I'm surprised to see no mention of temperature here. The article says the temperature was 53f and "a little bit humid", and concludes with the Nike experts saying they disagreed that it might have been too warm, arguing that the temperature was perfect.
This flies in the face of much of what I've seen.
Alex Hutchinson wrote a wonderful article entitled "What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?" in 2014[1], and in a subsequent piece[2] he lays out data from Paris officials who have found that the fastest elite runners did best with temps at 38.9f. This is a HUGE unexplained difference. Furthermore, with pacers blocking the wind more than ever, the Breaking2 effort would have given Kipchoge even less opportunities for evaporative and convective cooling.
"When French researchers analyzed the finishing times of 1.8 million marathoners over a 10-year period, they found that a race-day temp of 43.2°F produced the quickest times overall. But faster runners, who generate more heat, benefited from cooler temps, with the top one percent (green line below) peaking at 38.9°F. Midpackers (red line) do best in the mid-40s."
But by then, he had won four major marathons and the Olympic gold medal, and what he lacked in raw physical potential he made up for with … something.
It seems like the next frontier in distance running optimization is the mind. Given the analysis on the runners' physiology, the only thing that really separated them was mentality.
This seems obvious, given the nature of distance running, but the article never mentions sports psychology or mental exercises the runners do to improve performance.
That's pretty interesting, given that so many elite athletes have put such an emphasis on the mental part of their game:
I knew I was going to wrestle in the finals of the Olympics against a Russian and I knew he had been training specifically to beat me, but then I knew the guy was on steroids, That would help me. Whereas some might think ‘oh he’s cheating, for me you didn’t pay the price. You’re not as committed as I am. It’ll tear him apart. He may be strong, but all I have to do during that 9 minutes of wrestling is loosen one single wire in his brain, make him do something that isn’t perfect, and he’ll fall apart.
Besides the health effects, what you lose when you use steroids is mental toughness. The key to victory is that the strongest mind wins. You can get physical strength with steroids, but you lose the mental toughness (you would have gained) from brutal hard work. Steroids hurt mental toughness by serving as a crutch. - Dan Gable[0]
Champions aren’t made in gyms. Champions are made from something they have deep inside them – a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have the skill, and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill.
To be a champion you must believe you are the best. If you’re not, pretend you are. - Muhammad Ali[1]
Physically is a little bit easier, but the mental part is the hardest part, and I think that's what separates the good players from the great players - Michael Jordan[2]
I think part of that mental toughness that may be overlooked is being dedicated and putting in the time to become a true champion. If you devote a good amount of your waking hours to a craft or sport and you use that time properly (learning to do things right rather than doing them repeatedly wrong) then you will excel.
I learned this from one of my Drumline instructors at university who was also a biology professor; He stated that one of his students did poorly on his exam and the student said he studied hours on end and didn’t know how that could happen. The professor replied, the amount you study isn’t nearly as important as studying efficiently and correctly. He then likened that to us practicing drums he said, if you spend hours practicing with improper technique then you are doing yourself a disservice and he finished up by saying you will only perform as well or likely worse than how you perform while practicing.
Despite that efficiency beats time in most aspects, if you want to do well at the National and international level you will still likely have to devote a very major part of you waking hours to honing your skills efficiently.
For endurance sports the top level competitors are all in phenomenal condition. What separates the winners from the losers is the ability to suffer. (Not accounting for PEDs of course).
In the ultramarathon world, there is increasing attention being paid to PEDs. A lot of that focus is not on the physical benefits of the drugs, though that is important, but the focus is also on the mental benefits. That is, drugs that lower anxiety and/or increase focus can have greater benefits in a race that might last 20 hours. So, in my world, being physically able to run 50 or 100 miles is just table stakes. It's the mental game that makes the difference in whether you cross the finish line or not.
running may not seem like it, but the way you think about what you are doing especially in a race scenario can make or break you quickly... I recently ran a half and did almost all of my morning prep beforehand wrong.. forgot some key things, freaked myself out just before the race and did far worse than I had trained for... if you think you've messed up, you've messed up :)
A trick to get into a race (not based on empirical evidence, just my own experience) is to start counting in your head and turn off everything else. I counted 1-2-3 after I almost tripped in the beginning of a half marathon. Instead of focusing on beating myself up for almost tripping I just continued to count. Broke almost all my PB. Keeps you from thinking about messing up.
So you and I start the race standing next to each other, then we run to the finish line. One of us wins. Why is that not competitive like a fight or basketball?
Not OP, but I'd say it's different because in running, your performance is mostly based on yourself. In boxing and basketball, you have an opponent trying to prevent you from executing your plan.
I'm not judging better or worse and I hate the "is golf a sport" arguments.
It’s not identical but this sounds like direct competition. I’ve read other quotes from Jim Walmsley about the mental competition in an ultramarathon.
> “You shouldn’t let others bully you on the course and make you do something you aren’t comfortable with, like going too fast or too slow,” he said.
>
> “You need to find your pace and, if you can, try to bully one of the other big names into going your pace and not their pace.”
A few week's ago I read a a paper entitled "Modeling: optimal marathon performance on the basis of physiological factors".
I found the topic incredibly interesting. In this paper (from 1991) the author examines the limiting factors in human running and tries to build a model that gives you a bound on how fast a human could run a marathon. The results he got is 1:57:58.
I'll often just read the comments, or read a portion of them and possibly even comment (if it's not entirely related to the submission, as discussion drifts), prior to reading the article. If what I'm commenting about is related to the article and I haven't read it (such as noting related info), I generally do a quick scan and search of the article to make sure I'm not repeating what it said.
I don't think there's anything wrong with reading comments first, and in some select cases commenting yourself. Comments are why I'm here. That said, it's worth keeping in mind whether you've read the article though and how that affects your interpretation of what you're reading, and what you want to say. Be signal, not noise (I think that's a perfect motto for HN and summarizes the rules fairly well).
Elite marathoners are incredibly fast. It boggles the mind. But, for me, I'm more impressed by Camille Herron breaking the world record (men's and women's) for 100 miles in 12 hours, 42 minutes, and 39 seconds which is a 7:38/mi pace.
Running a 7:38 mile would be really fast for most adults, but to do it over 100 miles is unthinkable.
Agreed. Amazing accomplishment that many runners even don’t know about. I had a friend running the same race and it took him just under 20 hours. A seven hour difference boggles the mind.
I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible.
13.1 mph is a decent pace on a bike! That's the sort of pace you set for a commute to split minimizing your commute time with arriving at work not completely exhausted and sweaty.
For clarity, that's a 4:34 mile / 2:50 km. ie hauling ass.
The vast vast majority of cross country runners in high school can't maintain that pace for 3.1 miles / 5 km. How a human maintains it for 26.2 I have no idea.
Another perspective: the world record 1 mile time, which is essentially a 4 lap sprint, is 3:43.13. So these athletes run at 81% world record mile pace for 26 miles.
I used to cycle quite a lot around the West London parks and an used to seeing plenty of joggers. A few years ago, around the time of the London Olympics, I saw this woman running. I've never seen anyone run so fast and she just kept going. I crossed her path later on and she was still going. I presume she was a top level marathon runner, it was shockingly fast.
I was running Bushy parkrun[0] one Saturday in 2012 when Mo Farah was on a training run, in the opposite direction to the masses. It was like Road Runner went past, incredible pace. I was also there when Andy Baddeley got the parkrun record, 13:48. It just seems so ... ludicrous and impossible.
I used to sometimes run a mile in the middle of my treadmill run @ 10 mpg. I'm a bigger guy and regularly the machine would shut down because the belt would start to slip or overheat at that pace. I don't think it would even do 13+ mph
Most treadmills max out at 10 mph or so. Maybe 12. I have run a 2:44 marathon and at my best I would have been able to keep up with them for about .5 miles (based on my 800 meter time of 2:10). Very few people can hit that pace without damaging something unless they have seriously trained.
Agree on the incredible part. I have seen elites race in person at the 2008 Olympic trials and it is unreal how smooth and fast they are.
>I believe everyone physically able to should try running 13.1 mph on a treadmill just to get an understanding of just how fast these athletes run for two hours. It is incredible.
A whole bunch of treadmills don't go past 8MPH and even that seems pretty fast to me to run at for an extended period of time.
I can run 10mph for 13 miles, and I’m in my fifties. That’s not to brag, but to point out that an 8 mph speed limit on a treadmill is ridiculously low. Sure, it probably fits the 80% use case, but that’s only about 8 minutes/mile. Not a very useful treadmill, IMO.
But I’ve been on a treadmill less than a half dozen times in my life, so what do the treadmill makers care what I think. :-)
You're in your fifties and you're running a sub 1:19 HM? Color me dubious on that one. Possible, but not likely.
Although you're right that it would be a piss-poor treadmill if it were built to max out at 8 minutes/mile pace or slower. I suspect none are, but I think the fellow reporting it was at heavy weight, so perhaps that affected things.
Just for fun I cranked my treadmill up to 12mph which is the max. Not while I was on it because I know I'd fly off.
Every time I 'run' I think about fast running for a long distance. Then I usually stop my workout and go sit on the couch and think of some things.
Sub 2hr marathon is Stupid Fast.
I was going to call out this article on the "Untold" part, but apparently it was released before the NatGeo video [1]. The video is a good watch. I didn't plan to watch the whole thing, but it sucked me in. You really get attached to the runners.
When Kipchoge started falling behind, they seemed to not be worried, but I felt that they should have tried to remedy it right away.
Yeah. I recently read the book and amazed by how good of a runner he is, especially his discipline and dedication.
Inspiring, even might to the non-runners.
Speaking as someone who has run a lot of marathons and half marathons, it would be more honest to describe this project as attempting to have a human run 26.2 miles in under 2 hours in perfect, laboratory like conditions.
It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.
>It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.
I agree. Anything other than a 26.2 mile race in footwear common in the classical hellenistic period that terminates in the ancient town of Marathon in Greece is a little insulting to REAL marathon runners.
I don't know why runners are so snobby when it comes things like this.
What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. Would you consider that achievement worse than perfect lab like conditions?
It's a certain distance, by foot. That's it. I also see snobbishness and even anger toward run-walkers. Even if they do the same distance in the same conditions.
I wouldn't disagree that snobbishness is present in the running community, but there are standards that must hold for a course to be "record-eligible" (by the dominant athletic organizations). In sprints on a track, this includes the wind. I'm not sure if distance events include wind. But marathon courses must start and end "near" the same location (be a loop course, more or less) to avoid being wind-aided the entire time, and to avoid an overall elevation drop.
The course of the Boston marathon is notable in that it is not record-eligible. It is not a loop, and there is a net elevation drop. In 2011, there was a tailwind at Boston, resulting in abnormally quick times, including Ryan Hall's 2:04:58, which would have been an American record, but is not due to the course [1].
It isn't just perfect, lab-like conditions. It's a different set of rules. The International Association of Athletics Federations sets standards of what constitutes a marathon. Nike's event didn't follow those rules, so results in the two can't be directly compared. It's apples and oranges.
The most undeniable difference between the Breaking2 event and what would be allowed in an record-eligible marathon is the pacers used. In Breaking2, they swapped in different groups of 6 people to run in a carefully-engineered triangle formation directly in front of the main runners. In a real race, the winner cannot draft behind others the whole way. Because at some point obviously the winner must pull ahead, and the rules disallow drafting behind anyone who isn't running the same race. So the rules specifically forbid exactly what Nike did with pacers.
When you change the rules in a way that you know has a quantifiable effect on the outcome (and I'm sure Nike can tell you the numbers since they used computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to select the best pacer formation), it's not comparable anymore.
Now personally I don't have any problem with Nike's event. It was a fun exhibition thing that inspired and challenged people. Probably some good research even came out of it. But it's still fair to point out how the results on this don't really count.
You're clever, but the IAAF is thorough. Rule 144.3 says:
"For the purpose of this Rule, the following examples shall be considered assistance, and are therefore not allowed: (a) Pacing in races by persons not participating in the same race, by athletes lapped or about to be lapped or by any kind of technical device (other than those permitted under Rule 144.4(d))."
> What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back.
The courses need to follow certain rules to mitigate the effect of tailwinds, slopes and things like that. That's why Boston isn't eligible for world records.
Here's the rule: "The start and finish points of a course, measured along a theoretical straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance." (http://www.aims-worldrunning.org/world-records.html)
But just to address the original comments: "It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.".... We do consider the Boston Marathon to be a marathon, right?
Boston is a real marathon, run on a hilly course in whatever the weather is on the day of the race. This has meant rainstorms, 80+ degree weather, and everything in between.
Nike's WR attempt is an experimental marathon, run on a track shielded from the wind, on a date and time chosen based on the temperature, cloud cover, and wind forecasts to be ideal for human long-distance performance running.
I've run over 25 marathons. A half-marathon is a weekly training run. I've got a 3:07 PR. I am not insulted. The limits of human performance are fascinating!
> He drove onward, breaking the tape in two hours and 25 seconds.
I just ran a marathon two weeks ago in 3:15:24. I'd only wanted to break 3:20 that day so I was more than satisfied. Yet I still found myself going over my race wondering why I couldn't find just one second per mile to go under 3:15. Just one second! The mental aspect of the marathon is my favorite part of running.
Out of curiosity, do you track and monitor your progress during your runs? This article makes it sound like doing so is very important, which makes sense.
I do. I run with a Garmin, mostly to keep myself from running the first hour or so too fast. The rest of the race I check my splits (mile markers) but mostly run by feel.
When I ran Chicago last year my Garmin lost the GPS signal so I just went with the pace group runners. Usually only the mid-size to large races have pacers, and you never know how good they are, but at Chicago the pacers may as well be professionals.
Regardless, yes, running even effort is critical to the best performance. This can be tricky depending upon terrain, wind, and temperature. Also, personally do best going out a bit slow (the first 5K or so). Being able to pass runners as the race wears on is a huge psychological boost for me.
>It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.
Well, the guys participating were three of the best marathoners in the world, probably one (Kipchoge) who is the best ever, so I doubt whether they or anybody involved were concerned about "insulting" marathon runners. Everybody was well aware that the conditions were different and would help create a faster time than possible in a regular marathon race.
Baby steps. Once they have achieved sub-2 in "artificial" conditions, the idea of going sub-2 in an actual marathon race will seem easier, and will be the next item to check off.
Oliver - as a fellow marathoner, I'll disagree on this. 26.2 is just a long run, with ever degrading legs. Even with the drafting behind the phalanx of runner, one's legs are being put through some rough work. I watched the Kipchoge doing this race. He was a beast, not a lab rat. Note that two other runners, with all the advantages, couldn't come close to what he did.
For me, this was confirmation that humans do indeed have room to push the current world record further down.
@bhc3 hey Hutch - you and I have run together in the past!
Surprised this thread has the legs it has - I was merely pointing out the sterile (and arguably Nike marketing oriented) attempt at a sub 2 hour 26.2 mile effort was, despite being a super human effort, not a 'marathon' per se. This has been beaten to death elsewhere online in running forums. Yes it is a little 'snobby' to say that, but formally a 'marathon' is a race and not a time trial...and more importantly a mass participation activity where finishing is considered a triumph for the average Joe or Jane.
I happen to think the Nike record attempt hijacks the everyday heroism of all those folks grinding out winter training after or before work right now, but I do agree the superhuman element of the athletes involved in the Nike event was incredible...
Isn't this how the march of progress goes sometimes? Somebody does an impossible feat (with help & ideal conditions). They show it can be done. Then other people begin to replicate, and the ideal conditions & support start to be eliminated.
I don't want to take away from their substantial achievement but I think it's an important distinction between "lab perfect" and "techniques that would not be allowed in any official marathon race in the world".
>"techniques that would not be allowed in any official marathon race in the world"
(genuine question) is there only one official body in the world that determines what a "marathon" is?
My understanding is that the Boston Marathon (which certainly seems to be a marathon) isn't considered a "real" marathon because of various reasons (weather, elevation, non-loop nature of the course etc.)
The original definition of a marathon involves running from Athens to Marathon in Greece, and when your average person thinks of a marathon, they think of the street races that happen all around the world.
Marathon running isn't necessarily a track and field sport in the way the 100 meter sprint is.
It is the other way around; running back from Marathon to Athens.
The story takes place after Athenian Hoplites pushes back a Persian army into their ships at the Marathon shores, after which this ship sails to Athens to wreak havoc. Hoplites make the run from Marathon to Athens just in time to defend against Persians and successfully discourage them against further attacks.
After the Battle of Marathon, hoplites who were in the war referred it to as "the run", "we ran", or had "he ran" carved in their tombstones etc. So Marathon became synonymous with running.
The story of Pheidippides running from Marathon to Athens (and dying on arrival) is certainly apocryphal, but it's nevertheless the origin of the modern marathon.
"When they had been set in order and the sacrifices were favorable, the Athenians were sent forth and charged the foreigners at a run. The space between the armies was no less than eight stadia. [Note: One mile]
"The Persians saw them running to attack and prepared to receive them, thinking the Athenians absolutely crazy, since they saw how few of them there were and that they ran up so fast without either cavalry or archers.
"So the foreigners imagined, but when the Athenians all together fell upon the foreigners they fought in a way worthy of record. These are the first Hellenes whom we know of to use running against the enemy. They are also the first to endure looking at Median dress and men wearing it, for up until then just hearing the name of the Medes caused the Hellenes to panic.
-
It's also interesting to note that the Spartan army arrived at Marathon a day late "having marched (140 mi) in only three days."
If you're interested in the period, check out the podcast Dan Carlin's Hardcore History. He's got a three part series on the Persians that's totally engrossing. For one thing, it's where I heard the "we ran" story about Marathon veterans. Carlin is a fantastic storyteller, and his stuff is very well researched.
A single man runs from Marathon to Athens, says only “we are victorious”, and then dies. That’s the legend, but it’s confusing two events. Pheidippides actually ran from Athens to Sparta to request reinforcements. The Marathon to Athens run has the hoplites getting there just in time to see the Persians leave Athens.
To add to what arcticfox correctly said: we put the year on articles from previous years but this one is from earlier in 2017. Historical material is super welcome here too.
The "News" in "Hacker News" is like a second-hand clothing store in my home town called "New to You". Of course this article didn't qualify in your case, but that's the general idea. Older posts can't be new to all of the people all of the time but in the long run there are enough surprises to go around.
HN's definition of 'interesting' is for practical purposes pretty established. Of course we don't all agree, but there's enough of a stable core that I wouldn't say it changes much.
I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.
Came here to talk about that and see what people thought about barefoot running: either completely unshod or very minimal padding for protection only and not for landing cushion/support.
For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels. Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice when barefooting: you will change your stride. If you view heel striking as a bad habit--maybe causing injury--this will prevent that at least.
Personal experience: old guy, unable to run much distance in regular shoes, and after a long conversion period changing technique, I can run a 5k comfortably without injury. Unshod. I'm trying to get up to a 10k. I do wonder if the technique will back-port to regular shoes or if the shod injuries will return.
As someone who ran collegiately and have multiple friends that were Olympians, national champions, and national record holders (quite humbling really), I would caution people from 'switching' to barefoot running.
It certainly has its place, but I've heard of too many people trying to make a switch to it only to get injured. The biggest arguments behind it are that 'it's a more natural way to run' and that 'a lot of Kenyans and Ethiopians do it and they're the best in the world'.
The truth is, they've been running that way pretty much their entire life. You (most likely) have not. Your feet will not be able to handle the beating that their feet can. I have never met a professional runner that identified as a 'barefoot' runner. A lot of runners will work in some sort of 'barefoot' training, but it's minimal and used to build up stabilizing muscles. When a single run can take you over gravel, onto a sidewalk, and through a trail in the forest, it's next to impossible to run barefoot or even with a 'barefoot' running shoe.
You are certainly free to do as you wish, but barefoot running should most likely be used as a tool at best. If you really want to make a complete transition, you would likely need to approach it with the same rigor and dedication someone would use when training for a marathon.
Yes there's definitely some muscles that need to be built up. Most noticeably for me are the ones on the sides of the foot that control rolling: in a conventional shoe there's a broad heel sole and a ridgid heel cup to give roll support. Without that, your foot wants to roll, even when walking flat. I needed to add some exercises to help supplement, and the ankles are still a little sore. But I'll take sore muscles over tendonitis.
My personal experience with this is that the real benefit for me with minimal shoes is that I forced myself to shorten my stride. I had to retrain myself by using a foot pod and a heart rate monitor that would beep if my cadence goes below 90 per minute. A high cadence forces my body to shorten its stride length and I think that has made a bigger difference for me in terms of injury than anything else. I've stayed with minimal shoes simply because it's easier to have a high cadence in light weight minimal shoes. Plus, the more padded shoes became unnecessary. Not sure if the technique works for you but could be worth trying.
I have the same experience, I couldn't even run 2 miles without inflammation flaring up in the knees (I tried to build up distance many times) - but after running with Evo barefoot shoes for about 2 years (which allowed me to run 10k:s without problem), I can now run with any type of shoes - but my technique is completely transformed with much shorter stride length and a high cadence.
The science says: do what works for you. The biggest problem with so many studies is that, while people seem to believe running is something everyone can do (and do well, since it's the "easiest" of sports), that's not remotely true. People constantly hurt themselves by being terrible runners, and that almost never has a direct connection with their footwear of choice.
I've been running in Skinners for about a year now. I found that they took a bit of getting used to, but I think the necessity of totally changing your stride is a bit overblown. The adjustment is more to do with building up the different muscles you aren't used to using, or at least it was for me.
When I run in normal running shoes now, I feel weighed down and I don't do as well. My times have definitely improved, but I think that's mostly because I've been running more because I enjoy it more.
How do you deal with blisters? I tried barefoot running, made it about 1/10th of a mile, and had to walk back on my heels because my feet were raw and bleeding. I had large blisters for a few days after.
Not an expert, but I think this means your foot is sliding across the ground.
I do not develop blisters nor callouses because the feet are not landing hard and they're not sliding.
A couple of observations then. First, you can't bring your old form and start cold. Be prepared to work up to it by walking and gradually adding running. Second, the new form involves a more bent-knee, hopping, springy aspect. This vid was very helpful for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jio7DK15Q1E
It's funny that we learn how to run in diapers and then spend decades learning again.
Yes. In fact, after that fad it swung the other way and the Hoka shoes started becoming very popular. I will say that, however, over time I've gradually switched to less supportive shoes as I've become more experienced as a runner. I started with "anti-pronation" shoes and now are running with fairly bare minimal shoes. I think I just like the feeling of lighter shoes.
Thankfully there are scientific data to prove
you wrong. You just need to leave your prejudice and bubble behind, and we're talking about running mechanics here not Nike's competitors producing minimalist shoe wear. They you can have doubt about.
Your comment comes across as a little smug. Are you sure the scientific data conclusively proves the GP's comment "wrong"? You didn't link to what you had in mind, but this study seems to reinforce their comment...
I would be very interested in seeing those data. If you're going to cite Lieberman, I would say that he is a lot more cautious and nuanced than most articles have make him sound. He doesn't make overly generalized bold claims.
Most of these papers I've come across makes a number of assumption and use various methods that are proxies for what they want to measure. For example, they will force plates to measure the amount of force generated against the ground. But that doesn't necessarily imply more injuries because of the number of different components involved in your feet and legs. In fact, the foot is extraordinarily complex and I think that's part of Lieberman's general idea. I don't think it's prudent to reduce it to a single set of number and say "yep, more injuries" because having shoes on or off and different design of shoes can all affect how your feet and legs respond to that force.
It's not that I necessarily disagree with your statement but as far as I know there is no scientific paper that simply states, "shoes are bad for running" or "minimal shoes are good", etc. Making claims like that are often unhelpful because there isn't one simple answer to running injuries. We have a huge number of supporting muscles and components that are involved in running. Your feet is only one part in that system and even those are complex systems in themselves.
This flies in the face of much of what I've seen.
Alex Hutchinson wrote a wonderful article entitled "What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?" in 2014[1], and in a subsequent piece[2] he lays out data from Paris officials who have found that the fastest elite runners did best with temps at 38.9f. This is a HUGE unexplained difference. Furthermore, with pacers blocking the wind more than ever, the Breaking2 effort would have given Kipchoge even less opportunities for evaporative and convective cooling.
"When French researchers analyzed the finishing times of 1.8 million marathoners over a 10-year period, they found that a race-day temp of 43.2°F produced the quickest times overall. But faster runners, who generate more heat, benefited from cooler temps, with the top one percent (green line below) peaking at 38.9°F. Midpackers (red line) do best in the mid-40s."
[1] https://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/?_ga=2.79362900.1119941834...
[2]https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/whats-the-optimal...