|
On September 29 2014 06:40 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2014 06:37 L_Master wrote:On September 29 2014 06:32 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:On September 29 2014 05:39 Don_Julio wrote:On September 29 2014 04:24 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:On September 29 2014 04:21 L_Master wrote:On September 29 2014 04:05 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:
Mental barriers are a funny thing. I would bet my life that if they thought the world record was say 1:55, a lot of these guys would be running sub 2. I promise you they would not. I'd put a million dollars down that we won't see sub 2 within my lifetime, provided some new super drug doesn't come out. Sub 2 is equivalent to roughly 12:15 for 5k, 25:30 for 10k, and 57 flat for the half. 12:15 for 5k is 3:56 pace for a 5k. So far only one person in the world has ever done that for two miles, and that was only 3:59 pace. For the 10k you're talking about having the fitness to run a 10k at a pace that has only been run a handful of times for 5k since the days of Haile and Kenenisa. It just isn't happening anytime soon, as no athlete is anywhere near the level required. Low 2:02 looks like the current "limit" until we start seeing athletes superior to guys like Hicham, Kenenisa, Haile, and Komen ok I'll prove you wrong  challenge accepted Regarding your argument about the mental barrier. Look at the women's marathon record by Paula Radcliffe 2:15:25. Nobody has broken the 2:20h this year yet. One last year. Knowing that there's a super fast record won't make you run faster. The men could break the 2h in L_Master's lifetime because I'm predicting some serious genetic engineering which dominating professional sports at some point. Who says the men and women's brains work the same way? Who says there isn't a conspiracy going on not not allow anyone to improve Paula's time, etc etc. Lots of explanations. Can't tell if sarcastic or serious... It's neither! It's an open-minded approach to perceiving the world.
Haha alright if you mean from the standpoint of "this isn't a complete impossibility" then I'm on board. Never say Never. Though for me personally that's another type of situation I'd happily take 1,000:1 odds on. It's the difference between betting that one player is matchfixing versus every single person in the league is matchfixing. Impossible? Certainly not. High improbable? Absolutely.
Actually the question I'm interested in, as you are more than willing to take me up on my hypothetical bet, is what you see changing that will have sub 2 occuring in say the next...40 years.
|
On September 29 2014 09:04 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2014 06:40 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:On September 29 2014 06:37 L_Master wrote:On September 29 2014 06:32 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:On September 29 2014 05:39 Don_Julio wrote:On September 29 2014 04:24 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:On September 29 2014 04:21 L_Master wrote:On September 29 2014 04:05 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:
Mental barriers are a funny thing. I would bet my life that if they thought the world record was say 1:55, a lot of these guys would be running sub 2. I promise you they would not. I'd put a million dollars down that we won't see sub 2 within my lifetime, provided some new super drug doesn't come out. Sub 2 is equivalent to roughly 12:15 for 5k, 25:30 for 10k, and 57 flat for the half. 12:15 for 5k is 3:56 pace for a 5k. So far only one person in the world has ever done that for two miles, and that was only 3:59 pace. For the 10k you're talking about having the fitness to run a 10k at a pace that has only been run a handful of times for 5k since the days of Haile and Kenenisa. It just isn't happening anytime soon, as no athlete is anywhere near the level required. Low 2:02 looks like the current "limit" until we start seeing athletes superior to guys like Hicham, Kenenisa, Haile, and Komen ok I'll prove you wrong challenge accepted Regarding your argument about the mental barrier. Look at the women's marathon record by Paula Radcliffe 2:15:25. Nobody has broken the 2:20h this year yet. One last year. Knowing that there's a super fast record won't make you run faster. The men could break the 2h in L_Master's lifetime because I'm predicting some serious genetic engineering which dominating professional sports at some point. Who says the men and women's brains work the same way? Who says there isn't a conspiracy going on not not allow anyone to improve Paula's time, etc etc. Lots of explanations. Can't tell if sarcastic or serious... It's neither! It's an open-minded approach to perceiving the world. Haha alright if you mean from the standpoint of "this isn't a complete impossibility" then I'm on board. Never say Never. Though for me personally that's another type of situation I'd happily take 1,000:1 odds on. It's the difference between betting that one player is matchfixing versus every single person in the league is matchfixing. Impossible? Certainly not. High improbable? Absolutely. Actually the question I'm interested in, as you are more than willing to take me up on my hypothetical bet, is what you see changing that will have sub 2 occuring in say the next...40 years.
To me, the real question is: why are they running so slow? Mental barriers, laziness or maybe something entirely else?
The scientific consensus has low 1:5x as within the realm of possibilities and that's only considering what has already been observed in human physiology - it's not even accounting for the chance that a human comes along with genetical and physiological limits beyond the current.
Edit: also it might be that the other female runners are simply intimidated! there are infititieth possibilities!
|
On September 29 2014 10:46 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:
To me, the real question is: why are they running so slow? Mental barriers, laziness or maybe something entirely else?
Good point. Pretty lazy, those professional athletes.
|
On September 29 2014 10:46 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2014 09:04 L_Master wrote:On September 29 2014 06:40 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:On September 29 2014 06:37 L_Master wrote:On September 29 2014 06:32 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:On September 29 2014 05:39 Don_Julio wrote:On September 29 2014 04:24 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:On September 29 2014 04:21 L_Master wrote:On September 29 2014 04:05 Trustworthy-Tony wrote:
Mental barriers are a funny thing. I would bet my life that if they thought the world record was say 1:55, a lot of these guys would be running sub 2. I promise you they would not. I'd put a million dollars down that we won't see sub 2 within my lifetime, provided some new super drug doesn't come out. Sub 2 is equivalent to roughly 12:15 for 5k, 25:30 for 10k, and 57 flat for the half. 12:15 for 5k is 3:56 pace for a 5k. So far only one person in the world has ever done that for two miles, and that was only 3:59 pace. For the 10k you're talking about having the fitness to run a 10k at a pace that has only been run a handful of times for 5k since the days of Haile and Kenenisa. It just isn't happening anytime soon, as no athlete is anywhere near the level required. Low 2:02 looks like the current "limit" until we start seeing athletes superior to guys like Hicham, Kenenisa, Haile, and Komen ok I'll prove you wrong challenge accepted Regarding your argument about the mental barrier. Look at the women's marathon record by Paula Radcliffe 2:15:25. Nobody has broken the 2:20h this year yet. One last year. Knowing that there's a super fast record won't make you run faster. The men could break the 2h in L_Master's lifetime because I'm predicting some serious genetic engineering which dominating professional sports at some point. Who says the men and women's brains work the same way? Who says there isn't a conspiracy going on not not allow anyone to improve Paula's time, etc etc. Lots of explanations. Can't tell if sarcastic or serious... It's neither! It's an open-minded approach to perceiving the world. Haha alright if you mean from the standpoint of "this isn't a complete impossibility" then I'm on board. Never say Never. Though for me personally that's another type of situation I'd happily take 1,000:1 odds on. It's the difference between betting that one player is matchfixing versus every single person in the league is matchfixing. Impossible? Certainly not. High improbable? Absolutely. Actually the question I'm interested in, as you are more than willing to take me up on my hypothetical bet, is what you see changing that will have sub 2 occuring in say the next...40 years. To me, the real question is: why are they running so slow? Mental barriers, laziness or maybe something entirely else? The scientific consensus has low 1:5x as within the realm of possibilities and that's only considering what has already been observed in human physiology - it's not even accounting for the chance that a human comes along with genetical and physiological limits beyond the current. Edit: also it might be that the other female runners are simply intimidated! there are infititieth possibilities!
First thing I'm going to do is call you out on the bolded bullshit. Scientific Consensus? Not only is there no scientific consensus surrounding the issue, there is almost no data at all that suggest low 1:5x is possible. How about this...show me one piece of peer reviewed scientific literature that suggests 1:5x is possible. I'll paypal you $15 if you do.
1:52 for example is asking, on the roads, (inherently slower than the track) a pace less than 2 seconds per mile off 10k WR pace...and once you factor in road v track you're talking about an effort for a full marathon probably equivalent to a 26:00 track 10000. You really think that "just running harder" is going to allow athletes to go from not being able to get through even 10k at that pace to running a marathon at that pace?
Let me give you some equivalent PRs:
53 half
23:45 10k
11:30 5k
3:15 mile
1:28 800
Considering our fastest guys can't even sprint 400 at that 800 pace you suddenly want people to run twice that distance at that same pace.
A mile at faster than WR 800 pace?
A 5000 at faster than WR mile pace?
Let me sum it up this way: Am I going to say those times are not possible period? No. But the idea of anyone running those times anytime soon is impossible if for no other reason than athletes are not anywhere near physically fast enough to run such times. You can't run a 3:15 mile without being able to run somewhere around 42-44 seconds for the 400. The only guys running 43 seconds are the absolute cream of the crop 400 sprinters.
The only way I can imagine such times being possible is if you could get athletes possessing Usain Bolt sprint speed to have Bekele level endurance. That athlete could realistically run the times listed. Of course the problem that arises is if you take a guy of that speed and have him start doing lots of endurance work...his speed falls off. Start showing me coaching systems that allow sprinters to develop distance runner qualities without losing speed and I'll start to reconsider my bet.
If you just want to say "humans can capable of running much faster across all events but just can't cause of mental blocks", then go ahead; but I'll still take my bet anyday if for no other reason than I see nothing on the horizon that is likely to change the mental attitudes of people so dramatically that they will suddenly be able to run 10k at what is currently an excellent 1500m pace.
Two other reasons that I don't have any reason to suspect the idea that there is a "mental" barrier of any sort:
1)East Africans - Many of these guys grew up with zero notions of what was possible and what wasn't. Most of them don't even have clocks or watches. If mental blocks are holding people back, the East Africans shouldn't be so troubled by it...and yet they run no faster than anybody else.
2)Cycling - In cycling it's possible to calculate FTP (one hour maximum power) from VO2 and ones efficiency. Many, many people have been tested in terms of efficiency and absolute upper and limits found are between 21-26% efficient. If you take that, and use the most generous assumptions for efficiency ever found (unrealistic anyway as there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between VO2 and efficiency), and the best known VO2 max you get an FTP value of 6.6 W/kg. Guess what the FTP of most top riders is? Yep, somewhere between 6-6.5 W/kg.
All of which means that riders are very much at the "theoretical" physiological limit. If there existed such a mental block, we should either find a much higher theoretical limit OR riders should be much, much further from 6.5 W/kg than they actually are. However, they are not, which really leaves only one possible option, and that is of course that for some reason cyclists can mentally push to the limit and runners cannot...which seems nonsensical to me.
So my conclusion is; while this does not mean that we discard this idea that people are mentally capable of much more than people currently perform, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that no such mental barriers to exist, and precious little, if any evidence (quantitative or qualitative) to give credence to the existence to such barriers. For the time being there are plenty of reasons to think we are fairly close to the physiologic limits of human performance and very little evidence to support a view that runners are far away from this theoretical limit.
|
On September 29 2014 04:21 L_Master wrote:Sub 2 is equivalent to roughly 12:15 for 5k, 25:30 for 10k, and 57 flat for the half.
Can you tell me where these numbers are from? MacMillan I guess? With Jack Daniels' formula, it's closer to 12:30, 26:00 and 57:20. So a little bit less difficult, but still far from being done by anyone in the coming 5-10 years.
I also cannot really believe a low 1h5x can be done. It's not a question of a mental block...
By the way, the record was still 2:06 15 years ago.
|
How do you compare different routes, I mean some are more flat than others. Is this GAP feature (grade adjusted pace, inspired by C.T.M. Davies studying environmental effects on running.) in Strava of any use?
|
On September 30 2014 01:09 Yrr wrote:
How do you compare different routes, I mean some are more flat than others. Is this GAP feature (grade adjusted pace, inspired by C.T.M. Davies studying environmental effects on running.) in Strava of any use?
There is no "correct" answer because every runners strengths and weaknesses vary. Just realize that the hillier the route the slower the time will be compared to a baseline flat route.
I personally find that GAP for me tends to be a good estimate, but falls off as things start to get super steep (10+ % grade)
|
For my own training, I find GAP interesting to look at, but often a bit weird. I think it punishes downhill running and rewards uphill running too much, so you have to sprint down hills and almost walk up them to make it balance out at the pace you want to run. So I look at it as a novelty, but I don't put any weight behind it when I'm trying to figure out if I hit my goal for an LT session or whatever.
|
On September 30 2014 12:27 Bonham wrote:
For my own training, I find GAP interesting to look at, but often a bit weird. I think it punishes downhill running and rewards uphill running too much, so you have to sprint down hills and almost walk up them to make it balance out at the pace you want to run. So I look at it as a novelty, but I don't put any weight behind it when I'm trying to figure out if I hit my goal for an LT session or whatever.
I agree on the novelty part, but definitely find it more accurate than you do, especially on the uphills. In fact if anything on the uphills it isn't generous enough for me especially as it gets steep. A good example was the last run I did, it was like 20% grade and I was doing about 17:00 mile pace and the given GAP was only 7:50, and I was probably putting in closer to a 6:15 type effort. Honestly though given how incredibly far that is from normal running, I'm impressed it even gets in the ballpark.
On downhills I generally think it's fairly accurate for me, for instance when I bomb down the 6% of Ruxton Avenue at 4:10 pace it usually gives me a GAP of around 5:10-5:20, which feels about right as I'm pretty much running mile race effort. On easier runs the downhill GAP can be a bit generous, maybe 10-20 seconds harder "effort" than I'm actually running (i.e. GAP = 7:00 while I'm putting in 7:20 effort)
|
October is upon us. The month of truth. Let's crush our PRs guys.
September ended terribly for me. I had a slight cold last week which slowed me down immensly and I had stomach problems at the weekend so that I had to skip an easy run and felt miserably at my long run. I was supposed to run the long run at a fast pace but the stomach problems caused some light diarrhoe sunday morning so I was completely dehydrated and out of energy at about 5k. Just finishing the 22,5k loop was tough. On the bright side I'm feeling revovered now and running slow at the weekend allows me to race a 10k tomorrow. I hope to get a rough estimate for my HM pace in two and a half weeks out of it and set a new 10k PR.
|
October brings lots of things: judgement, truth, and tasty lagers.
Go Don go! Diarrhea gets the best of all of us from time to time, so don't worry about it. I think you're due for big 10k and HM PRs. When is your goal HM?
|
Hi guys,
Have a question I was hoping to have answered, you guys seem pretty knowledgeable. I was reading Advanced Marathoning and it seems to indicate (as well as copious information found on the net) that running certain amounts of miles per week will put you in a certain percentage of finishers. I get this, but Why don't they ever say what Pace you should be running at? I could do the "advanced" program but run it at a 12 min miles, I won't be crushing anyone on race day. So is it based on current LT pace, and if so, how do you knwo if you should move up to more mileage?
|
On October 02 2014 12:59 Bonham wrote:
October brings lots of things: judgement, truth, and tasty lagers.
Go Don go! Diarrhea gets the best of all of us from time to time, so don't worry about it. I think you're due for big 10k and HM PRs. When is your goal HM?
Yay for diarrhea! I don't know how it happened but I ran a big PR last night. 42:10 is an improvement by 1:50.
Everything that could go wrong went wrong yesterday. I had a troubled digestion again and my pre-race routine was totally out of order. I forgot my bandana and my watch! Maybe it was a good idea because I would not have had the guts to run this pace if I knew how fast I was. I basically had a pacer for the first 1 and a half of four laps, a woman who I knew from previous race and who usually runs a low 43. Passed her and never saw her again. I always kept pushing slowly passing other runners and while I had a few tough moments at about 7km I never was really exhausted. I still had a lot of power in me at the last lap and managed to sprint the last 100m. I could have run sub 42 without a doubt.
Before the race I would have told you that I'm targeting a sub 1:37 for the half and be happy with it and maybe look at 1:35h. L_Master would have told me that I can run a 1:32. Now that I've seen my progress at the 10k I will target a time sub 1:35h. McMillan suggests a flat 1:34 and his calculator was spot on last year.
On October 03 2014 10:00 WoolySheep wrote:
Hi guys,
Have a question I was hoping to have answered, you guys seem pretty knowledgeable. I was reading Advanced Marathoning and it seems to indicate (as well as copious information found on the net) that running certain amounts of miles per week will put you in a certain percentage of finishers. I get this, but Why don't they ever say what Pace you should be running at? I could do the "advanced" program but run it at a 12 min miles, I won't be crushing anyone on race day. So is it based on current LT pace, and if so, how do you knwo if you should move up to more mileage?
Not knowing the book and not being a marathoner myself I can only guess: It's probably to emphasize that if you want to improve your marathon time (or any distance running time) increasing your mileage is the key. Running a 100 miles per week doesn't make you run a Boston Qualifying time automically but if you look at great runners like Bonham or any sub-elite they all run a shit ton of miles.
Pace doesn't really matter for most of your runs. You still need to target a race pace though to get good workouts. Most runners know what they're capable of and what goals are realistic to achieve. A first time marathoner should have a couple of halfs under his belt and that distance gives a pretty good estimate for the full marathon.
|
|
|
On October 06 2014 00:27 LuckyFool wrote:Well Lewis\Bonham is crushing Portland so far. 8th overall on a 2:27 pace through the first 8.9 miles holy shit lol, there's some issue causing problems with data past the 13.1 point though...I'm sure he's still flying. http://track.rtrt.me/e/RC-PORTLAND-2014#b=R935KDBG&v=ptrack
That's fast as hell but makes me a little nervous. That's like 30 sec per mile faster than goal pace. I really hope thats either inaccurate or downhill. Bonhams fucking good, but I don't know if he is 227 good...and I'd hate to see that solid training cycle go to waste with a big blow up
|
Just clicked through 17.5miles at 1:43:12, 7th overall...a bit slower, but there were some hills during that segment. on track for 2:36 now if he holds it.
(missing the half splits, I guess there was some issue with that on the website)
|
21.1M in 2:04:38!! up to 6th overall! 2:35 flat is within reach. The last few miles of a marathon are always brutal though, fingers crossed he holds on right at this pace or has anything left in the tank after that absurdly quick start.
I must leave now so my live reporting is coming to an end. The last few miles look flat though,
EDIT: actually it's all downhill in the last few miles, YEAA
|
He moved up another place at 21.1M (#6 now) and got faster again. #5 is far away though.
|
yeah he's running alone, 2 minutes behind 5th and 2 minutes head of 7th. GO BONHAM GO
|
yo hi runners.
when i run when i exhale i do this goldfish puff out cheeks things OR i do the between-the-teeth TSSSSSSSS thing when i exhale
its like i'm incapable of/dont want to exhale quickly/fully at once, so i do it gradually to begin with then the last bit i exhale quickly and normally.
why do i do this? is it bad? im trying to exhale quickly and fully with open mouth/lung
is it coz (im) a smoker so my body doesnt like fast air going out of my lungs because it can cause pain/damage? thats the only thing i could think of really
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
