Untamed Runner

Following my last post, Faith Kipyegon ran a 4:06.91 in her sub-4 attempt, leaving many to believe that it could be some time before a female breaks the four-minute barrier in the mile. Part of the rationale is that many factors were set up in her favor yet she got about .75 seconds closer to 4:00. At that level, that’s still a commendable amount of time. And that’s the point. If nearly seven more seconds need to be shaved off, that’s a ton.

How long will it take for sub-4 mile by a female to happen? This post does not suggest an answer but there are a couple of interesting numbers to consider.

The women’s ratified mile world record is 4:07.64 and the 800M record is 1:53.28. Using 800M splits, the difference is 9.3%. (If you’re curious, the men’s mile world record is 3:43.13 while the 800M record is 1:40.91. Using 800M splits, the difference is 10.7%.)

Using 9.3%, the women’s 800M world record would need to be basically 1:50 to convert to a 3:59 mile. Over the last twenty-eight years, the men’s 800M record has been broken four times but by a total of .81 seconds, or basically four-fifths of one second. The women’s record has stood since 1983 so there’s not a more recent set of time drops to consider. Either way, we’re talking fractions of seconds in races of these lengths, not multiple seconds.

Aside from the significant time drop that would be needed, there are fewer instances to compete in the mile because many events, including the Olympics, use the 1500M, also known as the “metric mile.” Often in professional races, there is less emphasis on time and more on tactics as the competitors are aiming to win the race, instead of gassing themselves too early on a record attempt. This means that even when there are mile races, there’s no guarantee that the mile record is the focus.

Barring a breakthrough, generational talent, with the smaller number of mile race opportunities, it may be a while before we see a woman go under 4:00 in the mile.

All that being said, it’s interesting and commendable of Nike to hold an event like that. It’s also admirable for an athlete to take that on. While I’m sure Kipyegon was well-paid for the attempt, that is a lot of pressure to bring on yourself for a tough attempt.

Sources used:

800 metres world record progression – Wikipedia

Breaking barriers: A timeline of men’s and women’s mile records | AP News

LetsRun.com: The Home Of Running – LetsRun.com

On 26 June, Nike is sponsoring an event where Faith Kipyegon, the current women’s world record holder for the mile (1609M) and 1500M, will make a dedicated attempt to be the first woman to run a mile in under four minutes.

Similar to the sub-2:00 marathon attempts for Eliud Kipchoge, Nike is doing a few things to maximize Kipyegon’s chances of breaking this barrier, including specially designed clothes and shoes, and a group of pacers.

Will she break the mark? Her current world record for the mile stands at 4:07.64 so she needs to run 7.65 seconds faster in order to break 4:00. When someone is already that fast at that distance, 7.65 seconds is a lot of time. Specifically, it’s a little over 3% faster.

The ratified world record when Kipchoge ran the Ineos 1:59 Challenge was his own 2:01:39. To go under two hours, he needed to run about 1.4% faster.

Kipyegon’s 1500M world record time is 3:49.04. She would need to cover the remaining 109M in 10.95 seconds to break 4:00. Usain Bolt’s world record 100M time is 9.58 seconds, which translates to a 10.44 109M time. That is not a time that a distance runner is currently capable of at the end of a grueling mile.

The clothing and shoes that Nike has designed will certainly be helpful. On the other hand, since she’s been at a world-class level for several years and wearing exceptionally good gear and shoes, I would question how much more of a boost these items will be compared to what she’s been wearing already.

That also leads to the question of her maximum speed. Given that she’s a seasoned runner and not someone in their early twenties who just shocked the world with a 4:07, it’s hard to imagine that there could be a significant jump in her time. On the other hand, Cole Hocker PB’d by nearly 3 seconds in the 1500M at the Olympics in Paris. He is younger but that was a massive jump given his experience and the distance.

The one factor that could help her the most is the total distance. I pointed out prior to the Ineos 1:59 Challenge that Kipchoge’s biggest advantage was not having to run one step more than 26.2 miles. His course was precise. It’s possible to run only 26.2 on a world major course but that is the absolute minimum, meaning that if you veer off for a water bottle, as they do, or run slightly off of one tangent, you’re adding distance.

Kipyegon’s world records came during races and in those, staying exactly on the inside line of the track is going to be challenging, if not impossible. This means that every time you go off the inside line, you’re adding distance. 50M represents just over 7.5 seconds in a four-minute mile. Did she add that much in her prior attempt? Even if she added just 25M, then she would need to find around four more seconds to go under 4:00.

A non-tangible factor in Kipyegon’s favor is delivering top performances at key times. Winning three straight Olympic gold medals in the same individual track event is extraordinary. She’s obviously a highly talented runner but stringing together gold medals calls for delivering a high-level effort at a very specific time and place when you’re facing many of the world’s best. History suggests she’s able to deliver a world class performance when needed and that works in her favor.

I think it would be great to see Kipyegon break 4:00 in the mile and I hope she does. If I had to put money on it, I would say that she’ll run in the 4:03 to 4:04 range, which is still a massive drop at that level. Even if she does not break the mark, if she can get down to 4:03 or even 4:02, that makes the barrier much more approachable to future athletes. Shaving .5 to .75 seconds off of each lap is difficult, but easier to comprehend than two. We’ll know more on Wednesday. It will be possible to watch it and information about that is here.

Sources used:

American Cole Hocker stuns with Olympic gold in men’s 1,500 meters, upsets Ingebrigsten and Kerr – CBS News

Eliud Kipchoge Breaks Two-Hour Marathon Barrier – INEOS 1:59 Challenge

Faith Kipyegon breaks her own world record in 1,500 meters | AP News

Faith Kipyegon Wins Third Straight Olympic 1500-Meter Gold Medal

How Usain Bolt Ran 9.58 Seconds: Breaking Down the Fastest 100-Meter Record in History

Kipyegon tries to become 1st woman to break 4-minute mile | AP News

Nike, Faith Kipyegon ready attempt at fabled 4-minute barrier – oregonlive.com

I bought a pair of carbon-plated running shoes, the Saucony Endorphin Elite 2. I’ve written about carbon-plate technology on this blog but only from an observation and research perspective, not from direct use.

For several years, I resisted the urge to purchase shoes with this technology. It seemed like a luxury-level expense for my ego, as opposed to my being on the cusp of an all-time personal best and seeing if the potential extra return from the plates could get me there. However, the technology is prevalent and being used by many runners. Not only might it possibly help me achieve a faster time, I also wanted to see what the shoes felt like and what the differences were between them and traditional trainers and flats.

I considered a few different options among carbon-plated shoes but there were two main reasons I chose Saucony. I’m a heel-striker and the shape of the Endorphin Elite seemed best-suited to that. Also, I’ve liked Saucony in the past.

When I put them on, they were unlike anything I’ve ever worn. For starters, the weight is absurdly light. Each shoe is 7.43 ounces. My current trainers, the Asics GT-2000, weigh 9.65 ounces. Two-plus ounces doesn’t sound like a lot, but the difference can be felt, and it is a 23% weight difference. Those Asics are relatively light and my prior trainers, the Brooks Adrenaline, weigh in at 10.26 ounces. The weight of the Saucony shoes is particularly remarkable since they can be used for longer races.

They also, to me, felt nearly wobbly as the flex/bounce factor from the carbon plates is intense. When I took them on a test run, initially I wasn’t sure I could handle tight turns without wiping out. However, a mile or so into the run, I got more comfortable with them and for me, they were fine on all turns.

I bought the shoes with the hope I could use them for the Bolder Boulder, the famous Memorial Day 10K. With the amount of bounce, I was 50-50 on wearing them, primarily concerned about creating some strange injury, but since everything had gone fine in my 30-minute test run, I decided to roll the dice and use them.

As I’ve noted in the past, carbon plates are supposed to return a higher level of your energy, thus making you faster and, in theory, keeping you a little fresher.

My goal time for Bolder Boulder was 42:50. This would requalify me for the AB starting wave for the 2026 race. (Technically the qualifying mark is 43:00 but they do sometimes change these time standards so I wanted some cushion.) Based on my training, I knew that it would be close on whether I achieved this time. If the shoes reduced my time by 1% to 4%, the amount that some shoes say they can cut, that would help considerably.

Generally, my legs felt good during the race. However, I accumulated fatigue during the race and between 5K to 6K, I was questioning whether I would make the mark as I was about 15 seconds off. Bolder Boulder is a net uphill race but much of the climbing is in the first four miles. There is then significant descent from around 7K to almost the 9K mark. I was counting on that stretch to make up some time.

By 7K, my time was in decent shape and I was able to push through the final 3K to come in at 42:24.

I think it’s clear that the shoes helped. Not only did I run at the faster end of what I reasonably expected, my legs felt better in the later stages of the race than they have in a while. To put it a different way, I often can push/kick towards the end of a race but in these, I felt I was still pushing with intensity.

To be clear, I still very much felt the effects of the race when I was done and the next day-they don’t help with recovery-but even though Bolder Boulder was one experiment, I’d say the technology works.

My next race is a 10K, or 6.2 miles, and I thought that it could be beneficial and at least interesting to plan my splits by every one kilometer instead of per mile. During workouts, on my Garmin watch face I see three pieces of data: accumulated distance on the top, elapsed time in the middle, and my pace at the bottom. When I hit a pre-determined auto-split (usually every mile), the watch briefly switches to a screen showing my time for that split and the total time of the run, before going back to the main data screen. My watch has two settings that measure in meters/kilometers instead of miles.

One is a “Track” setting, meaning it’s optimal to use when running on the track. In this one, the watch measures my distance in meters during the workout and logs it that way, but on my weekly mileage compilation on the home watch face, it automatically adds the workout in the converted mileage. This seemed like the best option since I wouldn’t have to change settings on the watch at a higher level. Two other helpful features in the Track setting are that as you’re running, it adds your accumulated distance 10M at a time on the distance calculator so it’s easy to follow. In other words, if you’re 235 meters into a lap, it shows 235. It also has a more granular pace setting to show your speed. Instead of the per-mile pace always showing as a time ending in 5 or 0 (7:50, 7:45, etc.) it will show times between the 5s and 0s. But, I ran into a problem. The watch’s auto-split options in the Track setting are 1600M, 800M, and 400M. Since none of these are 1000M, this wasn’t going to work for my 10K plan.

The next option was to change the entire watch’s setting to metric. The good news is that when the watch is in metric, it defaults to 1000M or 1K auto-splits, which is perfect for what I’m doing. But, I made this change several days before the race and I’m glad I did so because it doesn’t show the data the same way as the Track setting.

The distance calculator still looks like the one in the imperial setting, or as it’s called in the watch, “Statute.” In other words, unlike the Track setting where 90 meters would show as the whole number 90, when the watch is all-metric, the screen shows .09. Once you get to 500 meters, it shows as .5. When you’ve been using the watch in the Statute setting for years, .5 in my mind means a half mile but of course 500 meters is 304.5 meters short of a half mile.

The pace calculator at the bottom is calculating speed per kilometer. You can imagine that I was pretty excited when I was taking a moderately paced run and the pace showed as 4:45. I can’t run a 4:45 mile right now and I quickly realized that was not my actual pace. 4:45 per kilometer translates to a 7:36 mile. Additionally, the pace setting stays on 5s and 0s (4:45, 4:50, etc.) and doesn’t carry over the more specific pace setting like it does in Track.

All that said, it’s helpful to be able to make the switch. I’m not sure that I’ll be 100% adapted to these differences by race day, but the practice helps. And, I hope this outline helps you if you decide to adjust the settings.

One final note. If you switch from statute to miles and vice versa, it automatically converts the weekly distance total on the watch face for you. It does not change the distance units for previously recorded runs on the calendar. Whatever you used to record the run, it stays that unit.

The London Marathon starts in less than 48 hours and aside from Eliud Kipchoge giving the course another shot, the big storyline is Jacob Kiplimo, the current half-marathon world record holder, making his marathon debut. For the purposes of this post, there are three numbers that I’m focused on: 56:42, 5.2%, and 4%. 56:42 is Kiplimo’s time in the half-marathon. I’ll get to the second two numbers momentarily.

Kipchoge proved in 2019 that covering 26.2 miles in under two hours is possible. The question since then has been whether someone can do that in a race and thus have a ratified time of under two hours.

London will be Kiplimo’s first marathon. Just because somene is an exceptionally good half-marathon racer does not guarantee they’ll succeed at 26.2. Winning one of the world’s fastest races in a first attempt is daunting in itself. Doing so in a world-record time is even tougher. Achiving a time that some still question as being attainable? That’s a third layer of difficulty. In that vein, and because the temperatures could be a tad bit on the warm side on Sunday, I will not predict a sub-two finishing time. But, the numbers may be there for him, even if it not on Sunday.

Haile Gebrsellasie, the distance GOAT in my mind, held a marathon personal best of 2:03:59 and a half-marathon personal best of 58:55. His marathon time is basically two 1:02 half splits, which are 5.2% slower than his half-marathon personal best. Shalane Flanagan, one of the U.S.A.’s greatest distance runners, held a marathon personal best of 2:21:14 and a half-marathon personal best of 1:07:51. Her fastest marathon splits into 1:10:37 per half, or 4% slower than her half-marathon personal best.

If you take Kiplimo’s 56:42, add 5.2%, and then multiply that by two, you get 1:59:17 over 26.2. If you use the same formula but plug in Flanagan’s 4%, you get 1:57:56. In fact, Kiplimo could run almost 6% slower (5.8% to be exact) to achieve a 1:59:59.

Many factors will impact finishing times on race day: weather, the pacers, how the athlete reacts to other runners, their own preparation, and how they are feeling. Kipchoge, one of the most consistent performers of all time, started running marathons in 2013, solidified himself as a major force in 2015, and didn’t get his first marathon world record until the fall of 2018. That’s all to say that the odds of Kiplimo cruising through the finish line in one-something are low. Could he do it eventually? The numbers suggest it’s in his favor.

Sources used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Gebrselassie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalane_Flanagan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliud_Kipchoge

https://www.letsrun.com/

Aside from the shoe choices mentioned in one of the first posts on this blog, every time I’ve purchased a new pair of running shoes, they feel good to great. Three times in 30+ years of running I’ve come away with a pair of shoes thinking, “Wow. These feel phenomenal.”

The first time occurred in 1998 with a pair of Adidas. I can’t recall the model name. For my first run in them I logged ten miles and I swear my feet felt better after I was done. I got one more pair after that.

The second was the Brooks Adrenaline 5. I’d been an Adidas loyalist for several years following the first “Wow” pair and the store owner at Riverside Runners (I was living in Virginia at the time) had a tough sell to even get me to try them on. Once I did, I couldn’t argue. It was “Wow” part deux. That shoe eventually changed its fit and structure and I moved on to other brands and models.

The other week, I bought a pair of Asics GT 2000 13s. (My first-ever pair of running shoes were Asics and I hadn’t worn them since. Nothing against Asics, I guess they just never had the right shoe for my foot at the right time after that.)

The funny thing is that in the store, I wasn’t 100% sold on them but they were the best of the ones I tried. The first day I ran in them? Wow. I’d forgotten what that phenomenal feeling was like but it was back.

Following my Adidas loyalty period, over the years I’ve happily switched brands and models when needed. I try on different shoes when I go to replace them, even if I’ve been happy in them, as I don’t want to miss a “Wow” or settle into a rut that’s fine when there could be a better shoe.

That’s partly to say that I’m always open to more “Wow” pairs but they can be elusive. I should also mention that my “Wows” may not be everyone’s, especially when we’re all buying based on our different foot type and strike. So, when you find that pair, enjoy them. All your running shoes should be comfortable; “Wow” on your feet can be bit more rare.

The Dry Creek Striders notched our second men’s podium sweep last weekend at the Lucky Brew 5K in Windsor, CO. I wrote a post about our first sweep as it was something we had hoped to achieve.

That was in 2023 and following it I had questioned whether we would repeat that accomplishment. We have continued training but are not getting younger and it had taken a decent number of races to reach the original milestone.

Collin and DJ will often go 1-2 in a race. However, it only takes one other fast runner to show up and scramble their finish order. It’s logical that over time and as we gather years, that there’s a higher probability that this will occur. And, it takes three to make the sweep. That means at least three of us participating, which isn’t always easy to arrange, and finishing well.

At a half mile into Sunday’s race, it appeared that Collin and DJ had the top two men’s spots locked up, barring something weird happening.

That left me to take number three.

Following my calf injury last year, my 5K times have not nearly rebounded to what they were in late 2023/early 2024 and I was hoping to contend for age group awards. Based on recent times and training, I was skeptical about the probability of that happening.

Even as I saw Collin and DJ in one-two and noted that I was in third with the sounds of runners behind me fading, it still seemed improbable that we would finish this way. Someone would catch me.

And then, they didn’t.

Ahead of the race, one of our other teammates had exhorted us to capture the sweep and I quickly tempered expectations.

Sometimes it’s fun to be off of your prediction. 

Will it happen again? I hope so, but we will definitely savor this one.

Photo credit: Rob Knaub

Over the past few years when doing long runs on especially hot days, a small strategy I employ is to slow down a little during longer sections with shade. My rationale is to give my skin a little extra break from the sun and my core a little more time in a temp that’s a few degrees cooler.

It’s been bitter cold in the Denver metro area recently and running outside has been more challenging. There was a day recently when it was 8 degrees but the sun was out. The portions of the trail that were in the sun were noticeably warmer. I never felt warm though my hat was wet with sweat and getting noticeably colder every quarter mile.

I’d been trying to keep an even pace but I did something similar to my summer runs, except in reverse. In the sunny portions, I eased up to let my head thaw a little. On the shady segments, I pushed through at a faster clip.

I don’t know how much of an impact it had but I did feel better, which is worth something.

Also, a reminder from an old post. If you’re running longer than 30 minutes when the temperature is in the teens or lower, it’s wise to carry an extra hat/headwrap/buff. Once your headgear is soaked with sweat in those temps, it’s no good.

We’re starting to see a little more daylight as we chug through the winter months and it’s that time when either spring race training is getting into full swing and/or we’re more carefully considering what the summer and fall will look like.

In the late 1990s, I trained for and ran my first marathon. I approached it with vigor, topping out with a 100-mile training week and adjusting my diet so that when I showed up on the start line, I’d be ready to blaze the course. I knew that professional marathon runners would routinely log 100+ mile weeks, up to 120 or 150, and in my mind, this plan was perfectly reasonable in that context. However, I was a first-time marathoner with over-inflated ambition and my choices included two of three mistakes that likely impacted my race negatively. I finished in 3:17, slower than my goal and what the conversion charts suggested I should run. It’s possible, maybe probable, that I left some time back in the training weeks. (The third mistake was my gear choice for the race but that’s for a different post.)

One thing many people consider when training for a long race is how to eat and drink to maximize training and performance. I made three decisions that fall related to my diet, none of which were bad in themselves. For the entire fall, I cut out red meat. For the last couple of weeks leading up to the race, I cut out soda. For the week of the race, I ate tons of pasta but to make it more healthy, I ate it plain–no sauce, no butter, no salt and pepper.

At the time, I thought I was doing my body a favor (and from a scientific perspective, I probably was). What I was also doing was creating a higher-than-needed level of pressure to excel at the marathon and making myself unnecessarily resolute at the expense of a little enjoyment. Cutting back on red meat and soda and considering what I was putting on my pasta was wise. Enjoying a few splurges here and there may have helped balance things out and helped me to relax more and feel looser on the day of the race.

Should we be conscientious of what we’re eating? Yes. Should we deny ourselves a little enjoyment, even unconsciously, in our pursuit of athletic achievements? That’s debatable. If you’ve got a career on the line, or if this is a part of a bigger lifestyle change you’re seeking, then it may be worth it. On the other hand, being well-balanced and enjoying the journey to the start line is also important and it may lead to a better race result.

The mileage part of the equation is both easier and more difficult to wrangle with. The math says more miles equals better results. However, simply adding more may not always be the answer. I built up to the 100-mile week probably more quickly than I should have and I was sticking to my six days of running and one day of rest. When I reached triple digits, every day averaged out to 16-plus miles. There were two twenty-five mile long runs in there. By the end of that week, I thought my legs were going to crumble apart and was desperately looking forward to a day off. It was too late to adjust my training at that point (not that I would have–I figured it was part of the gig back then) but it should have been a red flag. I had done 50-70 mile weeks in the past and in retrospect, I should have topped out at 70 or 80 with more effective, faster-paced runs. This also may have led to a better race.

Is there going to be some pain and frustration with training? I’ve never heard of a case where there wasn’t. Will there need to be consideration of a diet better attuned to athletic performance? Possibly, depending on your current intake. How far is too far? Unfortunately, there’s not an easy answer. I do know that for the next three marathons I trained for, my mileage was less, I was more relaxed with what I ate, and all three were faster. There are many training plans out there for all levels of runners and lots of research has been put into them. It’s then a matter of figuring out which one best matches your ability and goals.

I used the marathon example because it’s the one where I definitely went most overboard. The same thing can happen with shorter distance races and the takeaway is the same. A pro 5K/10K runner may be running around 90 miles per week but that’s not a level that’s necessary for most people.

Training for a race should be tough but it shouldn’t be excruciating and miserable. Remembering to enjoy life a little and keeping your mileage rational is also an important aspect of it.

One thing Garmin users may notice is that the watch doesn’t always record the exact same distance every time you run. It’s not uncommon for me to be .01 or .02 miles off for a course that I run regularly. There are numerous explanations for this: running tangents slightly differently, having to run around more people than usual on a crowded day, etc. Even when running with friends, it’s common for us to be .01 to .02 miles different from each other at the end of a run. We shrug it off figuring that if one of us took more wide turns than the other, over time that would add up. When you select the workout type on the watch, you need to wait until the watch connects with the satellite before starting. If you don’t, the watch will estimate your distance. It’s not too far off, but it’s definitely less accurate.

I discovered another possible reason to add to the list. One day, right as my watch connected a neighbor walked by and we chatted for a couple of minutes. When we were done, I looked down at my watch and saw that it was not connected any longer. I waited until it reconnected and then went on my run. I have occasionally (though rarely) seen the watch lose connectivity and then regain it in the middle of a run. I had not noticed a situation where the watch loses connectivity while standing still before starting. It’s a good reminder to double check it before setting out.

The GPS measurement should be spot-on and yet I also know it may not give me the exact same measurement every time. So how do I work with that? Along my regular running routes, there are points that nearly always serve as exact mile markers. What I mean is that if the vast majority of the time my watch is clocking the first and subsequent miles at certain landmarks, I assume that that point is exactly a mile. If I’m going on a six-mile run on an out-and-back course, I run to the point I’m 99.9% sure is three miles based on my past workouts. If I’m at 3.0 or longer, I’ll turn around. If I’m short by point-oh-something, I’ll go until it’s 3.0 on my watch. This means I could be running a bit longer than my planned distance, but that’s my preference.

Another feature I’d like to research at some point is the elevation measurement and how they achieve that, whether it’s still satellite or if it’s based on maps programmed into the software. But, that’s for a future post…

*Edited from first post to clarify precision and the elevation observation.