Yes, it seems likely that drugs have been a factor in the increased speed of distance runners. Sadly, the testing procedures for athletics are notably worse that for cycling (especially in the offseason).
However running does have one critical difference compared to cycling that gives a small glimmer of possibility that some runners might be clean and competitive with dirty runner.
In running, "running economy"[1] is a huge factor in performance, and is quite variable and can be improved with training[2]. In cycling there isn't really a similar factor (except for a cyclists weight): the ceiling of non-doped performance over a 40+ minute timeframe seems to top out at around 6.4 Watts/kg, and that can be projected directly onto a given climb to calculate the best possible time. Yes, tactical factors, weather and measurement errors make that seem more precise than it is in practice but the point is that there does seem to be a genuine ceiling on output.
In running that ceiling hasn't been found. Running economy is measured by putting runners in a closed-system and measuring speed vs energy usage. Elite runners generally are more efficient than non-elite, but no one really knows why.
However, it has been proven that running economy can be improved by training with runners who are faster than you[!].
Two points here: some runners might be clean and be beating dirty runners through better economy (which they might have obtained by training next to doped runners), and secondly it might be possible to find methods to improve economy dramatically.
(Road cyclist, sometimes runner, eternal optimist here)
It's starting to come apart at the seams though: http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/doping-probe-spurs-kenyas-...
A famous cycling reporter took drugs for a month to see just want the effect was and apparently it was like being superman. He would go out and ride 100 miles (something that normally leaves you in couch mode the next day) and be ready to do all again the next day like he hadn't even touched the bike the day before.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Doper-Next-Door-Performance-Enhanc...
HGH and EPO are the drugs we have all heard about but I'm sure there are 8 we haven't heard about yet. Also this book gives you insight into the violence we are seeing outside of the gridlines in the NFL. Apparently all of these drugs running around in you makes you crazy in a lot of cases.
I'd expect the next generation of drugs will focus on things like improving monocarboxylate transporter throughput/efficiency.
But, as sibling answers say, decreased training recovery times is incredibly important. Steroids also protect your joints -- they are an anti-inflammatory. Runners' knees, ankles, and spines take a pounding.
The real reason is more financial: see the graph of prize money referenced in the article, and also take a look at the current state of track 10,000m racing. More top talent is attracted to the marathon, away from the longer track races, than before.
Cycling has a biological passport which (at worst) limits how much a doper can improve their blood chemistry. Athletics doesn't have that, and doing point checks isn't as effective as looking at changes.
I've found reading the analysis after this story makes it an even better read:
The road is so flat and straight, you can see them coming from a mile away. Six runners flow in arrowhead formation around the Canadian city of Saskatoon. The early November air is still and dry, the sky overcast, and the temperature hovers a bit above freezing, just as predicted.
All in their early 20s, they’ve been training together for this moment for years; only in the last month did their coach select which three will go for the record. The remaining three form the front of the arrowhead, blocking the wind and enduring the mental effort of controlling the pace. Should one of them cross the finish line in two hours—or faster—all six will share equally in the $50 million jackpot promised by the heirs to the Hoka One One fortune. The pot of money is up for grabs, for any runner, anywhere in the world. The chase is on.
So, will they make it? And what year is this? We’ve cut the distance to the sub-two marathon in half since 1998, but it will get progressively harder to trim the remaining seconds. Still, the physiologists tell us that it’s not impossible, meaning it is possible. I’m saying the year is...2075—and they make it
The Marathon record doesn't even require the course to be flat (there are limits on the elevation difference for it to be recognised as a record).
Drafting isn't massively effective in running. A Marathon in 2 hours is 21 km/h, and in cycling you wouldn't really bother drafting at that speed.
However, If the people who break the air in front of the record contender get to jump in part way through, I don't like it. Though I'm realizing now that if the track is any kind of loop, you could stretch this rule by intentionally letting the contender lap the pacers so they could reserve energy for every nth lap when they hop back in front of him.
[1] http://www.bmw-berlin-marathon.com/en/news-and-media/news/20...
curun1r: steroids are useful for the exact same reason in the tour de france: decreased training recovery times, joint protection, etc. See eg nordic skiing [2]. You don't take the same doses as bodybuilders do because your goal isn't hypertrophy, but it still helps. Or see this quote [3]
To boost their strength is not the sole reason athletes turn to steroids,
Yesalis adds. "They have been taken for at least 45 years by endurance
athletes to recover from workouts rapidly. With steroids, a marathon runner
can run longer, a swimmer can do more laps and a cyclist can spend more time
pedaling." In sports where endurance is everything, the ability to last
longer during workouts and competitions confers a definite advantage.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news71508517.html#jCp
Doping with EPO or blood transfusions is one way of boosting an already-high
VO2 max—and it’s possible that cheating may have contributed to the drop in
the marathon record, and could even be the “secret” that allows runners to
approach sub-two in the future. But Radcliffe’s numbers offer a reminder
that such tactics aren’t necessary to achieve boundary-breaking
performances: Her VO2 max was already exceptional when she was a teenager,
and it stayed at a relatively constant level throughout her career.
[2] http://www.steroids.info/2012/10/09/documentary-looks-at-ste...
Cue complaints about scrolling behavior of this site, but the content itself is worth reading.
I temporarily turned it on, and saw the annoyances.
The static view without JS is just fine: the graphs and their labels are all there; nothing moves when you scroll.
It sure looks that way and I'm normally pretty tolerant of design flourishes, but I find this simply unbearable.
Still, I really wanted to read this, but neither Pocket, Readability nor Instapaper are able to pull more than a few paragraphs of usable text out of it.
The design isn't just bad or annoying it's hostile.
Two athletes with the same VO2max and efficiency can have vastly different performances in a marathon. The body's VO2max potential can be used by solely burning carbs, which supply is limited (about 2000 kcal) whereas fat supply is practically unlimited (1 kg has about 7000 kcal. As a marathon requires more energy than is available as stored carbs, the ability to burn fat is a major factor in marathon performance.
The body's VO2max potential can be used by solely burning carbs
Actually you mixed them both up. In aerobic (with oxygen) exercise, you mostly burn fat. In anaerobic exercise, you burn glucose and glycogen and produce lactic acid through lactic acid fermentation. The important metric for anaerobic performance is not acid production rate, but acid tolerance of the muscles, because high acid levels lead to fatigue.
Lactate can be further used to create ATP, but this process needs oxygen as well. Hence, a good VO2max helps to get rid of lactate, which was created in the anaerobic process. When measuring the lactate threshold by solely the lactate concentration, it's difficult to distinct between high production / high reduction and low production rates. Good VO2max can conceal weak fat burning abilities. Therefore often the lactate production rate by a given effort (typically maximum effort) is used as indicator for the fat burning capability.
(Hope that makes sense, English is not my native language :-) ...)
The amount of work that went into making this pretty-good layout unreadable is insane.
This site should be used in schools to teach future web developers what not to make.
I used to turn off a lot of Javascript on webpages, but I'm actually managing to read this article reasonably well despite the appalling usability it has with Javascript turned on. The article is definitely worth a read, despite the annoying default screen presentation.
Contrast this to other extreme endurance sports such as pro cycling, where there are basically no Kenyans, Ethiopians or Africans at all to be found. Theres a high cost to entry and it requires infrastructure to train.
A line of thought that's particularly interesting there is that a 2h marathon has implications for 10000m and half marathon speeds, which make it seem quite a bit further off.
It's intriguing that she suffered brain trauma and there's a part of her brain that doesn't function as expected. I expect there will be a marathon runner with a very specific brain trauma. The trauma will give him an unfair advantage to run a sub two hour marathon.
I doubt most cities have people who could run a half marathon at that pace. The best half-marathons are still around 59 minutes, now you want to double that with no performance penalty.
It is going to take an incredibly genetically gifted person with a lifetime of training to do it. Basically the Usain Bolt of marathons.
What I like is that in the half-marathon, women are only 5 minutes behind men. I am more interested when the first woman will run a one hour half-marathon.
It takes a toll on the body. It catabolizes it. Compare a marathon runner with a 100m runner.
Also, as expected, temperature plays a big factor in it, which makes me wonder why so many people "love when it's a nice day" (read: sunny and hot) to exercise.
Incredible.
Creation and destruction. Build up of tissue, and burning of energy stores.
BTW, strength-based sports also take a toll on the body. Maybe even more than long distance running. You can keep doing long races well into advanced age, whereas weight lifting after 40 is a bit sketchy.
At a competitive level, probably yes. As an exercise, very good for muscle mass, bone mass, cardio health, etc.
Second, your muscles are already somewhat warm, so you feel powerful right from the start instead of having to warm up for ages before you're ready for top performance.
Also, your training or just going for a run is not at the same intensity as running a marathon as a race. You run shorter distances or lower intensity, meaning the stable body temperature at marathon pace and distance is a cooling body at training pace at the same outside temperature.
... data graphics were mainly devices for showing the obvious to the ignorant,
which led to two fruitless paths.
The graphics had to be alive, communicatively dynamic, overdecorated and
exaggerated (otherwise, the dullards would fall asleep)
The main task of graphical analysis was to detect and denounce deception
(because the dullards could not protect themselves)
Note that even though we used to be told that we could all increase our VO2 max through trainning, it turns out that only people with a specific set of genes can do so.
but if you've never trained at elite level, then you can almost certainly improve it up to your (personal) ceiling.
1.00 atm * 8.1L = n * 0.0821 * 331.8K
n = 0.30 mol, @ 32.00 g/mol = 9.5 grams 02
There you go.
It's 2014, can't you people just detect I'm not american and put up normal Centigrade, km, kg, etc?
[1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/autoconvert-auto-c...
Granted, they could appeal to a wider audience with this interactive presentation by supporting both SI and "American" (as you call them) units. But is it really an affront to not do that?
[1] http://rw.runnersworld.com/mediakit/international/RunnersWor...
This is not about blindly using plain SI units wherever possible. This is about writing for an international audience. Most people in the world don't use miles but kilometres in their everyday life. This especially important when reporting about an international event such as the marathon.
In 4 of those cities they have no idea what a degree Fahrenheit is.
It is a good idea to be able to choose between different units. Most of the world does not use imperial units is something that lots of people forget.
Seriously. Some people are not made to run 2 hour marathons, or acquired some insuries or problems which makes reaching this goal either futile or even counterproductive, depending on why you are setting this goal.
EDIT: OK, now that I actually read the article, it turns out the Boston Marathon is ineligible for records for just this reason - it's overall downhill. With that attitude, why not just require galoshes while you're at it?