Sawe becomes first athlete to run a sub-two-hour marathon in a competitive race

I've read that even if you absorb it all, there's some question about whether it's useful. This Alex Hutchinson article suggests, among other things, that it may spare your fat stores rather than your muscle glycogen:

> Even if you can absorb 120 grams per hour, it might not make you faster. In Podlogar’s study, cyclists burned more exogenous carbs when they consumed 120 rather than 90 grams per hour, but that didn’t reduce their rate of endogenous carb-burning—that is, they were still depleting the glycogen stores in their muscles just as quickly.

https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/en...

https://archive.ph/Vpk0h

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9560939/

> burning a hundred calories

GP left out the units but is clearly talking about grams ("absorb ... 100 carbs per hour"), not calories (no one needs training to absorb 25g/hr). Carbs are 4 kcal/g. 100g of carb (400 kcal) an hour isn't replacement level for even casual athletic efforts, but it does mitigate the loss of glycogen in muscle somewhat.

Where does discussion on gut training occur? All I know is you need a 5:4 ratio of glucose to fructose? Then when you train, you use the gels and the more you do it, the more capable your gut gets at absorbing without distress.

Is that all the science to it?

Wow so he was absorbing 400 calories per hour with this gel, but he was likely burning 3-4x that amount (or even more) while running 13.1 miles per hour!

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."

https://www.gssiweb.org/sports-science-exchange/article/regu...

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

It's deliberate, because you generally do not want calories from fat or protein during a marathon or other running race.

Yeah, I just literally use table sugar, which is 1:1 glucose:fructose. Maurten et al using 1:0.8, close enough! And I don't believe the hydrogel thing is any magic, just marketing.

But yeah, this is a thing. There is some gut distress for sure at higher levels of intake. See guy finishing second -- still under 2 hrs! immediately puking, which is fairly common at the high intakes. I've heard of Blumenfeld (the triathlete) taking like 200g/hr or more. Insane. Though he's had some epic GI disasters too, lol.

Not burning, eating. They are eating 100g of carb per hour. Burning 1000+ calories.

The Adidas Adios Pro Evo 3 - https://news.adidas.com/running/adidas-unveils-its-first-sub...

  adidas introduces the Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 – the lightest and fastest Adizero shoe ever, weighing an average 97* grams.

  The race-day shoe represents the culmination of three years of cutting-edge research. It is 30% lighter, delivers 11% greater forefoot energy return, and improves running economy by 1.6% compared to its predecessor - making it a record breaker before it’s even laced up.

  The shoe will launch with a highly limited release, with ambitious runners able to sign up for the chance to get their hands on a pair from April 23. This will be followed by a wider release in the fall marathon season. The Adizero adios Pro Evo 3 will cost $500/€500.

For other marathon racing shoes, Google says:

  The Nike Alphafly 3 is the lightest in the series, weighing approximately 7.0–7.7 oz (198–218g) for a men's size 9, and 6.1 oz (174g) for women's sizes.


  The PUMA Deviate NITRO™ Elite 3 is exceptionally lightweight, typically weighing 194g (6.8 oz) for a men's size 8 (UK)

Ooooh, interesting- I’ll take a read, thanks!

I’m guessing like most things of this nature, you’re likely to have super-responders, responders and non-responders?

No competitive distance runner since like Zola Budd ran barefoot or minimal shoes.

The carbon plate revolution is the main driver for drop in times over the last 5+ years

Was the barefoot movement ever about running faster? I always thought they sold injury prevention by strengthening tissues that running shoes tend to over support.

nope, nike vaporflys are super popular. There are usually limits on stack height for many marathons though.

I read that as well... how could it be his first marathon? Or is it his first "big" marathon?

Apparently 3 people broke the record in the same race!

Nobody ever remembers who was in 2nd. sigh.

To add some color here: It is very helpful to have someone pace you so that you can run an ideal pace without worrying about whether you are running the right speed. However, the rules require that pacers start with you [0], which means that by definition if you are running faster than anyone has ever gone before you have to run some of the race alone.

However, because marathon are often mixed gender and the best male runners are significantly faster than the best female runners, it is possible for a woman to be paced from the gun to the tape by a male runner. For this reason, there are separate records for the women's marathon for women's only events.

[0] This is one of the things that made Kipchoge's original sub 2 result not record-eligible.

I stand corrected, but I don't think this changes my point at all.

She broke the thing that the IAAF have gone back and forth on calling "the world record". It's the relevant record for this event - there was no more chance of her beating the man-paced record than of beating the men's record or the Le Mans lap record.

> 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.

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.

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...

There's an interesting video by Mark Lewis on this.

https://youtu.be/xkBmYQucyMs

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.

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.

You must be crawling on your bike I'd love to see that

For a while it was all about getting the lightest shoes, because picking up heavy shoes slowed you down. Then the energy return (pebax foam, carbon plates/rods) became the main focus because the weight didn't matter as much when the shoe was literally springy. Surely this is now going to spark a race for the optimal balance between weight and energy return.

Do these new Adidas shoes have anything major over the Vaporfly shoes? Maybe they are a bit lighter?

I think the big story here may be the nutrition science to get these guys to absorb a lot of carbs during the run, more than the shoes.

There is a whole class of running shoes banned from various competitions.

Essentially the argument given was too much advantage came from the shoes and they didn't want racing to be about shoe technology development.

Well, the marathon record has been broken 53 times since the early 1900s. So, there are a lot of factors at play. Better training, better nutrition, better tactics, and, yes, better shoes.

The advancements in shoes have made a measurable impact, but there are lots of optimizations being worked on.

There’s info in one of the other threads about better carb intake too.

But yeah at this point, “it’s the shoes, stupid” should defo be the main part of the conversation.

Performance enhancing drugs seem to help break records in sports from baseball to cycling.

Two beat two hours is what they meant.

This is probably right. We’ll also see at least five unique sub-2s before the end of 2027.

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/apr/26/sabastian-sawe...

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.

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.

Let's save that for the second act. Need to draw these feats of strength out to sufficiently monetize the experience.

Purism is extremism about a thing. Pick a thing, be purely about that thing.

I used to love F1 for the tech that would filter down to my car in ten years time, but that is not a thing anymore.

I for one love the advances in technology in something as supposedly simple as a shoe. And maybe I'll get to use it on a hike in a few years.

Sprinting/jump performances are invalidated for world record purposes if there's over 2.0 m/s of wind assistance.

There is no rule for marathons.

Too bad, you could run a lot faster in a vacuum...except for that whole breathing thing.

Yes. If sports does not happen in a vacuum then comparisons are unfair. If I go to the moon and break the record for long jumping should I be applauded?

I thought there were scientists on here...

Correct. Boston is a net downhill point-to-point course and not record eligible under World Athletics rules.

https://worldathletics.org/records/certified-roadevents

> Better weather has, to the best of my knowledge, never been part of marathon record keeping.

It should be.

I am surprised at the push back on this. It is just science and it mentioned it in the article.

https://marathonhandbook.com/large-scale-marathon-study-iden...

I just said it needs an asterisk, not withholding anything. What if someone runs one second slower in higher humidity and temperature. Now that I would applaud.

Looking this up, fastest human is still Usain Bolt at 27.78mph (at one point in a 100 meter dash)

Damn was thinking km/h. Thanks for the correction.