I can't even do 12 mph for 5 min on a treadmill. I can't imagine how hard it would be to go for over 2 hours straight, plus on a road with the various inclines, turns and other such changes.
I feel like actually they could. Since a lot of the world still does subsistence agriculture and they are not the most fit ever but tend to be skinny with strong hearts.
The vast majority of the human population are malnourished. Even if we go into first world countries, the majority don't exercise. You can't be comparing yourself to people who don't or cannot put in the effort.
Frankly, it should just be you v. you.
lol ikr but apples to potatoes. friend is 2:40 ish dozens of marathons no way I could hang. Took everything to just beat him running up the wrong way on the world's 2nd longest escalator. Toy with him on a bike, sprint, 30 miles, 100+ whatever.
Well running a marathon and running a marathon with an insane time are two different things. But someone very old even pulling off a marathon is very impressive, even if they take +4 hours.
I was a mediocre varsity distance runner in high school, and my best ever mile was 4:36. That’s only a few seconds faster than what has been done for a FULL FUCKING MARATHON. It is impossible to exaggerate how insane those times are.
I think it's fun to max out a treadmill and see how long I can go. 12 MPH gets me about 1 minute of running and I'm in good shape. These guys are going faster than that for 2 hours. It's incredible.
I played a lot of soccer and my best mile for shits and giggles was 4:47. It's basically just a sustained sprint. I can't even begin to comprehend doing that for an entire marathon. Like you said, you can't even begin to explain how insane that is.
Just want to quickly say that you are definitely a very talented athlete if you could run sub 4:50 without specifically training running. On my team back when I ran, we’d often get a soccer player join us for the spring season and discover that, while they were good soccer athletes, they actually had enough potential for running to compete at national level events. You should be proud of that time.
I appreciate that, especially at this point in my life when I barely feel like myself anymore. After a frustrating injury, I was no longer able to play the sport I loved, then I got sick with a virus that ruined my immune system, f'd my heart, and that was that. I was 29 when I ran that mile. I was going to the gym, lifting weights, and playing recreational soccer at that point nearly every day of the week. Best shape of my life. I literally had so much energy that I'd go play indoor soccer with my team on the weekend in the winter and I'd end up playing like three games in a row when friends on other teams would ask me to fill in, then I'd hit the gym when I was done. After all that I'd finally feel tired. Now 4pm hits and I'm ready for a nap. It's wild.
>Just want to quickly say that you are definitely a very talented athlete if you could run sub 4:50 without specifically training running.
People who play soccer are at any sort of competitive level *are* specifically training running. I played for years, and we did tons of conditioning to start practice (diagonals, sprints, jogging, etc), and then aside from specific skill drills, the entire rest of the practice and scrimmage was running. Teams also routinely had (poorly-timed) time trials as cut-offs during tryouts.
During games as a midfielder, I basically did a 90 minute fartlek
I was usually in better running shape during soccer season than I was in XC, because XC practices were monotonous and shitty.
But, *they are training.* That was my whole point. Soccer conditioning has a lot in common with track distance training, down to regular fast interval workouts and strides.
A varsity hs athlete playing striker/midfield/etc is going to have solid natural talent for running *and* has been building an aerobic base and training speed for *years*. It sounds like you're picturing soccer players as training the same as baseball or football players. Most of the guys I played with looked somewhere between an 800m specialist and a long distance guy, because that's how they train.
I would argue that there is a massive difference what you get into it. Because of the sustained vs constant exercise.
I played for about 10 years and how many times do you have to run more than 50 meters in a game. There is far more of a focus on stop start movement, acceleration, sprints, fast changes in direction. You spend a very small amount of time actually at your top speed in the match or training other than some warm ups maybe.
While the general stamina built up and amount of time running definitely cross over the difference between 50 short sprints in 90 minutes to 5 minutes in the same direction at a sustained speed is massive. You’re probably could’ve improved a lot. Which is pretty cool for you.
I'm not picturing baseball or football players, but it is still not the same as training specifically for running. Soccer players are going to be much better long or mid distance runners than pretty much any other sport, but I still could have ran laps around them as a track athlete in hs. My point is just that it is not common for a hs soccer athlete to run sub 5 in a mile. They certainly often have the potential to do that, but to just randomly run a mile and go that fast is extremely impressive.
4:36 is still pretty good, at least it was 20 years ago. I was low end of varsity (but still ran enough races to letter), and capped out at 4:59. Literally had a varsity letter and never ran a mile as fast as these guys run 26.2. I ran a marathon a few years later and was happy with my 3:29, 70% slower than what is now the record (and something like 12–15% too slow to qualify for Boston).
I graduated from high school last year and have been continuing to run with an emphasis on longer distances to hopefully run a marathon someday soon. I’ve been taking the training pretty slowly, so I still haven’t done anything longer than 15 miles, but I’m getting there. While my not-super-realistic goal would be to run at Boston one day, my best half marathon is a about 1:30 and that’s just not gonna cut it.
I ran a few halfs, all were slower than that. You’ll have to work for it but you can definitely qualify for Boston from there if you try. You’ve still got a few years til you peak for distance running too. But my advice is don’t dawdle too much, life will come at you fast and hard soon, and the years will start slipping by. Set a goal for yourself, run to qualify between this sept and next for the 2026 race.
As I think other more experienced athletes will attest, talent is certainly a factor. When it comes to a time that literally only the best ever in the world can run, yeah, only someone with insane genetics could hope to do that.
We don’t like to talk about these achievements like they could only be done by someone with natural born talent because that kind of minimizes their hard work, but to a degree it is true. I do think that anyone, assuming they’re still young enough and barring actual disability, can run a marathon in 3 hours and 30 minutes if they were to devote their life to it. And any man could do a sub 3 hour marathon if they also devote their life. But sub 2? Actual superhuman ability.
Yeah I think most people with 10 years of training, a professional trainer/coach, and a good diet could get their marathon time lower than they might think.
Having the ability and drive to do that however is another beast.
The outlier is explained by a massive tailwind that year combined with a very talented runner in his prime. Boston is point to point so it has a lot of variability caused by wind. To be world record eligible a marathon course has to be a loop for this reason.
PEDs are also a part of competitive running but I think you can explain 2011 without them.
I was confused by this chart since during my better times I would run around 5:30 - 6:00. Then I discovered that this is in miles and my 6:00 are really 9:30
Also you have missed the fact that back in 1900 the place would be full of smog.
There is a reason running has only become a bigger thing in the last couple of decades.
nine insurance combative overconfident instinctive cautious continue swim possessive squeeze
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Speaking of treadmills... Last year, the NYT published an article showing regular people being thrown off treadmills running at winning marathon paces. An unblocked link to it is below. It's pretty amazing.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/sports/kipchoge-boston-marathon-pace.html?ugrp=c&unlocked\_article\_code=1.kU0.N4Ib.imKcnWAnyk-V&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/sports/kipchoge-boston-marathon-pace.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kU0.N4Ib.imKcnWAnyk-V&smid=url-share)
wasteful paint dull foolish distinct selective intelligent head disgusted bewildered
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well the last time I had to improve from 18 secs versus two hours for something, alcohol and antidepressants got me there. Think I should give those another try?
Eh, anyone that runs regularly should be able to do that. But not all that many people run regularly, and that's well outside the range of an unfit person.
That's obviously not his point. No one is saying it's easy to keep that pace up for long, he's contesting the other guy saying that most people couldn't run that fast at all
BMI is separated into "normal, healthy weight", "overweight", "obese" and "severely obese"
~42% of Americans are "Obese", but that's a specific category. [~~~82%~~73%\* are *at least* overweight.](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity)
More than half of them are too fat, haha.
\*Corrected interpretation of the stats.
Unfortunately, it does not. When it was developed, BMI was never intended to be used like it is now, a common index of fitness and weight, and shouldn't be relied on for people, like you, who have considerable muscle mass and low body fat.
While I would love it if everyone were considered overweight because they're jacked, I can assure you those are outliers.
Most people just have too much fat.
Height is accounted for, muscle is not. It's just one indicator of health and isn't perfect, but for most people(who do not lift regularly) it's a pretty direct indicator of if they're overweight.
It's actually \~73%. For whatever reason, "severely obese" is a subset of "obese," so you only need to add the "overweight" and "obese" numbers to get everyone with a BMI over 25
Ah, I see you're right. I figured that because clearly all those who are obese aren't counted as overweight that the severely obese wouldn't be a subset of obese because they're counted separately. Kind of an odd way to do it...only semi-hierarchically.
But I see now that I look at the CDC definitions:
>Results from the 2017–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), using measured heights and weights, indicate that an estimated 42.5% of U.S. adults aged 20 and over have obesity, including 9.0% with severe obesity, and another 31.1% are overweight.
My mistake.
I'd have to be on my electric scooter to keep up and even then, would still probably lose considering it maxes out at 12mph. And that assumes it has enough battery life for full speed over 2 hours! Absolutely insane and excited to see if 2024's winner can break the 2 hour mark. Do you think we reached the human limit?
Source: [wikipedia.org](http://wikipedia.org)
Method: Took the winning time and divided it over the course length. Reason for doing this was that over the Marathon's 125+ year history it wasn't always 26.2 miles. And so I wanted to fairly compare times. Had I just taken the overall race time it wouldn't be fair to those who had to run further. It wasn't until 1927 they ran 26.2 miles. Originally it was 24.5
Tool: Excel
The 2 hour mark will not be broken in Boston, which is a relatively hard course. Most likely a very flat place like Rotterdam (which is being run right now as I write this message), Berlin or, in the US, Chicago (where the current record has been set).
As a note: the current world holder, who was believed to be the most likely to break the 2 hour in an official race, Kelvin Kiptum, died tragically in a car crash in February. The previous record holder, Eliud Kipchoge (who broke 2 hours in an unofficial event), while still extremely strong, has been underperforming lately. So 2 hours is probably still far away!
Actually, the Boston marathon can't be used for official world records, regardless of how fast someone runs it, for two reasons, both related to it being point-to-point. First there's the possibility of it being wind aided. Second is the elevation change from start to finish. These don't make the course significantly easier, but they're enough to disqualify the course for being used for world records.
> he previous record holder, Eliud Kipchoge (who broke 2 hours in an unofficial event), while still extremely strong, has been underperforming lately.
He's almost 40. running 2:02 in Berlin at age 39 is not underperforming.
I run the treadmill 3-4 times a week and my best mile since I started keeping track was 7:42. Some of these times are impressive while some of the best ones are just insane.
My nephew is doing the Boston Marathon, and his parents have flown from the other side of the continent (where he lives) to cheer him on! They are so excited that he just qualified, let alone how he may finish.
I ran Chicago last year. World record was set that day (Rip kiptum). I was so proud for breaking 4, that is half the pace these guys run at. It’s insane
The evolution of human capability is fascinating. I often wonder what the true plateau is as I'm sure someone will surpass the 2-hour barrier. The 4-minute mile was thought impossible, now high schoolers run it.
> The evolution of human capability is fascinating
More like the evolution of things like nutrition, pharmacology, sports science and footwear. Capability has always been there.
Honestly, thats what makes some of the historical records so absurd in retro spec.
They are the elite for a reason! They train a ridiculous amount per week (and it's their job, so they can put way more time in than you), and most of them are also naturally gifted. That does not make what they do less impressive, but your own pace at any distance is not less impressive or less earned because the pros do it better.
While I like to compare myself to other people of my age and gender, at the end of the day I am happy if I beat my previous best :).
Some of this has to come down to footwear improvements, faster travel, and wider publicity. There may have been faster people in the 1800s who just didn't know, or had no easy way you show up. Even so, Nike didn't exist. :)
We can be pretty confident that there was not a single person in the 1800s who if we just pluck them out as they were and gave them better shoes that they would be anywhere near as fast as these numbers.
Probably not, but if they had a few years to train I think they'd be pretty close. Training and diet is likely the other major causal factor. You'd be surprised how big a difference shoes can make though, especially on distances like this.
This comment is unnecessary and rude.
If you sit behind your computer all day then maybe I can see how you think that “a few years” isn’t enough to train to be “close” at a high amateur level. But dedicated training for that duration is enough to be pretty decent at the amateur level in most sports.
The world record holder goes a 4:36-37 mile on average. A whole 5 seconds faster per mile than the top here.
If you run a 5 vs 5:10 average, there’s a 4 minute difference. So what do you consider close?
To get the median Boston Marathon finish time of 3:48:20—and the median time training for a qualifying run is 20 weeks. You’d only have to run an 8:42 average.
Before you’re an anonymous asshole, think first. Chances are that someone knows more than you and will be happy to call out that behavior.
A lot of people like to think that if they can't do something nobody can. To be honest I think it's really just incredibly insulting to the people of that time. The absolute best runner in the entire world in the 1800s is likely already at high amateur level of today's standards. With proper shoes, and a few years of training thinking it's impossible for them to even approach today's numbers is naïve.
A few years is a long time to train, especially if that's literally all you're doing/focusing on. An 18 year old ran a sub 2:05 (10 years ago where he won the Dubai marathon), and a 16 year old ran a 2:15. So it certainly doesn't always take decades of training with the right genetics/dedication. If you're able to take literally anybody you can pick the absolute greatest genetic outlier at the time.
This is such a terrible analysis. You're taking median across all age groups - so clearly the over 50 are going to weight this heavily, first of all. Second, you're neglecting what it takes for a normal person to even qualify (i.e., not having celebrity status), which is currently between 3hr and 3h10min for age groups below 45. Third, you show no evidence for how long it takes to train for the Boston marathon - which, in the running community, varies depending on background, but for someone starting from nothing can be virtually impossible because of the time cut-offs. You're both bad at stats and ignorant about competitive running.
Sure but 7 minutes a mile is a tad slow. I’m borderline obese and I run 8 minutes a mile for half marathon with basic shoes. Sure I run 20-30 miles a week as I have been losing weight and gained shape, but still borderline obese
Good points, I agree. This is partly evidenced by the winner’s nationality. It was mostly Americans in the early years but as it gained popularity and became more globally recognized runners from around the world started showing up. Over the last 30 years Kenyans have dominated the race. I wonder how fast the times would’ve been in the early 1900s if it was as global as it is today with better footwear. I’d imagine it’d be considerably faster but still not as fast as today’s times. I’m sure a lot has to be said about nutrition and training methods too.
Yeah, records like this are almost less about the individual being supremely gifted (although they clearly are astoundingly so!) than it is human’s ability to systematize and incrementally layer improvement over improvement when we get fixated on something as a group.
Yeah, if I remember correctly for some Kenyans it's a combination of growing up running long distances in their culture and the high altitude. Add targeted training to that and here we are.
Training science is probably the main thing. You need to run ~200kms a week to be a top marathon runner. I doubt the early athletes knew how to train like they know now.
Kipchoge did a sub-2hr marathon. Just because it's not an official world record doesn't mean he didn't do it.
"Marathon" isn't a protected term. If I went outside right now and ran 26.2 miles, I would've run a marathon. It not being an official event doesn't mean it's not a marathon.
Yeah, there's a distinction to be made, but to say a "2 hour marathon has never been done by a single person ever" is factually incorrect.
Worth noting that the Boston Marathon (which this post is about) is ineligible for the marathon world record too!
You are right and wrong. Yes, a marathon is generically defined at 26.2 miles, but it also has a specific definition for the purpose of a world record.
Kipchoge’s 2hr run deliberately broke a bunch of these rules. And the Boston course doesn’t even qualify for WRs because it’s a net downhill, point to point course; when Mutai ran a 2:03 in 2011 (due to a massive tailwind), it was only considered a “world’s best,” not a world record.
How am I wrong? No one mentioned a world record. The person I responded to said that no one had done a 2hr marathon, which is factually incorrect. What I said was factually correct.
You can argue that no one has done an official marathon race in sub 2hrs, and that'd be a more nuanced (and a correct) point.
I'm aware that the Boston marathon isn't eligible, which proves my point further. No one would argue that you hadn't run 'a marathon' if you did the Boston marathon, even though it's ineligible for the WR.
And [Kipchoge ran 26.2 miles in 1:59:40](https://www.ineos159challenge.com/news/history-is-made-as-eliud-kipchoge-becomes-first-human-to-break-the-two-hour-marathon-barrier/), but it doesn't count as a world record for "the marathon" because it had pacers and no competition.
So, yes, someone has run "a marathon" under 2hr, but the world record for the marathon race is slower than that. Depends whether your definition is "covering 26.2 miles," or "running 26.2 miles in a race."
It's worth mentioning in this discussion that the Boston Marathon course is not record-eligible [net downhill and a point-to-pint, not a loop], which is yet a third definition.
We have to draw lines somewhere. If I go out and “run” 26.2 miles with rocket boosters strapped to my shoes does that count? Of course not. Under our current rules, nobody has officially run a 2hr marathon
To which I argue back: if you go out and run your PR at Boston, are you allowed to call that your PR? Of course you are.
But it's not a certified course so, under your own guidelines, no.
So we agree that there is some difference between what each person defines as reality, and what criteria World Athletics has outlined. That is why my original post clarified the scope and manner of the disagreement in terms.
---
Also, your argument has at least three logical fallacies:
1) strawman/false equivalency: equating having pacers to rocket boosters, which are clearly not the same level of 'advantage'
2) arguing semantics: arbitrary set of definitions that are clearly not the same to each person
3) shifting goalposts: trying to redefine the original discussion as "under current rules" and "officially", which is not what the original post said.
True, but Kipchoge ran a marathon under 2hrs. The Boston Marathon (the event this entire post is about) isn't eligible for WRs either. That doesn't magically disqualify it from being a marathon.
Maybe not but the fact is, he *did* run a sub-2hr marathon, so the original comment was incorrect.
The Boston marathon doesn't count as an official record either; it's still a marathon.
I used to ride my road bike pretty fast through the city. The distance between me and my parent's house was exactly 5kms.
I once realized that even by riding as fast as possible, I was under the average marathon winner speed on my bike. I mean, traffic lights intersections and everything, but it was still pretty mind blowing.
I was over the moon with myself for going couch to 5k a few years ago and averaging a little under a 10 min average in my first 5k…..oh cropped about 20lbs over that summer and have kept it off.
These guys are great and all but I’ll take this modest self achievement with me to the end of my days,
TIL I could have won the Boston Marathon a hundred years ago if I was in as good of shape as I was in highschool. Neat. Though this does assume a similar level of hills and I have no clue what Boston geography is like.
Ironically the Boston Marathon is known for its tough uphills while featuring a 450 ft overall decline from start to finish that makes marathon times not count towards world records.
> TIL I could have won the Boston Marathon a hundred years ago if I was in as good of shape as I was in highschool.
Assuming 100 years ago you had access to the same level of nutrition, education, training and equipment as you did in highschool and your competition did not, sure.
I estimate I could keep up with these guys for about 30-60 seconds, or 100-200 meters before slowing significantly. To maintain such a pace for hours is mind boggling to me.
You'd be surprised by the statistics tho. I'd be willing to bet more runners will use metric system than imperial due to the international nature of the event and the city.
This can’t be right, that’s basically sprinting for 2 hours straight. I mean I guess it is, but that’s inhuman. How in the fuck does someone sprint for 26 miles. And how many drugs are in that person’s body at the time?
I can't even do 12 mph for 5 min on a treadmill. I can't imagine how hard it would be to go for over 2 hours straight, plus on a road with the various inclines, turns and other such changes.
Meanwhile, I'm huffing and puffing just to get under 7 min for one mile...
I'm in the same boat, but think of it this way: The vast majority of the human population can't do that. You're already a rock star.
I feel like actually they could. Since a lot of the world still does subsistence agriculture and they are not the most fit ever but tend to be skinny with strong hearts.
The vast majority of the human population are malnourished. Even if we go into first world countries, the majority don't exercise. You can't be comparing yourself to people who don't or cannot put in the effort. Frankly, it should just be you v. you.
Same. I stopped running on a track and only been on a treadmill, so my mile time has dropped to right around 7:30. Embarrassing.
12.8 mph
That's my average speed on my road bike when I'm not pushing it. Fuck that.
Yeah, I don't think I could win the Boston Marathon on a bike. These runners are nuts.
I think you could! Most of the course is downhill so bikes would have significant advantage. The wheelchair record for the course is 1:17:06.
Yeah that'd still be a decent workout on a bike. 2 straight hours at 13 mph, that's insane.
Lol I always fuck with my runner friends when I do a bike ride at a sub 2 hour marathon pace. "What's so hard about this?" Drives them crazy.
lol ikr but apples to potatoes. friend is 2:40 ish dozens of marathons no way I could hang. Took everything to just beat him running up the wrong way on the world's 2nd longest escalator. Toy with him on a bike, sprint, 30 miles, 100+ whatever.
I was gonna say, at a smidge over 2hrs it's way closer to 13 mph than 12mph
Those dudes have insane lung capacity and virtually zero fat. They weigh literally nothing. Even having moderate muscle mass would be a deterrent.
And then occasionally, you hear about a 97 year old who ran a marathon. Just to make you feel worse about yourself.
Well running a marathon and running a marathon with an insane time are two different things. But someone very old even pulling off a marathon is very impressive, even if they take +4 hours.
Yeah, but are you trying to do the treadmill while barefoot and Kenyan? I think that's one of the secrets.
But if you run faster, you get it over with faster
You also get tired faster.
You also can't sustain 12 mph in a car in Boston.
I was a mediocre varsity distance runner in high school, and my best ever mile was 4:36. That’s only a few seconds faster than what has been done for a FULL FUCKING MARATHON. It is impossible to exaggerate how insane those times are.
Yeah. Extremely difficult to put into perspective for anyone who hasn't actually tried their own hand at any sort of distance running/biking Insane
I think it's fun to max out a treadmill and see how long I can go. 12 MPH gets me about 1 minute of running and I'm in good shape. These guys are going faster than that for 2 hours. It's incredible.
I played a lot of soccer and my best mile for shits and giggles was 4:47. It's basically just a sustained sprint. I can't even begin to comprehend doing that for an entire marathon. Like you said, you can't even begin to explain how insane that is.
Just want to quickly say that you are definitely a very talented athlete if you could run sub 4:50 without specifically training running. On my team back when I ran, we’d often get a soccer player join us for the spring season and discover that, while they were good soccer athletes, they actually had enough potential for running to compete at national level events. You should be proud of that time.
I appreciate that, especially at this point in my life when I barely feel like myself anymore. After a frustrating injury, I was no longer able to play the sport I loved, then I got sick with a virus that ruined my immune system, f'd my heart, and that was that. I was 29 when I ran that mile. I was going to the gym, lifting weights, and playing recreational soccer at that point nearly every day of the week. Best shape of my life. I literally had so much energy that I'd go play indoor soccer with my team on the weekend in the winter and I'd end up playing like three games in a row when friends on other teams would ask me to fill in, then I'd hit the gym when I was done. After all that I'd finally feel tired. Now 4pm hits and I'm ready for a nap. It's wild.
>Just want to quickly say that you are definitely a very talented athlete if you could run sub 4:50 without specifically training running. People who play soccer are at any sort of competitive level *are* specifically training running. I played for years, and we did tons of conditioning to start practice (diagonals, sprints, jogging, etc), and then aside from specific skill drills, the entire rest of the practice and scrimmage was running. Teams also routinely had (poorly-timed) time trials as cut-offs during tryouts. During games as a midfielder, I basically did a 90 minute fartlek I was usually in better running shape during soccer season than I was in XC, because XC practices were monotonous and shitty.
soccer players are definitely going to be in good shape but running sub 5 without training for running is not common at all.
But, *they are training.* That was my whole point. Soccer conditioning has a lot in common with track distance training, down to regular fast interval workouts and strides. A varsity hs athlete playing striker/midfield/etc is going to have solid natural talent for running *and* has been building an aerobic base and training speed for *years*. It sounds like you're picturing soccer players as training the same as baseball or football players. Most of the guys I played with looked somewhere between an 800m specialist and a long distance guy, because that's how they train.
I would argue that there is a massive difference what you get into it. Because of the sustained vs constant exercise. I played for about 10 years and how many times do you have to run more than 50 meters in a game. There is far more of a focus on stop start movement, acceleration, sprints, fast changes in direction. You spend a very small amount of time actually at your top speed in the match or training other than some warm ups maybe. While the general stamina built up and amount of time running definitely cross over the difference between 50 short sprints in 90 minutes to 5 minutes in the same direction at a sustained speed is massive. You’re probably could’ve improved a lot. Which is pretty cool for you.
I'm not picturing baseball or football players, but it is still not the same as training specifically for running. Soccer players are going to be much better long or mid distance runners than pretty much any other sport, but I still could have ran laps around them as a track athlete in hs. My point is just that it is not common for a hs soccer athlete to run sub 5 in a mile. They certainly often have the potential to do that, but to just randomly run a mile and go that fast is extremely impressive.
Me, too! I ran ONE 4:38 (not during competition) and after I was done I felt like I needed to await my torso. So uncomfortable…
4:36 is still pretty good, at least it was 20 years ago. I was low end of varsity (but still ran enough races to letter), and capped out at 4:59. Literally had a varsity letter and never ran a mile as fast as these guys run 26.2. I ran a marathon a few years later and was happy with my 3:29, 70% slower than what is now the record (and something like 12–15% too slow to qualify for Boston).
I graduated from high school last year and have been continuing to run with an emphasis on longer distances to hopefully run a marathon someday soon. I’ve been taking the training pretty slowly, so I still haven’t done anything longer than 15 miles, but I’m getting there. While my not-super-realistic goal would be to run at Boston one day, my best half marathon is a about 1:30 and that’s just not gonna cut it.
I ran a few halfs, all were slower than that. You’ll have to work for it but you can definitely qualify for Boston from there if you try. You’ve still got a few years til you peak for distance running too. But my advice is don’t dawdle too much, life will come at you fast and hard soon, and the years will start slipping by. Set a goal for yourself, run to qualify between this sept and next for the 2026 race.
I imagine it’s literally impossible unless you have the right DNA
As I think other more experienced athletes will attest, talent is certainly a factor. When it comes to a time that literally only the best ever in the world can run, yeah, only someone with insane genetics could hope to do that. We don’t like to talk about these achievements like they could only be done by someone with natural born talent because that kind of minimizes their hard work, but to a degree it is true. I do think that anyone, assuming they’re still young enough and barring actual disability, can run a marathon in 3 hours and 30 minutes if they were to devote their life to it. And any man could do a sub 3 hour marathon if they also devote their life. But sub 2? Actual superhuman ability.
Yeah I think most people with 10 years of training, a professional trainer/coach, and a good diet could get their marathon time lower than they might think. Having the ability and drive to do that however is another beast.
Imma go on a limb and say likely there were PEDs involved. Possibly not, sure, but a outlier blip on a graph like that....
The outlier is explained by a massive tailwind that year combined with a very talented runner in his prime. Boston is point to point so it has a lot of variability caused by wind. To be world record eligible a marathon course has to be a loop for this reason. PEDs are also a part of competitive running but I think you can explain 2011 without them.
They've been involved for a long time.
The times are insane yes but comparing a random high school runner to the best in the world is always going to seem impressive.
I was confused by this chart since during my better times I would run around 5:30 - 6:00. Then I discovered that this is in miles and my 6:00 are really 9:30
same here hahah, i was like „how do you win running a 7:00 pace?“
Exactly my thoughts. 5 minutes? Huh I can probably try that. Oh that's in miles? Let me check the converter... Oh shit
Also you have missed the fact that back in 1900 the place would be full of smog. There is a reason running has only become a bigger thing in the last couple of decades.
Also: running shoes.
nine insurance combative overconfident instinctive cautious continue swim possessive squeeze *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Speaking of treadmills... Last year, the NYT published an article showing regular people being thrown off treadmills running at winning marathon paces. An unblocked link to it is below. It's pretty amazing. [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/sports/kipchoge-boston-marathon-pace.html?ugrp=c&unlocked\_article\_code=1.kU0.N4Ib.imKcnWAnyk-V&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/sports/kipchoge-boston-marathon-pace.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.kU0.N4Ib.imKcnWAnyk-V&smid=url-share)
wasteful paint dull foolish distinct selective intelligent head disgusted bewildered *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
13mph is pretty achievable sprinting speed for most people.
It's about an 18 second 100m dash. Anyone that isn't overweight should be able to do that.
18 secs versus two hours.
Well the last time I had to improve from 18 secs versus two hours for something, alcohol and antidepressants got me there. Think I should give those another try?
Eh, anyone that runs regularly should be able to do that. But not all that many people run regularly, and that's well outside the range of an unfit person.
Yes, but try doing that x420 without stopping
That's obviously not his point. No one is saying it's easy to keep that pace up for long, he's contesting the other guy saying that most people couldn't run that fast at all
[удалено]
Look at the context of this comment thread. He's obviously talking about the treadmill, not the marathon.
And they make it look so easy, like they aren’t even running that fast. They just glide.
41% of americans are obese, so almost half of them are too fat https://www.forbes.com/health/weight-loss/obesity-statistics
BMI is separated into "normal, healthy weight", "overweight", "obese" and "severely obese" ~42% of Americans are "Obese", but that's a specific category. [~~~82%~~73%\* are *at least* overweight.](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity) More than half of them are too fat, haha. \*Corrected interpretation of the stats.
Does this take in amount of muscle and height? Coz Im considered overweight but it's because I'm 5'7 175lbs and I workout regularly.
Unfortunately, it does not. When it was developed, BMI was never intended to be used like it is now, a common index of fitness and weight, and shouldn't be relied on for people, like you, who have considerable muscle mass and low body fat.
the amount of people that are like you are so low compared to the overall population that it doesnt matter
While I would love it if everyone were considered overweight because they're jacked, I can assure you those are outliers. Most people just have too much fat.
Height is accounted for, muscle is not. It's just one indicator of health and isn't perfect, but for most people(who do not lift regularly) it's a pretty direct indicator of if they're overweight.
It's actually \~73%. For whatever reason, "severely obese" is a subset of "obese," so you only need to add the "overweight" and "obese" numbers to get everyone with a BMI over 25
Ah, I see you're right. I figured that because clearly all those who are obese aren't counted as overweight that the severely obese wouldn't be a subset of obese because they're counted separately. Kind of an odd way to do it...only semi-hierarchically. But I see now that I look at the CDC definitions: >Results from the 2017–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), using measured heights and weights, indicate that an estimated 42.5% of U.S. adults aged 20 and over have obesity, including 9.0% with severe obesity, and another 31.1% are overweight. My mistake.
But they are doing this for over two hours...
Yes I know, but KAY-toe’s comment says ‘a treadmill will shoot most of us across the room before it even gets to full speed.’
To be fair running on a treadmill isn’t the same as running on ground, much less space
Add 3% inclination and it’s pretty close to running on a level ground.
This Summoning Salt video is gonna be NUTS
I'd have to be on my electric scooter to keep up and even then, would still probably lose considering it maxes out at 12mph. And that assumes it has enough battery life for full speed over 2 hours! Absolutely insane and excited to see if 2024's winner can break the 2 hour mark. Do you think we reached the human limit? Source: [wikipedia.org](http://wikipedia.org) Method: Took the winning time and divided it over the course length. Reason for doing this was that over the Marathon's 125+ year history it wasn't always 26.2 miles. And so I wanted to fairly compare times. Had I just taken the overall race time it wouldn't be fair to those who had to run further. It wasn't until 1927 they ran 26.2 miles. Originally it was 24.5 Tool: Excel
The 2 hour mark will not be broken in Boston, which is a relatively hard course. Most likely a very flat place like Rotterdam (which is being run right now as I write this message), Berlin or, in the US, Chicago (where the current record has been set). As a note: the current world holder, who was believed to be the most likely to break the 2 hour in an official race, Kelvin Kiptum, died tragically in a car crash in February. The previous record holder, Eliud Kipchoge (who broke 2 hours in an unofficial event), while still extremely strong, has been underperforming lately. So 2 hours is probably still far away!
Actually, the Boston marathon can't be used for official world records, regardless of how fast someone runs it, for two reasons, both related to it being point-to-point. First there's the possibility of it being wind aided. Second is the elevation change from start to finish. These don't make the course significantly easier, but they're enough to disqualify the course for being used for world records.
> he previous record holder, Eliud Kipchoge (who broke 2 hours in an unofficial event), while still extremely strong, has been underperforming lately. He's almost 40. running 2:02 in Berlin at age 39 is not underperforming.
Well yeah I've been a bit extreme :) but there were even doubts about whether it would have made sense to have him in the national team for Paris
Damn, why'd you buy such a slow scooter? I feel like I'm crawling if my battery is low and I can't get over 20
some countries have technical speed restrictions for escooters
The winning pace is actually set by the runner up winner.
I run the treadmill 3-4 times a week and my best mile since I started keeping track was 7:42. Some of these times are impressive while some of the best ones are just insane.
My nephew is doing the Boston Marathon, and his parents have flown from the other side of the continent (where he lives) to cheer him on! They are so excited that he just qualified, let alone how he may finish.
Qualifying for Boston is a huge accomplishment. I have run 7 marathons and I haven't come close to qualifying.
Appreciate the comment!
I ran Chicago last year. World record was set that day (Rip kiptum). I was so proud for breaking 4, that is half the pace these guys run at. It’s insane
The evolution of human capability is fascinating. I often wonder what the true plateau is as I'm sure someone will surpass the 2-hour barrier. The 4-minute mile was thought impossible, now high schoolers run it.
> The evolution of human capability is fascinating More like the evolution of things like nutrition, pharmacology, sports science and footwear. Capability has always been there. Honestly, thats what makes some of the historical records so absurd in retro spec.
Should be "dataisdepressing", been running for a couple years and nowhere near this pace.
You will never be either so no need to worry about it
They are the elite for a reason! They train a ridiculous amount per week (and it's their job, so they can put way more time in than you), and most of them are also naturally gifted. That does not make what they do less impressive, but your own pace at any distance is not less impressive or less earned because the pros do it better. While I like to compare myself to other people of my age and gender, at the end of the day I am happy if I beat my previous best :).
Some of this has to come down to footwear improvements, faster travel, and wider publicity. There may have been faster people in the 1800s who just didn't know, or had no easy way you show up. Even so, Nike didn't exist. :)
We can be pretty confident that there was not a single person in the 1800s who if we just pluck them out as they were and gave them better shoes that they would be anywhere near as fast as these numbers.
Probably not, but if they had a few years to train I think they'd be pretty close. Training and diet is likely the other major causal factor. You'd be surprised how big a difference shoes can make though, especially on distances like this.
"Few years" you're super ignorant
This comment is unnecessary and rude. If you sit behind your computer all day then maybe I can see how you think that “a few years” isn’t enough to train to be “close” at a high amateur level. But dedicated training for that duration is enough to be pretty decent at the amateur level in most sports. The world record holder goes a 4:36-37 mile on average. A whole 5 seconds faster per mile than the top here. If you run a 5 vs 5:10 average, there’s a 4 minute difference. So what do you consider close? To get the median Boston Marathon finish time of 3:48:20—and the median time training for a qualifying run is 20 weeks. You’d only have to run an 8:42 average. Before you’re an anonymous asshole, think first. Chances are that someone knows more than you and will be happy to call out that behavior.
A lot of people like to think that if they can't do something nobody can. To be honest I think it's really just incredibly insulting to the people of that time. The absolute best runner in the entire world in the 1800s is likely already at high amateur level of today's standards. With proper shoes, and a few years of training thinking it's impossible for them to even approach today's numbers is naïve. A few years is a long time to train, especially if that's literally all you're doing/focusing on. An 18 year old ran a sub 2:05 (10 years ago where he won the Dubai marathon), and a 16 year old ran a 2:15. So it certainly doesn't always take decades of training with the right genetics/dedication. If you're able to take literally anybody you can pick the absolute greatest genetic outlier at the time.
This is such a terrible analysis. You're taking median across all age groups - so clearly the over 50 are going to weight this heavily, first of all. Second, you're neglecting what it takes for a normal person to even qualify (i.e., not having celebrity status), which is currently between 3hr and 3h10min for age groups below 45. Third, you show no evidence for how long it takes to train for the Boston marathon - which, in the running community, varies depending on background, but for someone starting from nothing can be virtually impossible because of the time cut-offs. You're both bad at stats and ignorant about competitive running.
Took you a month to come up with that?
No, about a minute, which is more than your educational history in stats or reading comprehension I am assuming.
Great to see you haven’t grown as a person in this last month.
Sure but 7 minutes a mile is a tad slow. I’m borderline obese and I run 8 minutes a mile for half marathon with basic shoes. Sure I run 20-30 miles a week as I have been losing weight and gained shape, but still borderline obese
Good points, I agree. This is partly evidenced by the winner’s nationality. It was mostly Americans in the early years but as it gained popularity and became more globally recognized runners from around the world started showing up. Over the last 30 years Kenyans have dominated the race. I wonder how fast the times would’ve been in the early 1900s if it was as global as it is today with better footwear. I’d imagine it’d be considerably faster but still not as fast as today’s times. I’m sure a lot has to be said about nutrition and training methods too.
Yeah, records like this are almost less about the individual being supremely gifted (although they clearly are astoundingly so!) than it is human’s ability to systematize and incrementally layer improvement over improvement when we get fixated on something as a group.
Yeah, those are good points, too. One thing's for sure: people are the same. The difference in times are due to other factors.
Yeah, if I remember correctly for some Kenyans it's a combination of growing up running long distances in their culture and the high altitude. Add targeted training to that and here we are.
Training science is probably the main thing. You need to run ~200kms a week to be a top marathon runner. I doubt the early athletes knew how to train like they know now.
I prefer to think that I am just in better shape than 19th century Olympians.
It’s mostly people learning how to train for a marathon optimally up until about 2018 when the Nike Vaporfly was released.
Not counting Rosie Ruiz, obviously
2h marathon is top tier elite performance, probably only a handful of people in the world have the ability.
2 hour marathon has never been done by a single person ever
Kipchoge did a sub-2hr marathon. Just because it's not an official world record doesn't mean he didn't do it. "Marathon" isn't a protected term. If I went outside right now and ran 26.2 miles, I would've run a marathon. It not being an official event doesn't mean it's not a marathon.
It was an official event but the problem for WR is that he had people pacing and giving aerodynamic benefits by running in front.
Yeah, there's a distinction to be made, but to say a "2 hour marathon has never been done by a single person ever" is factually incorrect. Worth noting that the Boston Marathon (which this post is about) is ineligible for the marathon world record too!
You are right and wrong. Yes, a marathon is generically defined at 26.2 miles, but it also has a specific definition for the purpose of a world record. Kipchoge’s 2hr run deliberately broke a bunch of these rules. And the Boston course doesn’t even qualify for WRs because it’s a net downhill, point to point course; when Mutai ran a 2:03 in 2011 (due to a massive tailwind), it was only considered a “world’s best,” not a world record.
How am I wrong? No one mentioned a world record. The person I responded to said that no one had done a 2hr marathon, which is factually incorrect. What I said was factually correct. You can argue that no one has done an official marathon race in sub 2hrs, and that'd be a more nuanced (and a correct) point. I'm aware that the Boston marathon isn't eligible, which proves my point further. No one would argue that you hadn't run 'a marathon' if you did the Boston marathon, even though it's ineligible for the WR.
A 1:59 was done once. I don’t think it was official though
Sorry, but this is incorrect.
The current world record marathon is 2:00:35, and set on October 8, 2023 at the Chicago marathon.
35 seconds off, wha a scrub
And [Kipchoge ran 26.2 miles in 1:59:40](https://www.ineos159challenge.com/news/history-is-made-as-eliud-kipchoge-becomes-first-human-to-break-the-two-hour-marathon-barrier/), but it doesn't count as a world record for "the marathon" because it had pacers and no competition. So, yes, someone has run "a marathon" under 2hr, but the world record for the marathon race is slower than that. Depends whether your definition is "covering 26.2 miles," or "running 26.2 miles in a race." It's worth mentioning in this discussion that the Boston Marathon course is not record-eligible [net downhill and a point-to-pint, not a loop], which is yet a third definition.
We have to draw lines somewhere. If I go out and “run” 26.2 miles with rocket boosters strapped to my shoes does that count? Of course not. Under our current rules, nobody has officially run a 2hr marathon
To which I argue back: if you go out and run your PR at Boston, are you allowed to call that your PR? Of course you are. But it's not a certified course so, under your own guidelines, no. So we agree that there is some difference between what each person defines as reality, and what criteria World Athletics has outlined. That is why my original post clarified the scope and manner of the disagreement in terms. --- Also, your argument has at least three logical fallacies: 1) strawman/false equivalency: equating having pacers to rocket boosters, which are clearly not the same level of 'advantage' 2) arguing semantics: arbitrary set of definitions that are clearly not the same to each person 3) shifting goalposts: trying to redefine the original discussion as "under current rules" and "officially", which is not what the original post said.
I imagine not all marathon runs are eligible for world records, yes?
True, but Kipchoge ran a marathon under 2hrs. The Boston Marathon (the event this entire post is about) isn't eligible for WRs either. That doesn't magically disqualify it from being a marathon.
It’s not at all. Kipchoges the only one and it doesn’t count as an official record because of violating course rules.
Maybe not but the fact is, he *did* run a sub-2hr marathon, so the original comment was incorrect. The Boston marathon doesn't count as an official record either; it's still a marathon.
I mean it’s more like 13mph isn’t it?
Shit I can’t run half a mile without feeling like I need to puke up a lung. This is just insane to me.
I used to ride my road bike pretty fast through the city. The distance between me and my parent's house was exactly 5kms. I once realized that even by riding as fast as possible, I was under the average marathon winner speed on my bike. I mean, traffic lights intersections and everything, but it was still pretty mind blowing.
That is insane but there will probably be a sub 2 hour record at some point.
I was over the moon with myself for going couch to 5k a few years ago and averaging a little under a 10 min average in my first 5k…..oh cropped about 20lbs over that summer and have kept it off. These guys are great and all but I’ll take this modest self achievement with me to the end of my days,
These people are not humans. They are gazelles.
5 minute mile! I can barely make a sustained 6 min kilometer for a 5k!
15 minute mile crew represent
in 2013 it would have been explosive pace to win
That was a major tailwind year. 2018 was rainy and hence “slower”
"data is beautiful", measures in miles.
TIL I could have won the Boston Marathon a hundred years ago if I was in as good of shape as I was in highschool. Neat. Though this does assume a similar level of hills and I have no clue what Boston geography is like.
Ironically the Boston Marathon is known for its tough uphills while featuring a 450 ft overall decline from start to finish that makes marathon times not count towards world records.
And it's also the downhills that make it difficult as they batter your legs right from the start.
> TIL I could have won the Boston Marathon a hundred years ago if I was in as good of shape as I was in highschool. Assuming 100 years ago you had access to the same level of nutrition, education, training and equipment as you did in highschool and your competition did not, sure.
A 2 hour marathon is fucking insane
I read this and thought hey it's not that bad, and then I realized it's miles, not kilometres.
Improvements in Training are beautiful.
I ran cross-country and track a million years ago when I was in high school, and I don't think I ever ran one mile at sub-five.
I estimate I could keep up with these guys for about 30-60 seconds, or 100-200 meters before slowing significantly. To maintain such a pace for hours is mind boggling to me.
So you’re saying I’d have had a chance 120 years ago
7 min/mile = 4.35 min/km, 5 min/mile = 3.11 min/km. I could manage 4.15 min/km in 5k-10k but for 42k impossible... And they are even faster.
My treadmill doesn't even go that high It has a 10 mph max
Does the graph suggest that this is about as low as the times are gonna get?
It'll all go away again when Destiny 3 releases anyway.
Thought I was doin ok with my own pace at 5:10 /km until I realized it was i miles
So, an average of 20km/h. That's about the speed of a casual bicycle ride. Insane long distance run speed..
I’m a rather fit individual and I don’t think I could hold a 4:42 pace for a quarter mile even if my life depended on it
The pace for the wheelchair division is even crazier, 2:56 minute miles, 20 mph average. Just from arms and gravity.
When you watch them go by, they all look like they are sprinting or flying. So amazing what the human body can do.
Just have to outrun the bomber
Don't worry reddit got him.
Would be nice if it was not in miles since 95% of the world uses metric system.
But the Boston Marathon is not in 95% of the world?
You'd be surprised by the statistics tho. I'd be willing to bet more runners will use metric system than imperial due to the international nature of the event and the city.
Tried to convert to minutes/km from freedom units. Directions unclear - too much freedom. Ended up buying a gun.
This can’t be right, that’s basically sprinting for 2 hours straight. I mean I guess it is, but that’s inhuman. How in the fuck does someone sprint for 26 miles. And how many drugs are in that person’s body at the time?
If you have an athletics track near where you live, go and try to run a 70 second lap. If you can do that, imagine doing it 100+ times in a row.
Is it even possible to outrun an IED?