artur_makly
mindblowing writer and runner
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2195464.What_I_Talk_Abou...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2195464.What_I_Talk_About_When_I_Talk_About_Running)

~~~
yla92
Yeah. I recently read the book and amazed by how good of a runner he is,
especially his discipline and dedication. Inspiring, even might to the non-
runners.

------
olivermarks
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...

~~~
appleiigs
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.

~~~
adrianmonk
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 pacers used. In Breaking2, they
swapped in different groups of 6 people to run in a carefully-engineered
triangle formation directly in front of the main runners. In a real race, the
winner cannot draft behind others the whole way. Because at some point
obviously the winner must pull ahead, and the rules disallow drafting behind
anyone who isn't running the same race. So the rules specifically forbid
exactly what Nike did with pacers.

When you change the rules in a way that you know has a quantifiable effect on
the outcome (and I'm sure Nike can tell you the numbers since they used
computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to select the best pacer
formation), it's not comparable anymore.

Now personally I don't have any problem with Nike's event. It was a fun
exhibition thing that inspired and challenged people. Probably some good
research even came out of it. But it's still fair to point out how the results
on this don't really count.

~~~
runamok
They could have played games with the groups letting them get lapped but that
would have probably been very challenging to implement.

~~~
adrianmonk
Ah, thinking like an engineer!

You're clever, but the IAAF is thorough. Rule 144.3 says:

"For the purpose of this Rule, the following examples shall be considered
assistance, and are therefore not allowed: (a) Pacing in races by persons not
participating in the same race, _by athletes lapped or about to be lapped_ or
by any kind of technical device (other than those permitted under Rule
144.4(d))."

------
RickJWag
Amazing. I hope they make it happen.

------
Void_
Did Tesla battery last the whole race? ;)

~~~
jeffwass
You're asking if the Tesla managed to drive a whopping 26.2 miles on a single
charge?

------
smidgen2
This is not news. Why is this in the HN feed? I read this article months ago.

~~~
dang
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 but in the long run there are enough surprises to go around.

~~~
greglindahl
One would hope that discussions about whether repeating old news is
interesting or not is encouraged.

~~~
dang
HN's definition of 'interesting' is for practical purposes pretty established.
Of course we don't all agree, but there's enough of a stable core that I
wouldn't say it changes much.

------
pcunite
Wear Altra shoes (or something similar) and protect your feet.

~~~
mikestew
Something wrong with Nikes?

~~~
pcunite
There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes
(push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.

~~~
Analemma_
I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from
ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and
found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes
are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness
fads that come and go.

~~~
imglorp
Came here to talk about that and see what people thought about barefoot
running: either completely unshod or very minimal padding for protection only
and not for landing cushion/support.

For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride
length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels.
Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice
when barefooting: you will change your stride. If you view heel striking as a
bad habit--maybe causing injury--this will prevent that at least.

Personal experience: old guy, unable to run much distance in regular shoes,
and after a long conversion period changing technique, I can run a 5k
comfortably without injury. Unshod. I'm trying to get up to a 10k. I do wonder
if the technique will back-port to regular shoes or if the shod injuries will
return.

~~~
hangonhn
My personal experience with this is that the real benefit for me with minimal
shoes is that I forced myself to shorten my stride. I had to retrain myself by
using a foot pod and a heart rate monitor that would beep if my cadence goes
below 90 per minute. A high cadence forces my body to shorten its stride
length and I think that has made a bigger difference for me in terms of injury
than anything else. I've stayed with minimal shoes simply because it's easier
to have a high cadence in light weight minimal shoes. Plus, the more padded
shoes became unnecessary. Not sure if the technique works for you but could be
worth trying.

~~~
durandal1
I have the same experience, I couldn't even run 2 miles without inflammation
flaring up in the knees (I tried to build up distance many times) - but after
running with Evo barefoot shoes for about 2 years (which allowed me to run
10k:s without problem), I can now run with any type of shoes - but my
technique is completely transformed with much shorter stride length and a high
cadence.

