Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 167–170 | Cite as

Reflecting on Eliud Kipchoge’s Marathon World Record: An Update to Our Model of Cooperative Drafting and Its Potential for a Sub-2-Hour Performance

  • Wouter HoogkamerEmail author
  • Kristine L. Snyder
  • Christopher J. Arellano
Commentary

Introduction

As sports enthusiasts and scientists, we were reminded of many important lessons on the day that Eliud Kipchoge set a new world record in the marathon. On September 16th, 2018, he ran a time of 2:01:39 in Berlin, eclipsing the previous record by 1 min and 18 s. Two days before the Berlin marathon race was to take place, our paper [1] was accepted, but would not be seen in press until a week later. On the day of the race, Kipchoge not only broke the world record, but he might have also broken the record for outdating a scientific paper. Note that for our simulations of cooperative drafting during marathon running, we used Kipchoge’s fastest marathon time (2:03:05 from the London marathon in April 2016) as a model input. Kipchoge’s new world record time suggests that since he is so much faster than any other current or historical marathon runner, he might not be able to benefit from cooperative drafting as we originally predicted. Kipchoge’s new world record time also...

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Wouter Hoogkamer, Kristine L. Snyder and Christopher J. Arellano declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoogkamer W, Snyder KL, Arellano CJ. Modeling the benefits of cooperative drafting: is there an optimal strategy to facilitate a sub-2-h marathon performance? Sports Med. 2018;48:2859–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones AM, Vanhatalo A. The ‘critical power’ concept: applications to sports performance with a focus on intermittent high-intensity exercise. Sports Med. 2017;47:65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoogkamer W, Kram R, Arellano CJ. How biomechanical improvements in running economy could break the 2-h marathon barrier. Sports Med. 2017;47:1739–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoogkamer W, Kipp S, Frank JH, et al. A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes. Sports Med. 2018;48:1009–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnes KR, Kilding AE. A randomized crossover study investigating the running economy of highly-trained male and female distance runners in marathon racing shoes versus track spikes. Sports Med. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1012-3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Locomotion Lab, Department of Integrative PhysiologyUniversity of Colorado, BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Stryd, Inc.BoulderUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health and Human PerformanceUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations