Was 2:01:39 really a big breakthrough? After Breaking2, Ross Tucker predicted a 2:01:40!

Efficiency of most runners is in the realm of 38.2% give or take a couple points. If you increase 38% by 4% you do not get 42%. You get 39.73%. If efficiency increases by a net total of 1.53% you're looking at a speed increase of about .95%

.95% of 2:02:57 = 1:10

It is very important to also remember 4% was just the average of those being tested at the time. The range was from 2.7 to 5.3, reportedly. Even more important, the study was done on SUB-ELITE runners. Sub-elites can not be expected to have as good of feet as Kipchoge. The worse your feet are in terms of strength and coordination the more the vaporfly's are going to help.

Are the Vaporfly's with their carbon-fiber plate going to help? Absolutely, but they aren't going to help Kipchoge out like they would the rest of us.

I believe Geb had spike plates put in his marathon race shoes too. Who knows if Adidas did the same for Kimetto.

Here's the final conclusion: Kipchoge is a demi-god living among mortals.

Stopped clock.

What if Kipchoge had to run in Adidas Sub2 instead of souped VF? Would he have broken 2:03? I quite doubt it.

I think so.

One of my first reactions after watching that race was, Wow, if he ever decides to run Boston and gets a G. Mutai type day, we could see the first sub-2 marathon come in a Major. I know Boston isn't record-eligible, but still, wouldn't that be something.

But the point is probably moot, because I doubt he'll ever run Boston, at least not until he's a 50 yr old hobby-jogger. Why would he. I mean, I love the Boston course, and the race organization, but it can be brutal on the legs - although it's a net downhill, much of that downhill is vicious. And besides, the weather in Boston is such a crapshoot. It can as easily be 85 degrees and cloudless as it can be like this year, freezing, wet and windy. In many ways running Boston is like trying to hit a knuckleball, you're afraid to take the bat off your shoulder in case you screw up your swing.

It's hard to tell how much of the improvement is the shoes. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the talent pool in Berlin this year was very shallow (last year was an exception, but most of the talent dropped out very early), so it's hard to say how the run stacked up against others in similarly equipped shoes. Wilson Kipsang has been a great runner, but he seems so be coming near the end of his career. Still a threat for the podium, but not really for the win, not against the super-elites.

On the other hand, Kipchoge has been so damn dominant the last few years. I remember reading about his comment at around the 15 mile mark in Rio, when he put a panic into the other elites when he made a bit of a surge, then came back to the nervous pack and said, Don't worry, I'm not making my break yet, just getting my bottle. For several years he has been the elite among elites, and even they seem to realize it. Hell, last year in Berlin was the first time I remember seeing him challenged at all. But then he just found another gear.

In any case, IMO breaking 2:02 is a huge breakthrough. The shoes may help, but the other elites are using the same or similar technology, and he handles them effortlessly. Hell, for all the perfection of conditions in Berlin, weren't both the second and third place finishers in the 2:06s, nearly 5 minutes behind.

Nontheless, as Tucker mentions, I would like to see the use of technology regulated. There's no way we'll ever stop evolving tech, and I'd not sure I'd want to. But it'd be nice to at least see everyone have the same access. I know it means a moving target for world records, but marathon world records IMO should be taken with a grain of salt anyways. As others have noted on these pages, there are so many things that have to come together for one to happen, the right course, weather, competitors, pacers, and so on. But we should at least provide as level a playing field as we can.

Edgar Poe wrote:

[quote]automorphic wrote:

[quote]Edgar Poe wrote:

"So I've actually heard that a 1% improvement in efficiency DOES correspond to a 1% improvement in pace."

Blatantly false information passed off as fact. Someone is dishing out black pearls. They'd fit in great on this site.

Why is it false? Efficiency = pace divided by energy, measured by oxygen consumption in this case. In the lab tests that 'prove' the 4% increase in running economy, athletes were supposedly able to run 4% faster with the same oxygen consumption as before. Assuming that's true what's stopping them from racing 4% faster?

Why don't you guys experiment with towel boy wearing new nikes. Then you can get a 2:01 along with winning the bourbon bowl.

For those who haven't seen it yet ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

Hardloper wrote:

Edgar Poe wrote:

[quote]automorphic wrote:

[quote]Edgar Poe wrote:

"So I've actually heard that a 1% improvement in efficiency DOES correspond to a 1% improvement in pace."

Blatantly false information passed off as fact. Someone is dishing out black pearls. They'd fit in great on this site.

Why is it false? Efficiency = pace divided by energy, measured by oxygen consumption in this case. In the lab tests that 'prove' the 4% increase in running economy, athletes were supposedly able to run 4% faster with the same oxygen consumption as before. Assuming that's true what's stopping them from racing 4% faster?

Efficiency and economy improvement may or may not be contributory to actual speed.

I apologize, but I've grown tired of the thread and have no desire to contribute any further. Any reply I give, you will not accept or believe; and I would only be wasting both of our time.

Edgar Poe wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Why is it false? Efficiency = pace divided by energy, measured by oxygen consumption in this case. In the lab tests that 'prove' the 4% increase in running economy, athletes were supposedly able to run 4% faster with the same oxygen consumption as before. Assuming that's true what's stopping them from racing 4% faster?

Efficiency and economy improvement may or may not be contributory to actual speed.

I apologize, but I've grown tired of the thread and have no desire to contribute any further. Any reply I give, you will not accept or believe; and I would only be wasting both of our time.

You didn't contribute anything to this thread to begin with so okay.

Technology moves on. It has always contributed to improving world records.

Sports companies have been unveiling new technolgy in their shoes to all kinds of hype for decades. The advantage each new release gives the runner is usually so marginal nobody notices it, despite the fanfare. Over years these advances make a difference, but no one shoe is ever the game changer its manufacturer claims it to be.

Finally a company brings out something that does noticeably improve what already exists, justifies the hype and the cost. Now lots of people think this shouldn't even be allowed. Nike could have made that same advancement in shoe technology (at least in terms of the advantage it offers the runner) over a ten years with a series of shoes, and few would have noticed or cared.

Sledge_hammer wrote:

How some people think a pair of shoes can help you run a minute faster is beyond me.

Shoes and running surface explain much. Lon Myers ran 49.4 440 yard on grass in 1885. I am sure if you were to race in Lon Myers' leather slippers, you would have diminished performance.

rojo wrote:

While I still think we won't see a legit sub-2 anytime soon, I am amazed by Kipchoge. The interesting thing here is after Monza, most people thought it was the drafting. But in this race, he had very little drafting help. I mean less than half the race?

So the logic of "Monza was all about the drafting" and "Berlin is all about the shoes" doesn't quite go together.

No he was at his best in Berlin, that explains it.

Subway Surfers wrote:

No he was at his best in Berlin, that explains it.

True, Kipchoge was at his best but pacing was off the mark. That cost him at least 20 seconds, meaning he could have run 2:01:20 or maybe faster with perfect pacing. Running the last 17K (apprx 10.5 miles) all alone is not easy and the mental disturbance on discovering during the race that his pacers cannot do the job. He could even have dipped under 2:01. No one will ever know.

Subway Surfers:

I agree. Pacers did in fact slow him down. Except for the 1st KM, they were running many 2:55s-2:58 splits.

Galen Rupp, Shalane and many other athletes have experienced a lot of success with these shoes. Should they be banned?

Not sure, the Vaporflys appear to be 1% better than the other shoes on the market. I actually think other companies could make a better shoe, but haven't. They look like low cut basketball boots. They won't ban them.

For the record, pacers should only be allowed to cover half the distance, eg 400m for the 800m, 5k for a 10k. Still this was better than Monza.

File Tucker’s comments in the “why we can’t have nice things” folder.

Golf gets aerodynamic balls and trampoline faced drivers, swimming gets oxygenated water and sharkskin design suits, the big 4 sports in America have access to the world’s best trainers, nutritionist and gear, and excitement is generated.

We get a transcending, breakthrough performance (Although Monza was better) and all we get is Tucker complaining.

Let’s take our sport down a couple more notches by reverse engineering Mondo tracks to cinder.

Hardloper wrote:

Edgar Poe wrote:

Efficiency and economy improvement may or may not be contributory to actual speed.

I apologize, but I've grown tired of the thread and have no desire to contribute any further. Any reply I give, you will not accept or believe; and I would only be wasting both of our time.

You didn't contribute anything to this thread to begin with so okay.

Lowered energetic cost (an average of 4%- study done here at CU lab) does not necessarily translate into increased speed, though the results of the low powered study (n=18) showed the efficiency to be independent of velocity (14-18km/hr). Efficiency is defined simply by energy output divided by energy input- or rather, conservation of energy for any specific process. The premise that this might result in a faster "pace" is theoretically valid; but as of yet unproven. So, both of you idiots are correct and incorrect at the same time.

I loved your post but am confused a little bit by your conclusion.

After you provided a mathematical formula showing how the Vaporfly's would be worth 1:10 for Kipchoge and he knocks 1:18 off the WR, you then seem to discount the roles of the shoes in your conclusion.

After reading your post, it seems to me that the shoes might largely be responsible for the biggest aspect of the WR. Even if that's true, I'd still agree though that he's a demigod. I mean cominginto the race, I basically sort of thought to myself, "I think he's in WR shape every time he toes the line." I mean that's what is amazing. The guy doesn't get hurt, he doesn't lose motivation and he's constantly tinkering and maybe getting a little better.