3 people beat the previous world record in this race! This is some combination of improved tech and extraordinarily good weather.
London is a fast course. Let’s see what happens in Chicago and Berlin. If it was primarily tech that did it, we should see the record fall again.
vessenes · 2026-04-26 21:25:27 UTC
Don’t forget Yomif Kejelcha who finished in 1:59:41, a world record up until 11 seconds prior. Amazing.
ronbenton · 2026-04-26 21:52:37 UTC
Imagine having the second fastest marathon time ever yet not winning the marathon you ran it in
m463 · 2026-04-26 22:17:01 UTC
Nobody ever remembers who was in 2nd. sigh.
tim333 · 2026-04-26 23:15:27 UTC
I think Kejelcha will be back.
twobitshifter · 2026-04-26 23:23:54 UTC
Apparently 3 people broke the record in the same race!
curt15 · 2026-04-26 22:36:11 UTC
> Don’t forget Yomif Kejelcha who finished in 1:59:41, a world record up until 11 seconds prior. Amazing.
In his marathon debut too.
giarc · 2026-04-27 01:03:03 UTC
I read that as well... how could it be his first marathon? Or is it his first "big" marathon?
wging · 2026-04-27 01:40:32 UTC
It's his first marathon ever, but he's a very experienced runner. It would be hard to find a better prospect for a good first marathon. He's a multiple (former) world record holder and medalist at shorter distances from the mile up to half marathon. His half marathon is still 2nd all time.
I wouldn't have predicted this out of nowhere, but if you told me a marathon debut went this well and asked me to guess whose it was, I like to think I'd have come up with Kejelcha in my top few picks.
That said, great 5000/10000 athletes don't always have great marathon careers. An example from this race is the world record holder at both those distances, Joshua Cheptegei. He's run several marathons but none spectacular by his standards. He was in this race too but 7 minutes back.
dwayne_dibley · 2026-04-27 07:47:02 UTC
> His half marathon is still 2nd all time.
Rough that his Marathon time is also 2nd!
giarc · 2026-04-27 13:18:13 UTC
Always a bridesmaid, never a bride!
wging · 2026-04-27 20:12:33 UTC
Truer than you'd think just from the information I provided. He has two world championship silver medals over 10,000m.
clutter55561 · 2026-04-26 21:29:45 UTC
~~A car going as fast as him would have gotten a speeding ticket in the residential areas of Wales. Crazy.~~
Edit: I was thinking in km/h and mixed it up. Sorry.
edo_cat · 2026-04-26 21:33:17 UTC
Speed limit is 20mph right? He ran 26.1 miles in 2 hours so average speed is 13 mph
adzm · 2026-04-26 21:39:25 UTC
Looking this up, fastest human is still Usain Bolt at 27.78mph (at one point in a 100 meter dash)
clutter55561 · 2026-04-26 21:48:00 UTC
Damn was thinking km/h. Thanks for the correction.
sowbug · 2026-04-26 23:02:17 UTC
You actually can get a ticket for driving 13 in a 25, at least in the US, so you're not entirely incorrect.
clutter55561 · 2026-04-27 09:11:11 UTC
Fair enough. My kids are learning to drive and “how fast should I go” is a constant topic in my family right now.
Just yesterday I saw a learner driving at what seemed 10 mph in a 40 mph road, creating a massive queue.
not_a_bot_4sho · 2026-04-26 21:30:22 UTC
Amazing to me that I'll never get my *half* marathon time close to his full marathon time.
nradov · 2026-04-26 21:45:46 UTC
A 1:59 half marathon time is achievable for pretty much anyone who doesn't have a serious physical disability and is willing to put in the necessary training. I've done it a few times and have no particular talent for running.
PaulDavisThe1st · 2026-04-26 21:48:07 UTC
That's a 9m10sec per mile for 2 hours. While I'd agree that there are millions or even billions of people who could train to do that, I think it's wrong to suggest that "pretty much anyone" could do that.
pollymarket · 2026-04-26 22:36:31 UTC
My predicted half time is under 2 hours and I was sedentary for years before starting to run 9 months ago, and I'm 40 years old.
Endurance sports are quite accessible and don't require that much time, effort, or talent to get way better than the vast majority of people, it's just consistency.
PaulDavisThe1st · 2026-04-26 23:00:14 UTC
I've been an endurance athlete most of my life, running 100 miles at 17, a 5:30 mile at 50, and lots of other stuff in between. I know that a 9min/mile pace is "easily achievable" by many folks, which is why I noted that millions or billions of people could do this. Nevertheless, I think it is really important to not overstate how achievable this is - there are many more people who could not do this than could, I think.
FWIW, that now includes me, as a 62 year old. I can hit 6:30 pace for 400m, but find it almost impossible to get under 10:0x for a mile. And that's even after 6 months of training for a 50 mile trail race.
apelapan · 2026-04-27 10:58:45 UTC
That is a steep drop in mile pace between ages 50 and 62 you had. Is it just age/genes/luck or did you have some sort of injury in between?
Considering that you can still do a decent sprint over 400m and have the endurance for ultra marathon distances at lower pace, it sounds a bit odd.
PaulDavisThe1st · 2026-04-27 17:56:35 UTC
No injury, and yeah, it is a bit odd (and infuriating and irritating).
thefz · 2026-04-27 07:24:31 UTC
Pretty much anyone can do that with at least 9-12 months of training.
nradov · 2026-04-27 23:24:46 UTC
I stand by my claim that pretty much anyone could do that. In some cases this may require a significant lifestyle change. I've seen some real slobs reach that goal, it just takes a bit of sustained, consistent discipline.
Now hitting a 1:30 HM is something different and will be forever out of reach for many people.
freediver · 2026-04-26 21:32:22 UTC
Incredible result! (on the day I did my own 5K pb)
This is a nice video of the last 10 mins of the historic marathon race finish
Wow, that’s ~13 mph, basically a full-on sprint for a mere mortal. Absolutely insane.
soupfordummies · 2026-04-26 21:42:11 UTC
Yeah I can barely even ride my bike that fast much less keep that pace for two hours.
willsmith72 · 2026-04-26 22:45:17 UTC
You must be crawling on your bike I'd love to see that
Maxion · 2026-04-27 06:09:13 UTC
That's just a mean comment
Cthulhu_ · 2026-04-26 21:43:07 UTC
I'm not a runner at all, but people say that they can do that for like a minute, maybe two at best... and these guys did it for two hours straight.
PaulDavisThe1st · 2026-04-26 21:43:20 UTC
The fastest marathoners are moving at 4m30sec per mile or faster.
Very few mere mortals could run that fast for even 100m.
jonplackett · 2026-04-26 21:52:28 UTC
Sometimes they have big running machines with a crash mat around them running at 2h marathon pace at running shows. I’ve o ly seen them on video - no one can keep up with it for more than 30 odd seconds. It’s INSANE they are running this fast.
Also bear in mind running a single mile under 4 mins was considered impossible for a long time.
petepete · 2026-04-26 21:55:19 UTC
There's an interesting video by Mark Lewis on this.
> Very few mere mortals could run that fast for even 100m.
That works out to roughly a 16.7-second 100m. While certainly not crawling, that would be a fairly average pace for a fairly fit middle- to early-high-schooler with a bit of practice.
Yes that’s insane to maintain for a marathon, but it’s not even remotely out of reach for 100m for most relatively-fit people at some point in their lives.
croemer · 2026-04-26 22:26:08 UTC
I think it's even slow for high schoolers. I didn't practice that much and ran 100m in 12.5s from rest at my peak. 4s slower is snail pace. I think most in my class could run that fast (or slow).
jmb99 · 2026-04-26 22:56:46 UTC
I agree. I ran mid 16s in 8th grade, and was in the 14s in high school, with the only training being whatever we did in gym class. But I do also look at the sheer number of overweight kids these days and figured, well maybe mid-16s is actually a reasonable average point.
brewdad · 2026-04-26 23:20:26 UTC
Oh it is. At a typical large high school making the team puts you in the top 1% or better of athletic ability compared to the population at large.
At my peak, I finished the NYC Marathon in the top 2%. I still finished 45 minutes behind the winner.
It feels like elite athletes aren’t even competing in the same sport.
sayamqazi · 2026-04-27 06:03:06 UTC
I think height matters for speed as a fit 6ft+ would easily run way faster than a 4" 8' fit person.
PaulDavisThe1st · 2026-04-26 22:55:57 UTC
It's the "at some point in their lives" that matters here. For most folks, the period where a 16.7 100m is feasible is pretty short.
rimliu · 2026-04-27 07:35:13 UTC
[citation needed]
ecshafer · 2026-04-27 15:40:38 UTC
I ran a 16s 100m in highschool.... as a thrower, and was very slow. The 100m dash with the fast people was like 12s.
hackingonempty · 2026-04-26 22:38:19 UTC
Here's a random high school in Northern California. Everyone on the team is beating 16.7 seconds in the 100m. For the 1600m there are six kids with times under 4m30s and another seven with times under 4m40s, all in the last month.
* of course one mile is hardly comparable to the marathon that pros are able to sustain such speeds over...
PaulDavisThe1st · 2026-04-26 22:56:56 UTC
How many kids at the school?
sethev · 2026-04-26 22:57:14 UTC
Not sure that disproves the point :) Most people have never been anywhere close to competing with the top 6 athletes at a high school with ~2k students.
hackingonempty · 2026-04-26 23:12:15 UTC
There are thousands of these high schools all across the USA. The top high schoolers in California so far this year are doing 1600m in 4m7s.
OK, so let's do the math. There's about 25k high schools in the USA. Let's suppose they all have a track team, and let's assume that they all have 5 team members who can break 04:30 for 1600m. Sure, at some schools that's too few, but at others it is too many.
That gives us 125k high schoolers in the USA who can break 04:30 for 1600m. There are about 18M high school students. So of just the high school population alone, about 0.7% of them can do this.
Assuming there are the 4x as many adults that can do this as there are high school students, that gives us slightly less than 0.2% of the total US population capable of this.
I rest my case.
hackingonempty · 2026-04-27 08:13:15 UTC
We just have different ideas of what constitutes "mere mortals." 1 in 150 high school students or even 1 in 500 from the general population doesn't sound super human to me at all. Talented, yes but not god like.
maxerickson · 2026-04-27 01:20:28 UTC
What do you want most to mean here?
hyperpape · 2026-04-26 23:09:09 UTC
Unless kids have gotten a lot faster in the past 25 years, I think that's a lot better than a typical 2000 person high school.
acomjean · 2026-04-27 00:01:05 UTC
We used to be amazed when I ran cross country in high school that these pro marathoners would best all of us in our approx 5K(3ish mile) races and then go on to repeat that distance multiple times.
It’s totally remarkable.
malbs · 2026-04-27 06:24:21 UTC
The fastest 1km I ever ran was around 3m20s, I felt like I was sprinting, and was fully cooked at the finish line.
Afterwards I did some quick numbers and realised the average marathon runner was not only going a lot quicker than I was, but they were doing it for a further 41km
LanceH · 2026-04-27 14:24:28 UTC
You've proven you can run one kilometer. You just need to prove that if you run any km, you could run the next km, then you're done.
fredley · 2026-04-26 21:52:04 UTC
He did his _last_ mile in 4.17. Insane.
mkl · 2026-04-26 21:54:56 UTC
21.19km/h on average, or 17 seconds per hundred metres on average.
croemer · 2026-04-26 22:23:33 UTC
No, it's slower than most people's sprints. It's 17 seconds per 100 metres which is slow. Most teenagers can do this starting from rest.
wavemode · 2026-04-26 21:34:29 UTC
That's literally running a 4:30 mile, 26 times in a row. Jesus.
ccheever · 2026-04-26 21:45:18 UTC
4:33
almost_usual · 2026-04-27 00:34:38 UTC
While consuming about 800 calories.
adverbly · 2026-04-26 21:34:33 UTC
Wait two runners beat it in the same race?
Was there perfect conditions.or something?
Insane you could run 1:59:41 and not win!
hdndjsbbs · 2026-04-26 21:37:02 UTC
Pacing is a big part of endurance sport. If you're in the lead you know intellectually you want to pace for sub-2 hours, but if you're watching someone beat you maybe it gives you the extra edge?
It does sound like the course and the weather made it more likely to happen. And technical advances in shoe composition.
PaulDavisThe1st · 2026-04-26 21:45:52 UTC
That's not a description of how the pacing for this race actually happened.
> The leading men went through halfway in 60 minutes and 29 seconds: fast but not exceptionally so. But it turned out that Sawe was merely warming up.
Between 30 and 35 kilometres, Sawe and Kejelcha ran a stunning 13:54 for 5km to see off Kiplimo. Yet, staggeringly, more was to come as the pair covered kilometres 35 to 40 in 13:42. To put this into context, that time is two seconds faster than the 5km parkrun world record, set by the Irish international Nick Griggs.
It was only after a 24th mile, run in 4:12, that Kejelcha wilted. But still Sawe kept going. Astonishingly, he crossed the line having run the second half in just over 59 minutes.
“Before 41 kilometres, I’m enjoying, I’m relaxed,” said Kejelcha, who had won silver over 10,000m at last year’s world championships.
“My body is all great. At exactly 41 kilometres, my body stopped. I tried to push, but my legs were done.
Sawe, though, powered on to set the fastest official marathon time in history. For good measure, it was also 10 seconds faster than Eliud Kipchoge’s unofficial 26.2 mile best, set in Vienna in 2019.
Elite marathon runners aim for a one minute negative split (Second half faster than the first). These guys pretty much nailed it.
rkagerer · 2026-04-26 21:43:35 UTC
Three of them, actually:
Sabastian Sawe 1:59:30
Yomif Kejelcha 1:59:41
Jacob Kiplimo 2:00:28
The previous official record was Kelvin Kiptum's time of 2:00:35 in 2023. Eliud Kipchoge did 1:59:40 in 2019, but that wasn't record-eligible as it was held under controlled conditions. Source: The article.
mkl · 2026-04-26 21:57:35 UTC
Two beat two hours is what they meant.
nradov · 2026-04-26 21:53:01 UTC
Weather and course conditions were good but not perfect. There is potential to take a few more seconds off the world record in slightly colder conditions and on a course with fewer turns. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone run 1:58 in the next few years.
ohyoutravel · 2026-04-26 23:13:26 UTC
This is probably right. We’ll also see at least five unique sub-2s before the end of 2027.
ternaryoperator · 2026-04-26 21:35:31 UTC
And the only place this appears on ESPN is if you click on "Olympics," which has nothing to do with this race. Where coverage should be: on the home page.
conductr · 2026-04-26 23:17:13 UTC
It’s certainly noteworthy and interesting but I could see how Running as sport isn’t popular enough for front page. Especially during NBA and NHL playoffs, NFL draft, and whatever else might be going on.
brewdad · 2026-04-26 23:31:44 UTC
If this happened at Chicago, it would be front page news. Boston and NY aren’t WR eligible. Since it happened in London, place it behind soccer in the priority list.
timerol · 2026-04-27 13:28:47 UTC
This is the most significant record in running to fall since 1954 when a sub-4 minute mile was run. I think running can be front page news once a century
conductr · 2026-04-27 19:40:10 UTC
I get it and agree, but historical significance doesn’t factor into what they put on front page or what is popular at the moment. It’s not a slow news day for sports and they don’t think their viewers care enough. I’m sure if we had their data it would show us that they wouldn’t.
It’s not meant to be malicious they just don’t report on things that don’t get enough engagement. If you look at the long list of sports they cover, there’s nothing running related even mentioned. They do now have an article on it in their Olympics category as of 2 hours ago. But I feel like them not having a breaking news coverage on a Sunday in this sport is to be expected more so than your expectation of them covering it.
nikcub · 2026-04-26 21:35:38 UTC
Stunning results at the top of the field. Some interesting takeaways on both fuelling and shoes.
Maurten spent months working with Sawe and other runners getting their gut capacity trained so they could absorb and burn 100 carbs per hour[0][1]
> The Maurten research team was embedded with Sawe’s team in Kenya for 32 days across six trips between last and this April. They were training his gut to absorb that load by mimicking race-day protocol in training. The hydrogel technology they have developed over the past 10 years now allows athletes to absorb 90–120 grams of carbs per hour without GI distress.
Second is the shoes. Adidas Adizero weigh 96 grams[2] with new foam tech and new carbon plates
Nike and INEOS spent millions over years to get Kipchoge to a sub-2 in artificial conditions, and now the elite end of the field are knocking that barrier out in race conditions. Unreal.
Running tech and training have been revolutionized in the past few years.
The leaders were burning a lot more than 100kcal per hour. I think you mean 100g of carbohydrates per hour.
brianwawok · 2026-04-26 23:58:22 UTC
Not burning, eating. They are eating 100g of carb per hour. Burning 1000+ calories.
ekr____ · 2026-04-26 21:40:03 UTC
Correction: 100g of carbohydrate/hr. That's approximately 400 calories/hr.
groggo · 2026-04-26 21:40:26 UTC
One gram of carbs is 4 calories., so more like 400 calories per hour.
It was confusing when the running industry switched from calories to grams of carbs, but that's all anyone talks about now.
whycome · 2026-04-26 21:45:59 UTC
It’s also confusing that most nutritional labels say “calories” (Cal) when they really mean kilocalories (kcal). And those are different from regular (‘small’) calories
(a measure of energy needed to heat 1g water 1c).
1 food calorie as listed on a food label is enough to heat 1kg of water by 1c
schoen · 2026-04-27 02:29:25 UTC
This was the explanation for why the scotch and soda diet doesn't work:
(If the nutritional calories in the drink had been only the same number of thermodynamic calories, the drink would have been energetically negative for the body because of its low temperature.)
estomagordo · 2026-04-27 06:36:28 UTC
Yeah, I assume this dumbification is spearheaded by the Americans.
justinwp · 2026-04-26 21:52:19 UTC
It's deliberate, because you generally do not want calories from fat or protein during a marathon or other running race.
mbesto · 2026-04-26 22:23:35 UTC
Because calories simply do not matter. At high intensities of working out, it's the amount of carbohydrates you can consume that allow more fuel to be burnt.
"In the aerobic exercise domain up to ~100% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), CHO is the dominant fuel, as CHO-based oxidative metabolism can be activated quickly, provide all of the fuel at high aerobic power outputs (> 85-90% VO2max) and is a more efficient fuel (kcal/L O2 used) when compared to fat."
Calories do matter (obviously, as energy intake is the entire point) but as you note the specific form that the fuel takes matters. However "carbs" is a catch all that includes plenty of things that (I assume) would be of similarly minimal use in this scenario. The calories need to take a very specific chemical form for this to work.
mathgeek · 2026-04-26 23:56:25 UTC
The wording is certainly confusing here, but yes the calories don’t matter as much as the form. Eating protein and fats simply give you minimal useful calories during the race. Even most carbs won’t be useful if they are more complex.
loeg · 2026-04-26 22:57:50 UTC
They're equivalent modulo some multiple. It doesn't matter which one we talk about, as long as we're consistent.
teiferer · 2026-04-27 05:52:45 UTC
Then why replace one imprecise term with another? Fiber is a carbohydrate. Humans use close to nothing from its energy. (Though it plays another important role in the digesive system.)
Try eating 100g of grass per hour during a marathon and you will see. That's the metabolic edge horses have over humans.
IAmBroom · 2026-04-27 17:46:25 UTC
Horses don't eat during races (and aren't evolutionarily disposed to marathons, anyway). No edge there; it takes quite a while for their symbiotic gut flora to downconvert fodder to glucose.
teiferer · 2026-04-27 21:00:11 UTC
My gut flora won't do that, so they do have an edge. (Not during a marathon, but that wasn't my point anyway.)
Comments
London is a fast course. Let’s see what happens in Chicago and Berlin. If it was primarily tech that did it, we should see the record fall again.
In his marathon debut too.
I wouldn't have predicted this out of nowhere, but if you told me a marathon debut went this well and asked me to guess whose it was, I like to think I'd have come up with Kejelcha in my top few picks.
That said, great 5000/10000 athletes don't always have great marathon careers. An example from this race is the world record holder at both those distances, Joshua Cheptegei. He's run several marathons but none spectacular by his standards. He was in this race too but 7 minutes back.
Rough that his Marathon time is also 2nd!
Edit: I was thinking in km/h and mixed it up. Sorry.
Just yesterday I saw a learner driving at what seemed 10 mph in a 40 mph road, creating a massive queue.
Endurance sports are quite accessible and don't require that much time, effort, or talent to get way better than the vast majority of people, it's just consistency.
FWIW, that now includes me, as a 62 year old. I can hit 6:30 pace for 400m, but find it almost impossible to get under 10:0x for a mile. And that's even after 6 months of training for a 50 mile trail race.
Considering that you can still do a decent sprint over 400m and have the endurance for ultra marathon distances at lower pace, it sounds a bit odd.
Now hitting a 1:30 HM is something different and will be forever out of reach for many people.
This is a nice video of the last 10 mins of the historic marathon race finish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1voTDQQQf5g
Very few mere mortals could run that fast for even 100m.
Also bear in mind running a single mile under 4 mins was considered impossible for a long time.
https://youtu.be/xkBmYQucyMs
That works out to roughly a 16.7-second 100m. While certainly not crawling, that would be a fairly average pace for a fairly fit middle- to early-high-schooler with a bit of practice.
Yes that’s insane to maintain for a marathon, but it’s not even remotely out of reach for 100m for most relatively-fit people at some point in their lives.
At my peak, I finished the NYC Marathon in the top 2%. I still finished 45 minutes behind the winner.
It feels like elite athletes aren’t even competing in the same sport.
https://www.athletic.net/team/770/track-and-field-outdoor/20...
* of course one mile is hardly comparable to the marathon that pros are able to sustain such speeds over...
https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/rankings/list/168546/...
That gives us 125k high schoolers in the USA who can break 04:30 for 1600m. There are about 18M high school students. So of just the high school population alone, about 0.7% of them can do this.
Assuming there are the 4x as many adults that can do this as there are high school students, that gives us slightly less than 0.2% of the total US population capable of this.
I rest my case.
It’s totally remarkable.
Afterwards I did some quick numbers and realised the average marathon runner was not only going a lot quicker than I was, but they were doing it for a further 41km
Was there perfect conditions.or something?
Insane you could run 1:59:41 and not win!
It does sound like the course and the weather made it more likely to happen. And technical advances in shoe composition.
> The leading men went through halfway in 60 minutes and 29 seconds: fast but not exceptionally so. But it turned out that Sawe was merely warming up.
Between 30 and 35 kilometres, Sawe and Kejelcha ran a stunning 13:54 for 5km to see off Kiplimo. Yet, staggeringly, more was to come as the pair covered kilometres 35 to 40 in 13:42. To put this into context, that time is two seconds faster than the 5km parkrun world record, set by the Irish international Nick Griggs.
It was only after a 24th mile, run in 4:12, that Kejelcha wilted. But still Sawe kept going. Astonishingly, he crossed the line having run the second half in just over 59 minutes.
“Before 41 kilometres, I’m enjoying, I’m relaxed,” said Kejelcha, who had won silver over 10,000m at last year’s world championships.
“My body is all great. At exactly 41 kilometres, my body stopped. I tried to push, but my legs were done.
Sawe, though, powered on to set the fastest official marathon time in history. For good measure, it was also 10 seconds faster than Eliud Kipchoge’s unofficial 26.2 mile best, set in Vienna in 2019.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/apr/26/sabastian-sawe...
Sabastian Sawe 1:59:30
Yomif Kejelcha 1:59:41
Jacob Kiplimo 2:00:28
The previous official record was Kelvin Kiptum's time of 2:00:35 in 2023. Eliud Kipchoge did 1:59:40 in 2019, but that wasn't record-eligible as it was held under controlled conditions. Source: The article.
It’s not meant to be malicious they just don’t report on things that don’t get enough engagement. If you look at the long list of sports they cover, there’s nothing running related even mentioned. They do now have an article on it in their Olympics category as of 2 hours ago. But I feel like them not having a breaking news coverage on a Sunday in this sport is to be expected more so than your expectation of them covering it.
Maurten spent months working with Sawe and other runners getting their gut capacity trained so they could absorb and burn 100 carbs per hour[0][1]
> The Maurten research team was embedded with Sawe’s team in Kenya for 32 days across six trips between last and this April. They were training his gut to absorb that load by mimicking race-day protocol in training. The hydrogel technology they have developed over the past 10 years now allows athletes to absorb 90–120 grams of carbs per hour without GI distress.
Second is the shoes. Adidas Adizero weigh 96 grams[2] with new foam tech and new carbon plates
Nike and INEOS spent millions over years to get Kipchoge to a sub-2 in artificial conditions, and now the elite end of the field are knocking that barrier out in race conditions. Unreal.
Running tech and training have been revolutionized in the past few years.
[0] https://marathonhandbook.com/sebastian-sawe-arrives-in-londo...
[1] https://www.instagram.com/p/DXmvAUvkWaq/
[2] https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/gear/shoes/a71129333/sabasti...
edit: correct :s/calories/carbs thanks
It was confusing when the running industry switched from calories to grams of carbs, but that's all anyone talks about now.
1 food calorie as listed on a food label is enough to heat 1kg of water by 1c
https://www.futilitycloset.com/2008/11/16/the-mensa-diet/
(If the nutritional calories in the drink had been only the same number of thermodynamic calories, the drink would have been energetically negative for the body because of its low temperature.)
"In the aerobic exercise domain up to ~100% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), CHO is the dominant fuel, as CHO-based oxidative metabolism can be activated quickly, provide all of the fuel at high aerobic power outputs (> 85-90% VO2max) and is a more efficient fuel (kcal/L O2 used) when compared to fat."
https://www.gssiweb.org/sports-science-exchange/article/regu...
Try eating 100g of grass per hour during a marathon and you will see. That's the metabolic edge horses have over humans.