The Physical Ceiling by Danny Mackey M.S.

There are a few problems with going after records in the marathon. First of all, at races with the fastest fields there will ever be at the World Champs or Olympics there is an emphasis on winning rather than running for the record, so there are missed opportunities there. In addition, weather majorly impacts a race of the length. So, you would need the perfect weather along with the perfect field to accomplish such a lofty goal.

When does the lactate threshold start to outweigh the VO2 max?

I follow your blog because I have also spent the majority of the last two years injured and because I ran for Portland a few years back so I hear where you're coming from on many levels.
So this is sort of related to the physical ceiling. I am sitting in my booth at this health fair in Newark, NJ right now and this woman just tried to sell me on something called gynostemma pentaphyllum. I looked it up and it says it helps you lose weight, keeps you regular, boosts your energy levels, helps relieve stress through the central nervous system and deems itself a "miracle grass."

Keep in mind that I don't plan on purchasing this green grassy drink, but I think my question is, are things like this legit in your opinion? Do you think they have an effect on the "physical ceiling" or I guess, MY physical ceiling? Aside from what is proven that we can do on paper, where do we draw the line with these aides? I am fairly confident that my own healthy lifestyle is good enough to allow me to be the best runner I can be but does this grass really have a way to impact my body that much?
Am I making any sense? I am perplexed.

54 replied and no-one has mentioned the Hill/Noakes Central Governor theory of regulation of muscle recruitment yet?

You're talking about taking 18 minutes of the WR.

It's taken 60 years to take 18 minutes of the WR, but the last 4.5 minutes took 40 of those 60 years! Derek Clayton ran 2:08 in the 60s! It gets harder and harder to take off smaller and smaller chunks from the record.

There will be no Summer Olympics in 2342 silly

Really? There are people that think 1:45 is impossible EVER? Even 300 years from now? I've always figure that in 300 year's time, marathons will be somewhat "short" of a distance, and the norm would then be what we call Ultra's today. Someone setting a new world record for the 100-mile at the 2342 Olympics. My vote is a resounding YES! Absolutely 1:45 will happen. Not in my lifetime (I'm 30 years old), but I am definitely expecting a sub 2:00 for the men in my lifetime.

Super fun topic!!!

Sub-2 in the next 20 years, definitely. Sub-1:45 in the next 100 years, maybe. Either way great discussion and topic.

Interesting stuff. I agree with Knewitz, there are a ton of factors that go into creating an amazing world record. I do think that eventually there is a limit to what the human body can do... but look at history. They used to not allow women to ran any distance over 800m for fear of their uterus falling out and now women seem to be far better at handling distance running than men. They used to think that running was actually bad because all people had a certain number of heart beats in their life time and running wasted them... now a doctor would kill to get his patients to exercise. 4 min mile = impossible... the world is flat. etc etc.

The fact is that whenever people say something is impossible, someone goes out and does it anyways. I'm not saying it will happen soon or even in 100 years... but it could happen given enough time.
Limiting us is our lack of knowledge, training, motivation... you not only have to find those few that can break the world record but you have to supply them with the coach who knows how to get them there and the facilities to train in. Plus a little competition wouldn't hurt. Bannister, Santee, Landy.

This is a very intriguing topic, Danny, and one that well deserves a discussion. Predicting a 1:45 is definitely a fast time for a marathon without a doubt. Heck, 2:03 is baffling in itself. I find it fascinating how we can pinpoint the drop of a missile on a dime across the world, and I find it amusing how we like to predict human limitations of physical performance based on physiological variables. Without a doubt, I believe that VO2 Max is the golden standard to measure aerobic fitness. However, there are literally hundreds of other factors that affect physical performances as well.
The environment alone is a huge factor. Temperatures and humidity can affect the rate at which we sweat and cool off our bodies. Hotter temperatures can also increase our energy expenditure. There are optimal temperatures for our working muscles. Elevations, as in up-hills and down-hills, can either decrease or increase our speed, respectively. If Haile were to run a downhill marathon, given not too steep, and he were to train with downhills then I believe he could very well break 2:00.
Nutritional habits also affect our physical performances. Some say that a calorie is a calorie in a way take it in, whether its from fat, protein, or carbohydrate. I’d have to disagree. There are certain foods that optimize our performances, just as there are certain foods that would kill our stomachs. It is well understood that hydrations affects our performances. I believe it is generalized that at a 3% body water loss physical performances are impaired.
Preparation is a must. Many would loosely skip this idea of affecting performance, but it really does play a role in how we perform. For example, if we do not warm up properly we may not get the most out of our muscles. If we do not eat breakfast we may not have as much energy for our competition. If we do not get enough sleep our bodies may feel stale and stiff. Preparation is key. If we stay up all night drinking alcoholic beverages how are we ever going to perform as well as we could with a hangover. You could be in the best shape of your life, but you would not optimize your potential if you do not prepare properly.
Physical prowess or conditioning most definitely affects performance. Most would agree that physical training affects physical performance more than anything else. Even though I believe training is amongst the biggest factors affecting performance, I understand that it is only one piece of the puzzle. VO2 max, as mentioned earlier, is a great indicator of aerobic fitness and it may correlate with physical performance, but it does not dictate the outcome of a race.
Mechanical efficiency, such as our running gaits or running form, contributes to physical performances, yet I believe it does not play a big factor in the VO2 max equation. By the way, VO2 is a function of cardiac output and arterial/venous oxygen difference. And cardiac output is a function of heart rate and stroke volume. So VO2 is a really a function of the hearts ability to pump blood to the peripheral muscles and the exchange of that oxygen in the blood as it is extracted by the working muscles. Therefore, VO2 is the engine of the care, but not the driver of the car. There is a very interesting study, which I am unable to site, that measures the VO2 maxes and running gaits of the top marathoners in a world marathon major. VO2 maxes were measured on treadmills. At the same time, markers were placed on the hips of the athletes to measure vertical displacement. The study correlated that those who finished amongst the top of the race did not necessarily have higher VO2 maxes, but rather had less displacement of the hips, which indicated that running with a less bounce was the deciding factor of the outcome of that race. It should be noted, however, that those with less displacement still had high VO2’s just not as high as others. Keep in mind that no figures are presented to you and this is based on one study, so this is not a clear-cut deal, but rather something to ponder.
No matter how well we measure athletes and no matter how much we would like to figure the outcomes of certain sporting events, there are thousands of unknown variables that affect physical performance. I would have to agree with some of the other posts in that the mind is the most complex variable. Our mental capacity is a huge barrier to our limitations.
And for the sake of a response to the post, I would say that yes a 1:45 can be attained. As we continue to learn and grow from each other, we will inch our way to broken records unimaginable.

The Stachies at Nashies page hasn't gotten any love as of late.

I think you need a permanent, noticeable link on the main page.

my facial hair has no limits. stachies at nashies is gonna be crazy!!!

great article/discussion mack-dizzle, some interesting stuff

hi im the double gold medallist el guerrouj. i have run the mile in 3.43 and i can tell u the world record for the marathon will be run at at 3.45 one day. that is 1.28 for the full marathon. trust me. 1.45 is chicken .

the human body has no limits, if one believes anything is possible. god has blessed us with limitless potential.

The 5k world record is more like 4:02 - 4:04 pace lol.

What you're saying is that current 2:0X marathoners can run sub-5 min miles with no training, and just train to learn to hold the pace.
Beyond psychological barriers, it also comes down to muscular strength and type, as well as time (aging). I read through all of the previous posts, and it seems that it would take someone with extraordinary slow twitch muscular strength with incredible active recovery ability, combined with a long and exemplary running career, probably aided by longer lifespans in the future (think 50-200 years into the future, when you retire around triple digits) allowing for longer training in general to build to those levels of fitness.

Also, a 4:20 pace marathon is a 1:53:30, roughly. That seems more doable in the more immediate future as far as breaking 2 hours goes. This is the pace described in the article, though the 1:45 is still hard to stomach for me.

um...4:20 pace is 13:00 flat. but yeah, it has been broken. no one can run 1:47; just because someone has the VO2 max doesnt mean that they have the legs of a robot. people get worn down as well, and the lactic acid does build up, even if it takes awhile. No one can hold off lactic acid for an hour and 45 mins.

I guess it would take an incredibly genetically gifted runner, somewhere in the world. I mean they would maybe have to run a 4min mile with no training at all. Then improve their aerobic capacity to hold that pace.

"Why can we not even run a 5k at this pace?"
Yes we can, 4:20 per mile equals about 13:30.
The WR is 12:37!

Wow, this is great. I just got home from work and read every post.

I think Flotrack should build a performance lab down in Austin so we can test some of these theories.
Some of you hit my exact ideas, a few brought up some very interesting points that I never considered, I love it.
And yes, I agree, Chris Derrick will run 1:44, he's from Illinois so he has got to have the chops.

maybe it will be done someday...not anytime in the near future, bet.

It can be done, but it would have to be a steep downhill stride for 26 miles with the wind at your back

not possible i feel as though no human will be able to hold that pace for that long....unless they are some kind of freak maybe a prefontaine attitude a VO2 rating of lance Armstrongs and a LT of Frank Shorters combination will be the only way...not likely though

Isn't the world record in the 5k 12:36??? which is about 4:03-4:05 pace?

Mind over matter. If you can conquer the mind, then you can conquer the matter. The only problem is our minds..

Not only is Adidas have the motto "Impossible is Nothing"...Gebrselassie believes it himself more than anything. He is able to break through mentally...which is why he STILL believes he can go faster.

there are other factors that tally up like friction wind surface etc.....

All marathons are run below lactate threshold. The correlation between LT and MP is loose. The aerobic/anaerobic model doesn't adequately describe marathon performance. The limitations are biomechanical. Muscles are damaged in a marathon. They become less efficient. Research is already moving in the direction of paying more attention to muscular fatigue.

I can break 1:45 in the marathon, running backwards.

After reading all these posts, I'd have to agree with the people that say our psychology is the main thing that is going to hold a person back from running a 1:45. Also, I know it's possible to have a VO2 max of 80 or a LT of 85%, but the odds of that being present in the same person, along with that mental drive, are astronomical. However, I'm not saying there is a 0% chance of it occurring sometime in the future, just not anytime soon. There will be indicators though, I can be sure of that, such as the mile, two mile, 5000, and 10000 records going down to that pace first. I find it hard to believe when the farthest a human can hold a 4:00 pace is two miles, that that pace can be held for 13 times the distance in our lifetimes, without doping anyway. Although, we have no way of knowing what is to come in the world of running. As Kevin Garnett would say, "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!"

probably has more to do with absolute speed than % of v02...at a certain speed, a series of physiological events occur (heat buildup, energy production, elasticity of muscle, tendon, bone, etc) that overide the athletes ability to take advantage of not only the high v02 but the high %....Regardless of Shorter's great stats, he was just another guy able to run sub 5 min pace.

could the sub-2hr marathon (or lower) be the result of (gulp) more speed/power stuff? probably (think bekele..)

has anyone ever run a marathon distance on a treadmill?
maybe on an alter-G? that would be a shot at breaking 2 hours.. i know they run once up the international space station http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/070416_exp15_williams_marathon.html but that was a 4 hours + time though

It'll be years before we see a sub 2:10 marathon

german can do that someday

I do not think it is possible, though I would be very happy to be proven wrong. But think about it, everyone thought that the sub 4 min mile was impossible, that the body couldn't do it. Now you are saying some one can basically do that for 26.2 straight, improbable. There is much more fear in not finishing a 26.2 mile race then finishing a 1 mile race. But than again Roger Bannister did the impossible. But I can see the world record will go under 2.

one day 1:45 will be possible. running is mostly mental touphness. so whoever wants to do the most work and be totally devoted you have your world record.

There is probably some mutual exclusivity involved. It might be that having an LT at 85% somehow inhibits VO2 max, or vice versa. I don't know its just a guess

Some one will eventually run 1:45, even if it takes 100 years. Because once someone sets a world record someone else is going to try and break it. So I think we will always be seeing faster and faster times.

what is limiting us is the belief that we CAN. Until we see someone blaze a trail through blood, sweat and tears, we don't really believe that we can. This is the real function of world records. The "running prophets" shed a little light on the trail ahead; as soon as someone runs 2:03:59, others follow. Four minute mile? As soon as it's done once, everyone's doing it. We have a collective aspiration as well as the private one that keeps us getting out the door every day.

chris derrick will run 144

maybe some person or people would be able to run 1:45 but these few specific people have to get into the sport of track. Maybe some of these people were not raised right and just become coach potatoes or maybe they play another sport or just don't care about running fast and training. I do believe that under the right circumstances, though, a 1:45 could be possible

FYI, the "doctor" in this case (or at least one of them that started the 1:45 idea) is a former 2:20 marathoner and knows running.

This doctors thoughts on human abilities reminded me of all of the hype around Lance Armstrong's marathon. All of these legitimate doctors predicted he would run somewhere around 2 hours or something crazy, and he ended up running like 2:46.

Perhaps there is some undiscovered physiological reason why one person can't have both a record high VO2 max and a record high LT. Maybe at some point the cardiovascular (and perhaps enzymatic) system can't do both things and one must be sacrificed for the other. Maybe the ideal runner could have both VO2 and LT in the range of about 80, but if one goes higher, the other start to drop.

Also, in distances as long as the marathon there may be more than just Lactate accumulation that is a limiting factor. There is probably a break down of the muscle fibers at this distance so that even if the cardiovascular system could handle a faster pace, the legs loose their spring and efficiency. The VO2 and LT models might accurately predict WR time up to about 30k but not further.

Speaking about our physical ceiling: Paul Tergat just stated that going under 2 hours in a marathon is impossible because we are already near our physical limit. http://www.iaaf.org/news/kind=100/newsid=50550.html

Although I don't expect a sub 2hour marathon in the next 20 years, I do expect a sub 2:02 marathon in the next 10 years. To run a sub 2hr marathon, the half would have to come down to 56-57minutes. It will be on a flat course like Berlin or Rotterdam and the right competition that this will happen.
I disagree with Paul Tergat because Kenenisa Bekele is going to turn to the Marathon when he's done on the track and he will shatter every marathon record in the books. It's been reported that Bekele has a VO2Max of 82-85. Not sure what his LT is. The competition is getting so much stronger nowadays: We have so many young runners (25 and under) who are already running sub 2:06. Samuel Wanjiru, Martin Lel, Ryan Hall,Kebede, Kibet. I'm willing to bet that Bekele with the right competition and conditions runs a 59min first half and then a 62min second half, which is sub 2:02.
Here's my answer to Danny's question:
The reason why we are so far removed from the theoretically established marathon time is that this time was estimated using perfect conditions: no wind, treadmill, no adrenaline (adrenaline speeds up lactic accumulation --- this is one of the reasons people perform much better in training runs than on race day).
In addition to the fear of collapsing by going out hard, I also think that most races still have too much of a tactical element in them which holds athletes back from going out hard.
What will it take to break 2 hours? A flat course, the right competition, the right rabbits, which means a great race director and the ideal conditions (low humidity, cool (not cold), and no headwind.

One thing that may be getting overlooked is that it is hard to set up your training to get both a VO2max of 80ml/kg/min and a LT of 85% VO2max.

However as the years go by we will see people with genetic makeups who will be naturally built to be better at running (such as Michael Phelps for swimming, and Lance Armstrong in Cycling).
It would not surprise me however to see a marathon in sub-2:00 in our lifetime, but 1:45 is a good number of years off.
Good discussion topic, keep 'em coming.

For DECADES they thought your heart would explode if you ran the mile in under 4 minutes. This was less than 50 years ago. Now there are guys (in high school and several more in college) that rattle this off with some regularity. Who knows what will happen in another 50 years. If not aided by science (i.e. doping or cheating), then perhaps someone will run under 2 hours for the marathon in that span. I will probably have a coronary when that time comes because I will be lucky to run a half in that same time, but it will be a great day. I agree with many of the posters below. Our psychology holds us back more than anything. But I think (outside of of Africa) our lifestyles hold us back. Too many conveniences. I would hesitate to guess Frank didn't have more than the 3 television channels (yes, for those born after 1984 there were only 3 antenna channels and cable was limited to maybe 30 channels at that time, too and RARE) and no computer's. Heck Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet. (just kidding) However, his distractions were very few and he grew up in a generation where physical activity was exciting, expected, and sought after, by kids. So, my point is, we have too many things to occupy our time and not enough kids (yet) interested in the pursuit of running/athletics (other than the major sports) and achieving new heights. However, our ever growing crop of phenomenal athletes (hasay, fernandez, derrick, hall, goucher, Fam, etc, etc) is exciting to see and should give us all hope that future generations will have their own Steve Scotts, John Walkers (even though he's a kiwi), Pre's and Frank Shorters to look up to and emulate. Ok, off my soapbox.

Should environment be taken into consideration when predicting the possibility of a 1:45? With the output of fossil fuels into the environement, could the air we are breathing in prevent us from achieving our full potential? I believe it could, and will.

Personally, I think running a 1:45 marathon is impossible even if scientists claim it is possible. Even if you have a VO2 max of 80 and a lactate threshold of 85% I don't think you could run that fast. It takes years of training to reach your potential in a marathon and you simply wouldn't have enough years to train in order to achieve such a time. If that person never aged then maybe they could but eventually age will catch up to them and they will no longer be able to improve. As you get older the percent of your body that is water decreases and you loose some of your strength. So if someone could train at an elite level without any aging affects into your 60s then maybe you could run a 1:45 marathon but obviously you cant do that. In my opinion, one of the most important aspects for Haile Gebrassaille is he hasn't had the side affects of aging hit him as hard as a typical person and this is why he has been able to run so fast: he is still able to improve despite his age.
So basically my point is that the scientist that claim a 1:45 marathon is possible haven't factored in how age effects a runner. I don't think a runner would have enough time at the ideal age to train to such a time.

One problem mentioned by Joyner and Coyle in a review in J. Physiology is that the measures of VO2 max were done with at an incline, which is not necessarily achieved on the flats. Again, they themselves suggest that either there are unknown factors or that it is physiologically impossible (or very rare) to have a high VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy simultaneously. Or you could just evoke the central governor theory and end it there.

I read all of the post so far and I am suprised that no one talked about muscle, muscle mass and the type of fibers one has to recuit in preforming at such a pace. There could be people walking around that dont run and still could have a VO2 of 80ml/kg/min. doesnt mean that with the perfect conditions that person can go run a 1:45. One needs to train the muscles to be able to keep the pace. Running a 4 min mile now days is becoming easier and easier but no one trains to do it for 26.2 miles.

The problem with this, of course, is finding that athlete with a VO2 of at least 80 ml/kg/min with a lactate threshold of at least 85% of that. It seems an athlete that is outstanding in one area will be limited in the other area, as with most other things in life. Maybe the body couldn't handle all of that ability wrapped up in one person. However, I say we put out a world wide search for this theoretical super athlete. If he's out there, lets find him and train him. I wanna see this joker in action.

First off. I love a good discussion. Keep them coming Danny.

I think the doctor you speak of is likening humans too much to machines. He is saying that with all the right parts, maintenance, environment, and of course, without a brain to hold it back, it would run 1:45. Human's don't work like machines. We have a psychological component that holds us back. Fear of the unknown specifically. If a runner goes out at an insane pace, how does his psychological response affect him physiologically. I am not quite educated enough to answer this, but I'm sure it plays a role. Is the human body capable of running 1:45, probably, based upon theoretical principles. Will the human ever run this fast? I highly doubt it. So, as others have said, it comes down to the human brain and psyche being the limiting factors. If we ran on instincts alone, it may be a different story

I would say that though you are born with a certain anaerobic capacity your aerobic capacity is pretty much limitless. Though I would think that 1:45 would have to the absolute perfect race on a down hill course with little friction, the perfect stride, perfect weight, perfect everything. 1:45 is a little far fechted just because a 4:00.76 pace would still require an amazing anaerobic threshhold as well. But I can see sub 2 coming into play eventually. And I can see the 10k record dropping below 26, though again that would be prefect everything, also since the 2 mile world record is just under 8 I really don't think running a 4 min pace for 26.2 is realistic. But if I am proven wrong by some runner out there with enough whatever to actually complete this arduous task I will accept the performance for nothing less that what it deserves.

Part of the limitations are variables. The doctors suggestion is of the perfect runner, under perfect conditions. The runner would have to perform on a tread mill, under the runners, perfect conditions. Does the runner believe he/she could run that pace for that length of time. Does the runner feel "good/ready". Control the temperature, weather, tilt/grade of the treadmill and you may achieve a 1:45 marathon. Who knows, there's so many other reasons to why we can't run faster.

I'd like to start off by stating what's obvious to me: there IS a limit to what the human body can run. It's my belief that we're (as a species) closer to that than some will admit. In comparison to our ape cousins, we're much more suited to running. In comparison to many four legged animals our size, we don't come close.

I did the math too before looking at the comments and, yes, a 4 min/mile pace for a marathon is NUTS! Pretty safe to say that that'll never happen. I think runners are approaching the peak of a curve. I can see the same thing happening in distance events that is happening in sprinting. Sure they'll shave a few tenths of a second off the 100m but I'll be surprised to see it go under 9.2 seconds in my lifetime.

I wish I knew what was limiting us. I guess it's the same thing limiting us that's pushing us forward. Our tendons act as springs to propel us forward. Those have limits to their contractility. Our joints have only so much surface area, they wear out with time. Our lungs have only so much surface area with which to exchange air. More importantly, people are specialized for their environment. I love running, but I have a larger build. I put on weight/muscle easily and lose it slowly. I'll never beat Haile in just about any distance (well, maybe not the 100) but I'd beat him in many other physical tests like weightlifting or high jumping.

Perhaps the answer is the things that limit us are the things that allow us to excel in other areas (even if that's just survival).

For the sake of discussion, I did the math, and a 1:45 marathon means the runner's average pace per mile is 4:00.76.

OK, so that is obviously insane. At the same time, let's consider this a possibility...

So a runner is physically capable of running a marathon at 4 minute pace. Let's say it's the flattest course on earth. Well, it still has some minor hills which will, in turn, throw a minor wrench in the gears. Then we add the weather. Let's say it's a perfect day. Well, even perfect days may have some humidity, slight variation in the heat, etc. Then we add in strategy. Did Haile hug every curve? I haven't seen every second of his 2:03, but I would imagine there are a few inches at least on every curve that he didn't cut, that eventually add up to feet, then meters, and who knows. Now, let's consider what the "perfect" or at least "elite" VO2/LT would mean with various body types. Does Haile have the "perfect" distance body type? It's arguable that he does, but there can always be some slight changes made such as longer legs, shorter arms, ...the list can go on.

Then we add perhaps the most intense factor: motivation. You may have the most motivated runner in the world who keeps his (or her) eyes on the prize, runs the race with a goal pace in mind, and fights through the pain. However, the fact of the matter is that it hurts. The human body has to recognize and respond to pain to a certain extent. Over the course of 26.2 miles, the runner has a long time to wrestle with their own motivation. At times during the race I'm sure Haile, or any great marathoner for that matter, backed off due to pain in order to ensure that they would have some juice left at the end.

Given all of these factors, I can certainly see why a 1:45 is possible, but it doesn't necessarily produce a 1:45. That's not to say that the world record is in cement and will never be taken down. Who knows.

Either way, great article Danny. I love how you left it open for discussion. Thanks for sharing the information.

How does an athlete with a VO2 of 80 or even higher get to a marathon time of 1:45? Those 2 aren't really connected.